Our Mishnah lists Shabbos among the Chayvei Sekilah, but only with regard to a Melachah that is Chayav Kareis be'Meizid and Chatas be'Shogeg. This comes to exclude (besides the specific Melachah that we will now discuss) - a. a Melachah that does not involve an act and, b. one that one did not intend to perform ('Mis'asek').

According to Rebbi Akiva, our Mishnah precludes T'chumin, which is not subject to Kareis and a Chatas, whereas according to Rebbi Yossi, it precludes - Hav'arah (making a fire [for the same reason, as we learned earlier]).

The Tana goes on to list someone who curses his father or mother among the Chayvei Sekilah - provided he curses them with the Name of Hash-m.

Should one curse one's parents with a Kinuy (and not with the Name 'Havayah'), Rebbi Meir nevertheless declares him Chayav Sekilah. The Chachamim learn from the Pasuk "be'Nokvo Sheim Yumas" - that one is not Chayav for cursing them with a Kinuy.

'The Chachamim' is - Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi.

Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi argues with the Mishnah (that we learned earlier) that requires 'Sheim be'Sheim', since that Tana learns it from the same word ("Sheim").

The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ish Ish ... asher Yekaleles Aviv" - that a woman, a Tumtum and an Androginus are Chayav for cursing their parents, just like a man.

Rebbi Yashiyah there learn from the Pasuk (which concludes "Aviv ve'Imo Killel ... ") that one is Chayav even for cursing either one's father or one's mother - because the Torah first juxtaposes "Aviv" next to "Killel", and then next to "Imo".

Based on the fact that the Torah does not write "Yachdav" in the Pasuk (as it does by Kil'ayim) Rebbi Yonasan argues that we already know Rebbi Yashiyah's Din from " ... es Aviv ve'es Imo" ...

... since he holds that the letter 'Vav' implies 'or' (and not and); whereas according to Rebbi Yashiyah, it implies 'and'.

Rebbi Yonasan learns from "Aviv ve'Imo Killel" - that one is Chayav even for cursing one's parents after their death.

The Tana learns from the Pasuk ...

... the Gezeirah-Shavah "Damav bo" (Ibid.) "Demehem bam (by Ov ve'Yid'oni), both in Kedoshim - that Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo is subject to Sekilah.

... the Pasuk in Emor "Elohim Lo Sekalel" - the Azharah for cursing a Dayan.

... the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo Sa'or" - the Azharah for cursing a king.

We know that one is Chayav for cursing a father who is a Dayan or a king, from the former and the latter Pasuk, respectively, and we (initially) learn that one is Chayav for cursing a father who is neither a Dayan nor a king - from a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' from the two of them.

We cannot learn ...

... a Nasi from a Dayan - because one is Chayav to obey the Halachic ruling of a Dayan but not that of a Nasi.

... a Dayan from a Nasi - because someone who rebels against him is Chayav Misah (which someone who rebels against a Dayan is not).

We refute this 'Binyan Av mi'Shenei Kesuvim' however - on the grounds that in both cases, the special Din is based on their greatness, which a the case is not.

So we bring in the Pasuk "Lo Sekalel Cheresh", and learn a father from all three. We cannot learn him from Cheresh alone - because we would confine the prohibition to Cheresh exclusively (to prevent people from taking advantage of his helplessness).

The Tzad ha'Shaveh that Nasi, Dayan and Cheresh share, that enables us to learn the prohibition of cursing others in general, and one's parents in particular, from them is the fact that - they are all included in "be'Amcha".

The problem of learning Aviv ve'Imo from this 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' is that - maybe the Isur applies only to them, because they are all three unusual.

And we answer that either Dayan or Nasi is redundant (because had the Torah just written Cheresh and one of them, we would have known the other one from the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'). Consequently - we are now able to learn Aviv ve'Imo from either one or the other.

We have assumed until now that "Elohim Lo Sekalel" is Chol (referring to the Dayanim). This is the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa. According to Rebbi Akiva - it is Kodesh, referring to Hash-m.

In support of Rebbi Akiva, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov cites this Pasuk - as an Azharah for cursing Hash-m.

Rebbi Yishmael will learn the Azharah for Birchas Hash-m - from that of cursing a Dayan.

According to Rebbi Akiva, we learn the Azharah for Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo from - the extra 'Lamed' in "Lo Sekalel" (since the Torah could have written "Lo Seikal").

He cannot simply learn Chol from Kodesh (like Rebbi Yishmael learns Kodesh from Chol) - because Kodesh is generally stricter than Chol, so that any stringency pertaining to the former, will not necessarily pertain to the latter.

Our Mishnah discusses the Chiyuv of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah's Chiyuv Sekilah. 'Na'arah' comes to exclude - a. a Bogeres and b. a Ketanah whose father betrothed her.

Besides the fact that she must be betrothed - our Mishnah also requires her to be a virgin, in order to be Chayav.

If she made Chupah, but did not yet consummate her marriage - she is no longer considered 'Me'urasah' in which case she is not Chayav Sekilah (even though she is still a Besulah.

've'Hi be'Veis Avihah' comes to exclude - a case where her father handed her over to the Sheluchim of the husband, which is akin to Chupah.

The Tana states that if two men committed adultery with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, the first one she'Lo ke'Darkah - the first one receives Sekilah, the second one, Chenek (because she is considered a Be'ulah).

The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei ...

