Despite the fact that a Mechalel Shabbos receives Sekilah, the Beraisa suggests that a bas Kohen (who we think, ought to receive a more severe punishment, because Kohanim general, have more Mitzvos) should receive S'reifah - according to Rebbi Shimon, who holds that S'reifah is more stringent than Sekilah.

Nevertheless, the Pasuk confines this stringency specifically to a bas Kohen, and not to a ben Kohen - because, since the Torah is lenient regarding Chilul Shabbos in the realm of Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash, it would be illogical to treat him more stringently in other regards.

The Tana initially thinks that the Pasuk of bas Kohen is referring to one who is unmarried. This creates a problem with the Torah's use of the word "li'Zenos" - which implies that she becomes a Zonah through the current act of adultery, whereas according to the Chachamim, a woman only becomes a Zonah by committing incest (which carries with it a Chiyuv Kareis).

To solve the problem, we establish the author as - Rebbi Elazar, who holds that any immoral act, even between a Panuy and a Penuyah, renders her a Zonah.

Rava in the name of Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...

... "Heinah" (by bas Bito) "Heinah" (by bas Bito shel Ishto [both in Acharei-Mos]) that - just as his wife's daughter has the same Din as her granddaughter, so too, is his own daughter (whom the Torah does not mention) forbidden just like his granddaughter (whom it does).

... "Zimah" (by bas Bito, Ibid.) "Zimah" (by S'reifas bas Ishto in Kedoshim) that - just as Bito is included in the prohibition, so too, is she included in the punishment (S'reifah).

We cannot learn the punishment of S'reifas Bito via a 'Kal va'Chomer' from bas Bito - because of the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' (one cannot punish through a 'Kal va'Chomer').

If, as the Beraisa initially thinks, "Aviv" comes to confine the Din of S'reifah to a bas Kohen who had relations with her father - we would then confine the prohibition to a Kohen, negating the possibility of learning the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Heinah" "Heinah", 'Zimah" Zimah" altogether.

We ask why the Beraisa thought that, without the 'Vav', "bas Kohen" precluded one who was married to a Levi, a Yisrael ... ", seeing as in all of these cases, she is still a bas Kohen, and besides - the Torah did not write 'Kohenes le'Kohen'?

To answer these Kashyos, we quote the next words in the Pasuk "Ki Seichel li'Zenos", implying - that her current Z'nus disqualifies her from the Kehunah, to preclude one who is already precluded.

The Pasuk ...

... "u'Vas Kohen ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar" - then comes to preclude a bas Kohen who is married to a Mamzer or to a Nasin (as we just explained).

... "ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah ki'Ne'urehah" - comes to preclude a bas Kohen who is married to a Levi or Yisrael, who, as we see from this Pasuk, is disqualified from eating Terumah as long as she is married to him.

The first Pasuk incorporates a bas Kohen who marries a Nasin and a Mamzer, but not a Chalal (which we learn from "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o", 'Makish Zar'o lo') - since, unlike them, the Chalal himself is permitted to marry into the Kahal (a Kasher Yisre'elis).

A Yisrael who eats Terumah be'Shogeg must pay owner the principle plus an extra fifth. If the person who ate it was a bas Kohen who is married to a Yisrael - she pays only the principle.

According to the Chachamim in a Beraisa, the same will apply to a bas Kohen who is married to a Pasul, and she will also receive S'reifah should she commit adultery. Rebbi Meir however, holds that - she has to pay the extra fifth as well, and she receives Chenek, in the event that she commits adultery.

The author of the current Beraisa must therefore be - the Chachamim.

Rebbi Eliezer in our Beraisa states - 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah, ve'es Chamihah bi'Sekilah' (though it is at first unclear what he means).

The problem with interpreting Rebbi Eliezer's statement literally (that if a bas Kohen committed adultery with her father, she would receive S'reifah, with her father-in-law, Sekilah) - would be that this Din should not have been mentioned specifically by a bas Kohen, seeing as it pertains equally to a bas Yisrael (as we already asked earlier).

