The problem with Rebbi Yashiyah, who holds that S'tam Misah bi'Yedei Adam receives Chenek is that - since Chenek does not appear in the Torah, why should we make such an assumption? Why not sentence S'tam Misah to Hereg, which is written?

We answer that - according to Rebbi Yashiyah, all four Misos are 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

We know to whom to give Chenek, according to him - from a S'vara, because wherever the Torah does not indicate any Misah, we assume that he must receive the most lenient one, which is Chenek (see Maharsha).

The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yashiyah and Rebbi Yonasan is - synonymous with the Machlokes between the Chachamim and Rebbi Shimon as to whether Chenek is more lenient than Hereg or vice-versa. Rebbi Yashiyah holds like the Chachamim; Rebbi Yonasan, like Rebbi Shimon,

What Avodas-Kochavim, Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, Chilul-Shabbos, Ov ve'Yid'oni and Megadef all have in common is - the fact that Sekilah is expressly written by each of them.

Rebbi Zeira asked Abaye from which 'Gezeirah-Shavah' we learn those that are not written. The two possibilities are - "Mos Yamusu" "Mos Yamusu" or "Demeihem bam" "Demeihem bam".

Abaye answered that we learn it from "Demeihem Bam" and not from "Mos Yamusu" (even though both are written by Ov ve'Yid'oni and by all the other cases of Sekilah, and the latter, by the two cases which we will now suggest). And he proves it - because he says, if we learned it from "Mos Yamusu", we would have no way of explaining "Demeihem bam", and it would remain superfluous.

Now that we learn it from "Demeihem bam" however, we learn from "Mos Yamusu" - that if Beis-Din are unable to kill the condemned man with the prescribed Misah, then they must kill him in whichever way they can.

Rav Acha from Difti asked Ravina why Rebbi Zeira was concerned about the source of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', whether it was perhaps a married woman who committed adultery that we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Mos Yamusu", to which he replied that - that is not possible, because the Torah prescribes Sekilah for a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, insinuating that a Nesu'ah does not receive Sekilah.

And when Rav Acha asked Ravina whether it was not Makeh Aviv ve'Imo that bothered Rebbi Zeira, that we ought to learn that he is Chayav Sekilah from Ov ve'Yid'oni - he again replied in the negative, because then (due to the tendency to go for the more lenient death), we prefer to learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Eishes Ish, to give him Chenek.

Rebbi Zeira was concerned that, if we were to learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "Mos Yamusu" - then how would we know all the other cases of Chayvei Sekilah (listed in the following Mishnah)? Instead of learning the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Ov and Yid'oni, why not rather learn it from Eishes Ish and give them Chenek (as we just asked on Makeh Aviv ve'Imo)?

Our Mishnah now discusses the Din of 'Niskalin'. In addition to the five (counting Ov ve'Yid'oni as one) cases of Chayvei Sekilah that we mentioned earlier, our Mishnah now lists another eleven cases of Sekilah. The common source for all of them is - the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Demeihem bam".

The Torah is more stringent by someone who curses his parents than by someone who strikes them - because, in addition to the disgrace to one's parents, he also pronounces Hash-m's Name in vain (as this is an intrinsic part of the transgression).

The difference between a Meisis and a Medi'ach is that - whereas the former entices individuals to serve idols, the latter goes for entire communities.

In spite of the fact that a person can only die once, the significance of the ruling of the Tana Kama's ruling that someone who commits incest with his mother transgresses 'Eishes Av' too is - in a case where someone transgressed be'Shogeg, who brings one Korban Chatas for each transgression.

According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, someone who commits incest with his mother - is Chayav because of 'Imo', but not because of 'Eishes Aviv'.

Our Mishnah states that, if someone commits incest with his father's wife (who is not his mother) - he is also Chayav because of Eishes Ish.

The next words 'bein be'Chayei Aviv, bein le'Achar Misas Aviv' - pertain only to 'Eishes Av', but not to 'Eishes Ish', which falls away after the death of his father.

The Tana know that the Chiyuv of Eishes Av applies equally to where they are only betrothed and not yet married - from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Ish ki Yikach Ishah", which refers to Kidushin, from which we learn that a betrothed woman is considered one's wife in most regards.

One's daughter-in-law - has exactly the same Din as Eishes Av in the above regards. She too, remains forbidden because of Kalaso even after the death of his son and is forbidden even if she is only betrothed (and not yet married) to one's son.

Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa rules that in a case of one's mother whom his father ought not to have married - the son is not Chayav because of Eishes Av.

Granted, Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah precludes Eishes Av from Imo under any circumstances - but our Tana argues with the Tana of the Beraisa over what Rebbi Yehudah actually holds in this point.

Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa cannot be referring to a case where she belongs to the category of Chayvei Kerisus - because then, the Rabbanan (with whom Rebbi Yehudah is clearly coming to argue), would also agree, since even they concede that Kidushin does not take effect on Chayvei K'risus.