... "Na'arah" - 've'Lo Bogeres'.

... "Besulah" - 've'Lo Be'ulah'.

... "Me'urasah" - 've'Lo Nesu'ah'.

... "be'Veis Avihah" (written in connection with a Motzi-Shem-Ra) - 'P'rat le'she'Masar ha'Av li'Sheluchei ha'Ba'al'.

Rav Yehudah establishes our Mishnah, which precludes a Ketanah from the Din of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, like Rebbi Meir. According to the Chachamim - a Ketanah has the same Din as a Na'arah in this regard (and the man will be Chayav Sekilah).

They argue over - whether someone who rapes a Ketanah pays the fifty Shekel K'nas (the Chachamim) or not (the Chachamim).

Rav Acha tries to establish our Mishnah ('Eino Chayav ad she'Tehei Na'arah'), even like the Chachamim - by explaining that 'Na'arah' (in the Mishnah) comes to preclude a Bogeres, but not a Ketanah.

Ravina refutes Rav Acha's suggestion however - by pointing to the Lashon 'Eino Chayav ad ... ', which suggests that she must be a Na'arah and nothing else (like Rebbi Meir).

Rebbi Ya'akov bar Ada asked Rav what the Din will be if someone committed adultery with a Ketanah ha'Me'urasah, according to Rebbi Meir, whether, even if he does not exempt him completely - perhaps he will reduce the Bo'el's Din from Sekilah to Chenek.

When, following Rav's reply 'Mistavra mi'Sekilah Mema'et leih', Rav Ya'akov bar Ada quoted the Pasuk "u'Meisu Gam Sh'neihem" - he meant to extrapolate from there that the man and the woman must both be equal (they must both be punishable before they can be sentenced to death, but not if she is a Ketanah - see Tosfos DH 'Ad').

Surprised that Rav remained silent after Rav Ya'akov bar Ada's comment, Shmuel quoted the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "U'meis ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah Levado" - which refers to a man who raped a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah.

The Pasuk cannot be coming to teach us that the woman is Patur (even though the man is Chayav) - because we already know that from the Pasuk there "ve'la'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar".

The Pasuk must therefore be coming to teach us that - in our case, where a man committed adultery with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah who is a Ketanah, he is Chayav even though she is Patur! (not like Rav Ada bar Ya'akov).

The Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel is also a Machlokes Tana'im. Rebbi Yashiyah, in a Beraisa, holds like Rav, Rebbi Yonasan, like Shmuel. The latter, says Rava, learns from "u'Meisu Gam Sh'neihem", 'li'Me'utei Ma'aseh Chidudin' ...

... where the man presses his flesh against the woman without actually having relations with her, in which case he derives pleasure from the contact but not she. Others explain 'Ma'aseh Chidudin to mean ...

... Ma'aseh Hurdus, who preserved the body of a dead girl in honey for seven years, during which time he was intimate with her.

Nevertheless, if he perform unnatural relations with her, they will be Chayav (despite the fact that there too, she derives no pleasure from the act) - because the Torah specifically writes "Mishkevei Ishah".

Rebbi Yashiyah actually agrees with Rebbi Yonasan that the man is Patur for performing Ma'aseh Chidudin - only he does not require a Pasuk, because, he maintains, 'Ma'aseh Chidudin La'av K'lum hi', and there is no reason to render him Chayav.

Rebbi Yashiyah learns from "Levado" like Rebbi in a Beraisa, who discusses a case where ten men commit adultery with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, and (technically) she remains a Besulah (at least until the tenth Bi'ah), which is possible - if the first nine had relations with her she'Lo ke'Darkah, in which case ...

... Rebbi rules - that only the first one receives Sekilah (after which she is considered a Be'ulah, and) the subsequent nine receive Chenek (as we learned in our Mishnah).

According to the Rabbanan however - after a Bi'ah she'Lo ke'Darkah, a woman remains a Besulah (Halachically too), in which case, all ten men will receive Sekilah.

Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explains that Rebbi, interpreting the Pasuk "u'Bas Ish Kohen ki Seichel Li'zenos ... ba'Eish Tisaref", says 'Techilah', because he holds like Rebbi Yishmael (whom we discussed earlier in the Perek) who rules - that it is a bas Kohen Arusah who receives Sereifah (but not a Nesu'ah).

When Rebbi says 'Techilah', he now means - that he holds like Rebbi Yishmael, according to whom the act of adultery was her first Bi'ah.

And when he continues 've'Chein hu Omer, u'Meis ha'Ish asher Shachav Imah Levado' he means that - just as there (by a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah), the Torah is talking about her first Bi'ah, when it sentences them to Sekilah, so too, here (by a bas Kohen).

Rav Bibi bar Abaye rejects Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's interpretation of Rebbi however, based on Rav Yosef, who established Rebbi like Rebbi Meir, who rules that a bas Kohen who is married to a man who is Pasul, and who commits adultery - receives Chenek.

In that case, when Rebbi said 'Techilah', the bas Kohen may well have been a Nesu'ah, only - it was her first Pasul Bi'ah (to preclude a case where she was married to someone who is Pasul, in which case she will have already become a Chalalah and will therefore receive Chenek).

And we now explain 've'Chein ... ' (in the Beraisa) as a mere Si'man (in that the cases are somewhat similar).

Rebbi cannot have meant it literally - because in the case of the Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, it must also be her very first Bi'ah.