If we interpreted his statement to mean 'bi'Reshus Avihah bi'S'reifah, bi'Reshus Chamihah bi'Sekilah', then he would be saying that - an Arusah receives S'reifah, and a Nesu'ah, Sekilah.

This explanation would be problematic, according to ...

... the Rabbanan - inasmuch as they say the opposite, that a Nesu'ah bas Kohen receives S'reifah, and an Arusah, Sekilah.

... Rebbi Shimon - who says that both receive S'reifah.

Nor would this concur with the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael, who agrees with Rebbi Shimon with regard to a Arusah, because with regard to a Nesu'ah - he holds that she receives Chenek (like a bas Yisrael).

Ravin sent an explanation in the name of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. When he equated 'es Avihah' with 'Lematah mi'Misas Avihah', he meant that - someone who, in the case of a bas Yisrael would receive a lesser punishment than the S'reifah that is due for adultery with a father (a Nesu'ah, who in the case of a bas Yisrael would receive Chenek), receives S'reifah by a bas Kohen, as if she had committed adultery with her father; whereas 'es Chamihah' with 'Lema'alah mi'Misas Avihah', he means that - someone who, in the case of a bas Yisrael receives a more severe punishment than the S'reifah that is due for adultery with a father (an Arusah, who in the case of a bas Yisrael would receive Chenek), receives Sekilah, as if she had committed adultery with her father-in law. Rebbi Eliezer will then concur with - the Rabbanan.

Rebbi Yirmiyah refutes Ravina's explanation however on the grounds that - Rebbi Eliezer said nothing about 'Lema'alah' and 'Lematah'.

So Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes Rebbi Eliezer like Rebbi Yishmael, in which case 'es Avihah' means bi'Reshus Avihah, whereas 'es Chamihah' means - that she actually committed adultery with her father-in-law.

Rava objects to Rebbi Yirmiyah's explanation however - because it is inconsistent; either Rebbi Eliezer is speaking when the bas Kohen committed adultery with her father in one case, and with her father-in-law in the other, or he is referring to their domains, but not one of each.

Rava himself establishes Rebbi Eliezer like Rebbi Shimon, and 'es Avihah' means bi'Reshus Avihah' (an Arusah). In spite of the fact that according to Rebbi Shimon, she too, receives S'reifah, Rebbi Eliezer holds 've'es Chamihah bi'Sekilah', because he Darshens - 'Nesu'ah ka'Arusah' to mean that just as an Arusah goes up one level (from Sekilah to S'reifah), so too, does a Nesu'ah go up from Chenek to Sekilah.

Rebbi Chanina objects to Rava's explanation on the grounds that - according to Rebbi Shimon's interpretation of the Pasuk, there is no room for such an explanation, since when the Torah sentences a bas Kohen to S'reifah, it either includes a Nesu'ah, or it doesn't (and if it doesn't, then she receives Chenek, like a bas Yisrael).

To establish Rebbi Eliezer like the Rabbanan, Ravina finally amends his statement to read - 'es Avihah bi'Sekilah, ve'es Chamihah bi'Sereifah'.

Rebbi Eliezer refers to 'es Avihah', and not 'Arusah' - because he takes his cue from the Tana Kama, who in turn, is merely citing the Lashon of the Pasuk "es Avihah hi Mechaleles".

When Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah ruled like Ravin in the name of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina (regarding 'Lema'alah min Avihah', 'Le'matah min Avihah'), Rav Yosef objected - 'Hilch'sa li'Meshicha' (what is the point of such a ruling, which has no ramifications until the arrival of Mashi'ach)?

Abaye retorted - that one could ask the same Kashya in connection with learning the entire Shechitas Kodshim (better known as Maseches Zevachim). What is the point of learning it before the coming of Mashi'ach (see Ya'avetz)?

Rav Yosef nevertheless justified his Kashya - by explaining his Kashya like this: What is the point of ruling like Ravin in the name of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina against Ravina, who both establish Rebbi Eliezer like the Rabbanan, only one leaves the original wording intact, whilst the other one amends it. That is of no relevance, and can wait until the era of Mashi'ach, when the dead will be resurrected, and it will be possible to ask Rebbi Eliezer himself what he meant.