We conclude that he is referring to a case of Chayvei La'avin, and he holds that Kidushin does not take effect by Chayvei La'avin - because he follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, who holds 'Ein Kidushin Tofsin be'Chayvei La'avin'.

An Isur ...

... Mitzvah refers to - the Isur de'Rabbanan of Sheniyos mi'Divrei Sofrim.

... Kedushah refers to - Chayvei La'avin, such as Almanah le'Kohen Gadol and Gerushah va'Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot.

The reason that ...

... the Tana refers them in this way is - because with regard to the former, it is a Mitzvah to listen to the words of the Chachamim, and with regard to the latter, the Torah writes about the Kohanim "Kedoshim Yih'yu l'Elokeihem".

... Rebbi Yehudah, who inverts them, refers to them like that is - because Seifer Vayikra, which is called 'Toras Kohanim', ends with "Eileh ha'Mitzvos", and because of the injunction (based on "Kedoshim Tih'yu") 'Kadesh Atzm'cha be'Mutar lach', referring to things which the Torah permitted and (in this context) the Rabbanan forbade.

The Halachic difference between an Isur Kareis on the one hand, and an Isur Mitzvah and Isur Kedushah on the other (regarding Yibum) is that - the latter remain obligated to do Chalitzah (even though they are Patur from Yibum), whereas (based on the maxim 'Kol she'Eino Olah le'Yibum, Einah Olah la'Chalitzah', the former are Patur from Chalitzah as well.

Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa - switches the implications of Isur Mitzvah and Isur Kedushah.

He seems to agree however, that they require Chalitzah, a problem, Rav Oshaya points out - inasmuch, as Rebbi Akiva (whose opinion Rebbi Yehudah follows) considers Chayvei La'avin no different than Chayvei Kerisus, and Chayvei Kerisus are exempt from Chalitzah and from Yibum.

We reconcile Rebbi Yehudah there with the fact that here he holds like Rebbi Akiva - by establishing Rebbi Yehudah there with reference to the Chachamim's opinion, even though personally, he disagrees with them.

Rebbi Yitzchak cites Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa which conforms to his opinion in our Mishnah. Abaye cites the Pasuk "Imcha Hi" - from which he extrapolates that wherever there is an Isur of 'Imcha', the Isur of 'Eishes Av' will not apply (like Rebbi Yitzchak).

And from the word "Hi", in the following Pasuk "Ervas Eishes Avicha Lo Segaleh Ervas Avicha Hi", he extrapolates that - wherever there is an Isur of 'Eishes Av', the Isur of 'Eim' will not apply.

Besides the obvious discrepancy between the two contradictory D'rashos, we also ask - what the Rabbanan in our Mishnah, who hold of both Chiyuvim simultaneously, will learn from "Imcha Hi"?

We therefore conclude that we need "Imcha Hi" for the D'rashah of Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi, which will be quoted later in the Sugya. Bearing in mind that the Pasuk writes "Demeihem Bam" by Eishes Aviv, Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi learns from "Imcha Hi" - that Sekilah applies even by incest with one's mother who is not one's father's wife (since she is not included in the previous D'rashah.

And "Ervas Avicha hi" - then comes to include Eishes Aviv after one's father's death.

Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika tries to learn Rebbi Yehudah's Din from the Pasuk (that follows "Imcha hi") "Lo Segaleh Ervasah", which he Darshens - 'Mishum Ervah Achas atah Mechayvo, ve'I Atah Mechayvo mishum Sh'tei Ervos' (That one is only Chayav because of one Ervah, but not because of two).

The problem with this from the Pasuk "Ervas Kalascha Lo Segaleh ... Lo Segaleh Ervasah" is that - Rebbi Yehudah ought then to make the same D'rashah there and to preclude the Isur of Eishes Ish from 'Kalaso'. Yet our Mishnah holds that one is Chayav both simultaneously, and Rebbi Yehudah does not seem to argue with that.

The reason that the Torah uses the singular Lashon ("Ervasah"), even though one is Chayav two La'avin is - due to the fact that when all's said and done, there is only one woman involved.

Rava finally explains the Pesukim according to Rebbi Yehudah. He interprets the Pasuk

... "Ervas Avicha" (from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "from Ervas Aviv" [in connection with Eishes Aviv]) - to mean Eishes Aviv (initially incorporating both one that is not his mother and one that is).

... "Ervas Imecha" - to mean his mother whom his father raped (or seduced).

... "Imcha hi - to confine 'Eishes Aviv' in the Reisha to one that is not his mother, like Abaye learned earlier.

If not for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', we would have established the Pasuk "Ervas Avicha" - by a case of being intimate with one's father (which is how the Rabbanan actually explain it, as we shall see shortly).