Our Mishnah rules that someone who is Chayav two Miysos - receives the more stringent of the two.

According to the Tana Kama, the same applies to someone who transgresses a sin that carries two death-sentences. Rebbi Yossi says 'Nidon be'Zikah ha'Rishonah she'Ba'ah alav'.

An example of a sin for which one is Chayav two death-sentences is - incest with a mother-in-law who is also married.

Seeing as the Mishnah's first ruling (that someone who is Chayav two Miysos receives the more stringent death) is speaking where the sinner committed a second Chiyuv Misah before Beis-Din were able to carry out the death sentence, in which case, the ruling seems obvious, Rava establishes it where - the sinner first committed the lesser sin and then, before Beis-Din were able to carry out the death sentence, he committed the more severe one. Consequently, we might have thought that it is as if a dead man committed a sin, and he receives the first sentence.

When Rav Yosef's brother asked Rabah bar Nasan for the source of our Mishnah's first ruling (that someone who is Chayav two Miysos receives the more stringent death), the latter quoted him the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Holid ben Paritz Shofech Dam ... ". When the Pasuk writes ...

... "ben Paritz Shofech Dam" (murder) - it is referring to Hereg (Sayaf).

... "ve'es Eishes Re'ehu Timei" (adultery) - ... Chenek.

... "ve'el Gilulim Nasa Einav" (idolatry) - ... Sekilah.

From the next Pasuk "Mos Yumas, Damav bo" he then proved - the ruling under discussion, since "Damav bo" means Sekilah, as we have already learned.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak queried the proof however, inasmuch as all three cases may well be referring to Chayvei Sekilah - "ben Paritz Shofech Dam" to a ben Sorer u'Moreh, and "ve'es Eishes Re'eihu Timei" to a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah?

We refute ...

... Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's suggestion on the grounds - that if that were so, Yechezkel would not be teaching us anything.

... the suggestion that perhaps Yechezkel was merely repeating some of the Torah's principle Dinim - because then he ought to have used the same Lashon as Moshe Rabeinu in Parshas Ki Seitzei.

Yechezkel goes on to describe the antitheses of the above sinners, concluding with the words 'Tzadik Hu, Chayoh Yichyeh". Rav Acha b'Rebbi Chanina explains the Navi's opening words "el he'Harim Lo Achal" to mean that - he is a Chasid, and as such, he doesn't need to come on to the merits of the Avos (who are often described as "Harim").

He defines "ve'Einav Lo Nasa el Gilulei Beis Yisrael" to mean that he did not walk 'proud and tall' (a mark of conceit), and ...

... "ve'es Eishes Re'ehu Lo Timei" - as someone who does not encroach on the trade or business of his fellow-Jew (even when his own business is suffering and desperately needs a boost).

... "ve'el Ishah Nidah Lo Karav" - as a poor man who does not benefit from Tzedakah funds.

Rabban Gamliel wept when he arrived at this Pasuk - because he understood that ''Tzadik hu, Chayoh Yichyeh" only pertains to someone who adheres to all of the above, otherwise not!

Rebbi Akiva countered however, by quoting the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Al Titam'u be'Chol Eileh" (which is a prohibition on each of the Arayos, and not just on all of them together) - proving that in lists such as these, the Torah refers to each case individually, rather than to all of them collectively.

Rebbi Yossi bases his statement 'Nidon be'Zikah ha'Rishonah she'Ba'ah Alav' on the principle - 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' (even if the latter Isur is a more stringent one than the former)'.

The case of ...

... 'Chamoso ve'Na'asis Eishes Ish' is - where Reuven marries the daughter of Sarah, who is a widow at the time, but who subsequently remarries. Should they sin, he will receive S'reifah.

... 'Eishes Ish ve'Na'asis Chamoso is - where Sarah is married at the time that Reuven marries her daughter, in which case, they will receive Chenek.

Rav Ada bar Ahavah queried Rebbi Yossi's earlier statement 'Chamoso ve'Na'asis Eishes Ish, Nidan ba'Chamoso' - because it is an Isur Mosif, and Rebbi Yossi concedes that by Isur Mosif, 'Isur Chal al Isur.

'Chamoso ve'Na'asis Eishes Ish' an Isur Mosif inasmuch as - as long as Sarah was not married, she was only forbidden to Reuven alone, whereas the moment she married, she became Asur to all other men too ...

... and since [Migu] the Isur Eishes Ish takes effect on the other men, it takes effect on him, too.

Rava answered him that since Rebbi Yossi is talking about Misah, it is not possible to issue him with two death-sentences.

Isur Mosif would apply however, in a case of Shogeg, where he would have to bring two Chata'os.

Our Mishnah rules that if someone who, after receiving Malkos for sins that he transgressed on two occasions, sins a third time - he is placed in a Kipah (a small room) and fed barley until his stomach splits.

To explain how Beis-Din can put someone to death when he has only transgressed Chayvei La'avin, Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Resh Lakish establishes our Mishnah - where he actually transgressed Chayvei Kares (for which he receives Malkos when there are witnesses), and the reason for this Halachah is ...

... because the sinner makes himself Hefker to sins which render him liable to be killed (bi'Yedei Shamayim).

And Rebbi Ya'akov qualified this ruling still further to Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Tachlifa - by confining it to where the sinner transgressed the same La'av three times, but not if he transgressed three different La'avin, where he is merely discovering the different tastes of sin.

We establish our Mishnah ('Mi she'Lakah ve'Shanah ... ') not like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who rules that a woman who lost two husbands is not called a 'Katlanis' (a woman who kills her husbands, and who may not marry again) until after her third husband dies (in other words, a Chazakah only occurs after the third time, and not after the second, like Rebbi).

