Clarification (Part 1): This does not mean that whenever one is Chayav a Chatas be'Shogeg, one is Chayav Misah be'Meizid ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... seeing as, in the first Perek in Shabbos, 6a, Isi holds that there are thirty-nine Melachos on Shabbos, on one of which one is not Chayav, and both Rashi and Rabeinu Tam explain that this refers to Misah, but as far as Chatas is concerned, they are all Chayav.

Clarification (Part 3): What it does therefore mean is that, whenever one is not Chayav a Chatas, one is not Chayav Misah either.

Clarification: When the Gemara says in Bava Kama, 15a, that The Torah compares a woman to a man' it is referring to whatver it presents in the masculine form; But where it uses the word "Ish", it comes to preclude women, except for where it writes it twice, in which cae we apply the principle 'Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela Lerabos' ('Two consecutive exclusions come to include').

Question: Why does the Gemara in Perek Arba'ah va'Chamishah (ibid. 44b) - in the case of an ox that gores an ox - state 'Shor Shiv'ah: to include the ox of a woman', even though the Torah did not write "Shor Ish"?

Answer: Because we Darshen there 'Negichah le'Misah, Negichah le'Nizakin' (that we learn Misah from Nizakin), and by Nizakin the Torah writes "ve'Chi Yigof Shor Ish".

Explanation #1: Rashi comments 'like it specified by Kil'ayim'.

Question (Part 1): In that case, why, according to R. Yashiyah, does the Torah write "Yachdav" by Kil'ayim?

Question (Part 2): We must therefore say that if not for "Yachdav", we would have thought that plowing with an ox and a donkey together applies even if they are not tied together, nor may one wear a garment of wool together with one of linen, even though they are not joined or sewn together, like we Darshen in Yevamos, 55b 'One piercing of a needle is not considered joined, two is' - since the Torah writes "Yachdav".

Explanation #2: It is therefore a S'vara that it is not forbidden unless the Torah writes 'Yachdav' (see Maharam).

Clarification (Part 1): This is because the Torah uses the expression "Elohim" (and not from a 'Kal va'Chomer') ...

Clarification (Part 2): Because if one could learn a 'Kol va'Chomer, then according to the opinion that learns Chol from Kodesh, why would we need the Pasuk for Kodesh? Why can we not learn it from Nasi and Cheresh?

Clarification (Part 3): We must therefore say that on any 'Kal va'Chomer' Kodesh from Chol there is a Pircha that human beings are different, in that they are worried and embarrassed by a curse (whereas Hash-m is not).

Clarification: Whereas the prohibition of cursing Chaveiro (one's fellow-Jew) we learn either from Av and Nasi or from Av and Cheresh.

Implied Question: We cannot ask that the sources are different ...

Answer: ... since a father is not different.

Implied Question: And this, in spite of the fact that the Gemara in Perek Shevu'as ha'Eidus (Shavu'os, 36a and DH there 'Mekalel) implies that we learn Chaveiro from Cheresh alone.

Question: Why can we not learn 'Aviv' from Mekalel Atzmo and Cheresh, since in Perek Shevu'as ha'Eidus (ibid.) we learn Mekalel Atzmo from the Pasuk "Hishamer l'cha u'Shemor Nafsh'cha"?

Answer: Because if there was no Pasuk for Aviv, from which we learn Chaveiro, we would not learn Atzmo before we know that Chaveiro is Chayav.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains inasmuch as they are both punishable.

Question: This poses a Kashya on the Rabbanan, who sentence him even to Sekilah?

Answer #1 (Part 1): The Rabbanan who hold that he is Chayav Sekilah like a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, have no problem with that, because 'u'Meisu Gam Sheneihem" refers to a Nesu'ah (a married woman).

Answer #1 (Part 2): The problem is confined to R. Meir, who sentences him to Chenek, like the Din of a Nesu'ah, in which case he ought to be Patur altogether from this Pasuk.

Conclusion (Explanation #1): It now transpires that according to both R. Meir and the Rabbanan, he is Patur in the case of a Nesu'ah (Ketanah).

Implied Question: Then why does the Beraisa cited above, declare him Chayav?

Answer #1 (Part 1): Because it does not go according to them.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is speaking about an Arusah - according to the Rabbanan.

Query: Seeing however, as we extrapolated earlier - 'even an animal', how much more so a Nesu'ah?

Answer #1 (Part 2): It must therefore go according to R. Yonasan, who establishes "Gam Sheneihem" to preclude 'Ma'aseh Hurdus'.

Conclusion (Explanation #2 [Part 1]): Alternatively, according to the Rabbanan, since the Din does not change due to Katnus, it makes sense to establish a different D'rashah from "Gam Sheneihem", in which case the Beraisa above goes like the Rabbanan.

Conclusion (Explanation #2 [Part 2]): According to R. Meir however, since the man's Din changes from Sekilah to Chenek by an Arusah Ketanah, it is logical to say that, by a Nesu'ah, we Darshen "Gam Sheneihem" to exempt him completely.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that 'Sheneihen Shavin' does not refer to their both being punishable, but that they share the same death- sentence.

Clarification #1: Consequently, there is no Kashya on the Rabbanan, who hold that someone who has relations with a Ketanah is Chayav Sekilah, seeing as, if she would be punishable, she would receive the same death-sentence as him.

Clarification #2: Whereas according to R. Meir, who holds that he receives only Chenek, whereas if she was punishable she would receive Sekilah, in which case they do not receive the same death-sentence.

Conclusion: According to that, both opinions will agree that if she was a Nesu'ah Ketanah, where they would both be subject to the same death-penalty, he would be Chayav.

Question: In the case of the daughter of a Kohen, who receives Sereifah, whereas the man receives Chenek, why is he not Patur altogether, seeing as they do not share the same death-sentence?

Answer: It is not possible to exempt him completely, since the Gemara Darshens regarding Eidim Zom'min "La'asos le'Achiv", 've'Lo la'Achoso' (from which w learn that they both receive different punishments).

Question #1: The Gemara in 'ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos, 55b) asks that it is obvious that 'Ma'aseh Chidudin' does not need a Pasuk to preclude it from Sekilah, when it asks 'Is this not obvious? Since when does the Torah forbid (on pain of death) an indecent act?'

Question #2: And the Kashya applies even according to the Sefarim that have the text 'Ma'aseh Hurdus' (having relations with her after she has died), because we already know that from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Shichvas Zera", 'to preclude one who has relations with a dead woman.

Question (Part 1): But R. Meir holds like that Beraisa, since he rules in our Mishnah that the first one receives Sekilah, the second one, Chenek ...

Question (Part 2): If so, how can Shmuel ask why Rav remained silent, why he did not quote the Pasuk "u'Meis ha'Ish ... Levado"?, seeing as R. Meir needs that Pasuk for the other D'rashah (to preclude the second one from Sekilah)? See Maharam.

Answer: (Shmuel holds that) we learn both D'rashos from there.