(Beraisa): If one did Avodah when he was an Arel, Onen or sitting, he transgressed a Lav, but he is not Chayav Misah,

Question: What is the source for an Arel?

Answer (Rav Chisda): We have no source from the Chumash. A verse in Yechezkeil alludes to it;

"Kol Ben Nechar Erel Lev v'Erel Basar Lo Yavo El Mikdashi" (a Rasha or Arel may not enter the Mikdash).

Question: What is the source for an Onen?

Answer: "U'Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei (a Kohen Gadol who became an Onen) v'Lo Yechalel Es Mikdash Elokav". This implies that if a regular Kohen was an Onen and served, he is Mechalel Avodah (this is forbidden by "v'Lo Yechalel").

Question (Rav Ada): Why don't we learn a Gezerah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" from a Tamei person who ate Terumah, who is Chayav Misah?

Answer (Rava): Our verse discusses a Kohen Gadol. We infer the law of a regular Kohen. Something learned from inference we do not learn (more laws about it) from a Gezerah Shavah.

Question: What is the source for one who sits?

Answer (Rava): "Vo Bochar Hash-m... La'amod Leshares" - Kohanim were chosen to serve standing, and not sitting.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): If a Ba'al Mum did Avodah he is Chayav Misah;

Chachamim say, he transgresses only a Lav.

Question: What is Rebbi's reason?

Answer #1: It says "Ach El ha'Paroches Lo Yavo (...v'Lo Yechalel)";

He learns a Gezerah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" from a Tamei person who ate Terumah, who is Chayav Misah.

Question: Why not learn "Chilul-Chilul" from Nosar, which is Chayavei Kerisus?

Answer: It is more reasonable to learn from a Tamei person who ate Terumah, for there also the Isur is due to the person.

Objection: Rather, he should learn from Nosar, for this resembles a Ba'al Mum who did Avodah in the following ways:

They pertain to Kodesh, they apply inside the Mikdash, Pigul applies to them, and Nosar applies to them.

Answer #2: Rather, he learns "Chilul-Chilul" from Avodah b'Tum'ah. The Isur is due to the person (like Avodah of a Ba'al Mum), and it also has the similarities of Nosar.

Chachamim expound "(u'Mesu) Bo (a Tamei who eats Terumah)", but there is no Misah for Avodah of a Ba'al Mum.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): If someone intentionally transgresses Me'ilah he is Chayav Misah;

Chachamim say, he transgresses only a Lav.

Question: What is Rebbi's reason?

Answer (R. Avahu): He learns a Gezerah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from a Tamei person who ate Terumah, who is Chayav Misah;

Chachamim expound "(u'Mesu) Bo", but there is no Misah for Me'ilah.

(Beraisa): A Zar who did Avodah in the Mikdash...

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): It says "veha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas", and it says (about Korach's congregation) "Kol ha'Karev... Yamus";

Just like the latter died b'Yedei Shamayim, so is the punishment for a Zar who does Avodah.

R. Akiva says, it says "veha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas", and it says (about a false Navi) "veha'Navi... Yumas";

Just like the latter is stoned, also a Zar who does Avodah.

R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, just like a false Navi is choked, also a Zar who does Avodah.

Question: What do R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue about?

Answer: R. Akiva holds that it is better to learn "Yumas" from "Yumas", and not from "Yamus";

R. Yishmael holds that it is better to learn laws of a commoner from a commoner, and not from a (false) Navi.

R. Akiva says, a Navi who entices to idolatry is the ultimate commoner!

Question: What do R. Akiva and R. Yochanan ben Nuri argue about?

Answer: They argue as R. Shimon and Chachamim do:

(Beraisa): If a Navi enticed to idolatry, he is stoned;

R. Shimon says, he is choked.

Contradiction (Mishnah - R. Akiva): He is choked. (Here, R. Akiva says that he is stoned!)

Answer: Tana'im argue about the opinion of R. Akiva. Our Mishnah is like R. Shimon. He says that R. Akiva holds (like himself) that he is choked;

The Beraisa is Chachamim. They say that R. Akiva holds (like themselves) that he is stoned.