Rebbi Yishmael establishes the status of the bas Kohen in the Pasuk "u'Vas Kohen Ki Seichel Li'zenos" - as a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (like we suggested earlier in the Sugya).

And he extrapolates that a bas Kohen Nesu'ah receives Chenek (like a bas Yisrael) from the Pasuk "Ish asher Yinaf es Eishes Re'ehu Mos Yumas ha'No'ef ve'ha'No'afes" inasmuch as - just as when the Pasuk takes a bas Yisrael out of the realm of Chenek, to sentence her to Sekilah, it does so by an Arusah exclusively, so too, when it sentences a bas Kohen to S'reifah, it does so by an Arusah exclusively (and a Nesu'ah remains the same as an Arusah bas Yisrael).

We know that a Nesu'ah bas Yisrael is subject to Chenek - because S'tam 'Misah' in the Torah always means Chenek.

The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "va'Asisem lo ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv" - "le'Achiv", 've'Lo le'Achoso' (whenever the punishment of the man and the woman differ [such as in the case of a bas Kohen who committed adultery]) the woman's Zom'min receive the same punishment as the man.

Rebbi Akiva (the Tana Kama of the Beraisa that we discussed earlier in the Sugya) argues with Rebbi Yishmael. He maintains that a bas Kohen Nesu'ah too, is included in the Chiyuv S'reifah, and he precludes a Penuyah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Avihah" "Avihah". Rebbi Yishmael however, queries him from his own source - in that the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ought to confine the Din of a bas Kohen to a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (like he actually holds).

To which Rebbi Akiva answers - "Bas" "u'Bas Ani Doresh', meaning that the extra 'Vav' comes to include a Nesu'ah (as we learned in the Beraisa).

Rebbi Yishmael continues to query Rebbi Akiva - because he understands Rebbi Akiva's statement to mean that he Darshens "Bas" "u'Bas" in place of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (in which case he has no source to preclude even a Penuyah from the Din of a bas Kohen).

In fact, Rebbi Akiva really meant - to Darshen "Bas" "u'Bas" in addition to the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', excluding a Penuyah from the latter, and including a Nesu'ah from the former.

Rebbi Yishmael Darshens from "Bas" "u'Bas" that - a bas Kohen retains her Kedushas Kehunah even if she has a blemish. Otherwise, he would have learned from a ben Kohen that her status changes to that of a bas Yisrael.

Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk in Emor "Heim Makrivim ve'Hayu Kodesh" that - a bas Yisrael retains her status even if she has a blemish.

Despite the Pasuk "Heim Makrivim ve'Hayu Kodesh", Rebbi Yishmael still needs "Bas" "u'Bas" to teach us that - it applies to a bas Kohen, since, in his opinion, the Pasuk "Heim Makrivim ve'Hayu Kodesh" (which is written in the masculine) pertains exclusively to male blemished Kohanim, to teach us that even though they are disqualified from performing the Avodah, they remain forbidden to make themselves Tamei Meis.

Rebbi Yishmael Darshens the Pasuk there "es Avihah Hi Mechaleles" (from which the Tana Kama of the Beraisa learned 'Z'nus Im Zikas Ba'al') like Rebbi Meir, who Darshens from this Pasuk that - we despise her father and treat him with profanity, by cursing the one who bore her, the one who brought her up and the one from whose loins she came out (referring to her mother, her nurse and her father respectively - Agados Maharsha).

Rav Ashi extrapolates from Rebbi Yishmael - that the current custom to refer to a Rasha ben Tzadik as a Rasha ben Rasha, is based on his opinion.

The conclusion of our Mishnah 'Zu Mitzvas ha'Niskalin refers to the procedure of the Sekilah ceremony described in the previous Mishnayos, and serves as a prelude to the following Mishnah which begins 'Mitzvas ha'Nisrafin'.