In the case of our Mishnah - he would say that it is only after the third Malkos (when he sinned for the fourth time) that he has a Chazakah and is placed into the Kipah.

Ravina reconciles Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with our Mishnah however - by establishing the Chazakah after the sins (and not after the punishments), in which the Mishnah is speaking immediately after he has sinned the third time.

According to the Tana Kama in a Beraisa, the third time a person transgresses a sin which carries with it Malkos, Beis-Din place him in a Kipah. Aba Shaul says - after the third time, he still receives Malkos, and it is only after the fourth time that he is placed in a Kipah.

We initially assume the reason of the Tana Kama to be - because he holds like Rebbi (and Aba Shaul like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ...

... a Kashya on Ravina, who holds that the sinner is placed in the Kipah after the third time, even according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

To reconcile him with the Beraisa, we establish both Tana'im like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and they argue over whether it is the sins which create the Chazakah (the Tana Kama), or the Malkiyos (Aba Shaul).

Ravina establishes our Mishnah like - the Tana Kama.

Before a sinner can actually receive Malkos, he must respond to a warning by positively rejecting it (by saying that he doesn't care) before actually sinning.

The Tana Kama in another Beraisa, in a case where a person sinned twice after being warned, but where he responded to each warning with silence or with nodding his head, rules that when he sins the third time - he is placed in a Kipah ...

... according to Aba Shaul - only after the fourth time.

In spite of the fact that the sinner did not receive Malkos - Aba Shaul sentences the sinner to Kipah only after the fourth time (not because he goes after the Malkiyos, like we initially thought, but) - because in his opinion, also the Kipah requires a prior warning; whereas the Tana Kama holds that it does not.

Rav Yehudah describes 'Kipah' as - a room which is the sinner's height, but no more.

The real source of Kipah is - 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

Resh Lakish extrapolates from the Pasuk "Temoseis Rasha Ra'ah" that - sometimes, the mere fact that a person is Muchzak to be a Rasha, causes his death (even though he is not really Chayav Misah at the hand of Beis-Din), a hint for the Din of Kipah.

He also explains the Pasuk in Koheles "Ki Gam Lo Yeida ha'Adam es Ito, ke'Dagim she'Ne'echazim bi'Metzudah Ra'ah" as 'Chakeh', a hook with which one catches fish - which, unlike a net, which is large, and which the fish in initially able to avoid, is very tiny and catches it by surprise. Here too, the sinner is caught by surprise and put to death, before his time ...

as opposed to someone who is Chayav Kareis, - he may well live to the age of fifty). See also Agados Maharsha.

For somebody who murdered without witnesses, the Mishnah prescribe - Kipah, where he is fed a minimal measure of bread and water.

To explain how, if there were no witnesses, Beis-Din know that he committed the murder, Rav establishes the Mishnah by Eidus Meyuchedes - (where two witnesses saw the murder, but from two different windows in a way that there testimony does not combine.

Shmuel establishes the Mishnah where there were witnesses but no warning, Rav Chisda Amar Avimi - where the two witnesses contradicted in the Bedikos (Iskachesh bi'Bedikos [minor issues unrelated to the crime]), but not in the Chakiros, that would have disqualified them.

the basis for 'Iskachesh bi'Bedikos' is - the Mishnah in the fifth Perek, where ben Zakai cross-examined the witnesses regarding 'the stalks of the figs'.

To reconcile the current Mishnah with the previous one, which prescribed just barley for the person in the Kipah, Rav Sheishes explains - that the two Mishnahs complement each other; they first fed him limited quantities of bread and water (causing his stomach to shrink), and then barley (until is split).

Our Mishnah rules in three cases 'Kana'in Pog'in bo' - (any zealous person is permitted to kill them on the spot).

The first two cases are 'Gonev es ha'Kisvah' and 'Mekalel be'Kosem'. The meaning of ...

... 'Gonev es ha'Kisvah' is - someone who steals a Kisvah (which Rav Yehudah defines as (a K'li Shareis [one of the holy vessels used for the service in the Beis-Hamikdash]).

... 'Mekalel be'Kosem' is - someone who curses, using the term 'Kosem' (a magician), as will be explained shortly.

The third case in the list is - someone who is intimate with a Nochris in public.

If the young Kohanim catch a fellow-Kohen serving in the Beis-Hamikdash when he is Tamei - they take him outside and smash in his brains with wooden clubs.

According to Rebbi Akiva, a Zar (a non-Kohen) who serves in the Beis-Hamikdash receives Chenek; the Chachamim say - Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim.

Rav Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Bamidbar (in connection with the accessories of the Shulchan) "ve'es Kesos ha'Nasech" - that 'Kisvah' in our Mishnah is a K'li Shareis.

The Pasuk "ve'Lo Yavo'u Lir'os ke'Vala es ha'Kodesh va'Meisu" hints at the Din in our Mishnah 'ha'Gonev es ha'Kisva' - by virtue of the fact that "ke'Vala" which means hidden, has connotations of stealing (based on the fact that thieves tend to hide what they steal).

The Pasuk is really talking about - the prohibition of the Levi'im coming to watch Aharon and his sons covering the Aron and the Mizb'chos before traveling.

There is a Machlokes how to explain 'ha'Mekalel be'Kosem'. When the Tana of the Beraisa quoted by Rav Yosef explains 'Yakeh Kosem es Kosmo', he means that - someone curses Hash-m by declaring that the magician, whom Hash-m gave the power to practice his magic, should curse Hash-m.

And when the Rabbanan or Rabah bar Mari explain 'Yakeihu Kosem lo u'le'Kono u'le'Makno', they mean that - he should curse his fellow-Jew as well as Hash-m, who acquires the world and who graces His creatures with his goodness.