(Mishnah): The following are choked:

One who wounds his father or mother;

One who kidnaps a Yisrael;

A Zaken Mamrei who rebels against Beis Din;

A false Navi, or one who prophesizes in the name of idolatry;

One who has Bi'ah with a married woman;

Edim Zomemim who convicted a Bas Kohen for adultery, or one who had adultery with her (even though she is burned).

(Gemara) Question: What is the source for one who wounds his father or mother?

Answer: "U'Makeh Aviv v'Imo Mos Yumas" - any unspecified Misah is choking.

Question: Perhaps that refers to killing a parent!

Answer #1: That is unreasonable. One is beheaded for killing a stranger. We cannot say that one is choked for killing a parent!

Question: That is according to Chachamim, who say that beheading is more severe. R. Shimon holds that choking is more severe. How can he answer?

Answer #2: It says "Makeh Ish va'Mes Mos Yumas", and "Oh v'Eivah Hikahu v'Yado va'Yamos." The Torah needed to specify that he died. This shows that normally, 'Haka'ah' is not a death blow.

The Torah needed to write "Makeh Ish..." , and "Kol Makeh Nefesh":

Had it wrote only "Makeh Ish", one might have thought that one is liable only for (killing) a man, who is obligated in the Mitzvos, but not for a minor. Therefore, it says "Kol Makeh Nefesh."

Had it wrote only "Kol Makeh Nefesh", one might have thought that one is liable even for a Nefel (a baby born with a severe defect; it cannot survive), or a baby born after eight months (also it is a Nefel). Therefore, it says "Makeh Ish."

Question: We should say that one is liable even if he did not make a wound (i.e. bleeding). but this is wrong!

(Mishnah): One who hits his father or mother is not liable unless he made a wound.

Answer #1: "Makeh Adam... Makeh Vehemah" - just like one is not liable (to pay) for hitting an animal unless he made a wound, for it says 'Nefesh' (which is in the blood), one is not Chayav (Misah) for hitting a person (parent).

Rejection (R. Yirmeyah): If so, if one weakens an animal (by overloading it) with rocks, he should be exempt!

Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah): Since 'Nefesh' does not teach that one is liable for hitting an animal only if he wounds it, for one is liable for weakening it with rocks, we use it to teach about hitting a person (parent).

Question: What do we learn from the Hekesh equating hitting people and animals?

Answer #1: We learn Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah's law (that one who transgressed Chayavei Misos b'Shogeg does not pay).

Question: What do the other opinions (that argue with Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah) learn from the Hekesh?

Answer #2: Just like one who wounds an animal for the sake of curing it is exempt, also regarding people.

Question: May a son let blood from his father?

Answer #1 (Rav Masnah): "V'Ohavta l'Re'acha Kamocha" (since the father wants, it is permitted).

Answer #2 (Rav Dimi bar Chinena): It says "Makeh Adam... Makeh Vehemah" - just like one who wounds an animal for the sake of curing it is exempt, also regarding people.

Rav would not allow his son to remove a thorn from him (lest he draw blood).

Mar brei d'Ravina would not let his son to open a blister to extract the puss, lest he draw blood (b'Shogeg), which is forbidden.

Question: If so, he should not allow anyone to do so!

Answer: Anyone else would transgress a Lav b'Shogeg. His son would be Shogeg in a Lav of Misah.

Question (Mishnah): A small needle may be moved on Shabbos in order to remove a thorn.

If one draws blood, he was Shogeg in a Lav punished by stoning!

Answer #1: There he is Mekalkel (destructive), which is exempt (regarding Shabbos).

Question: This is like the opinion that exempts Mekalkel (even if done intentionally);

According to the opinion that obligates, how can we answer?

Answer: R. Shimon obligates. He exempts for a Melachah she'Einah Tzericha l'Gufah (a Melachah done for a reason unrelated to the purpose of the Melachah in the Mishkan ).