Clarification: Because, since one is permitted to kill him to save a person, 'Kal va'Chomer' to destroy his money.

Clarification #1: This is not comparable to the 'Onshin min ha'Din' over which Abaye and Rava who argue later in Perek ha'Nisrafin, as the Gemara explains in Perek Arba Misos.

Clarification #2 (Part 1): When the Gemara says earlier (on the previous Daf) 'One ("Na'ar" "Na'arah") to preclude Avodah-Zarah', that too, goes according to the opinion that holds 'Onshin min ha'Din.

Clarification #3 (Part 2): Whereas the one who holds 'Ein Onshin, would heArayos, and as for the other - since the Torah writes "Na'ar", it writes "Na'arah".

Explanation: At first glance it appears that they wore different shoes than the Nochrim.

Precedent #1: Like we learned in perek ha'Koneis regarding Elazar Ze'ira, who was wearing blacj shoes, and he explained that he was mourning for Yerushalayim.

Precedent #2: And this is also implied in Maseches Ta'anis, regarding a certain man who was wearing black shoes and who was not wearing Tzitzis.

Question: But the Mishnah, at the end of the first Perek of Beitzah forbids sending a white shoe on Yom-Tov, since it needs a black stick of chalk to blacken it (implying that Yisre'eilim wore black shoes just like Nochrim)?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore that it was specifically the shoe-laces that were different than those of the Nochrim, who wore black, whilst Yierael wore white. Consequently, wherever the speaks about black shoes, it is referring to blach shoe-laces; as for the shoes themselves, of course they were black.

Question #1: Why did the Gemara not ask that it was Arayos, seeing as for Arayos and Na'arah Me'urasah one is obligated to give up one's life, according to all opinions?

Question #2 (Part 1): And one can ask the same question at the beginning of Kesuvos, where on the statement that there are Tzenu'os who give up their lives the Gemara asks why one does not inform them that Oneis is permitted?

Question #2 (Part 2): What sort of question is that, seeingas it was a case of adultery, and they were obligated to give up their lives?

Answer (Explanation #1): Rabeinu Tam answers that a woman is not Chayav Misah for being intimate with a Nochri, since the Torah declared hjis Zera Hefker, like the Gemara says in Perek Nos'in al ha'Anusah, based on the Pasuk "And their stream is like the stream of horses".

Halachic Ramifications (Part 1): On account of this, in a case where a (married) bas Yisrael converted out and with whom a Nochri was then intimate, following which he converted to Yahadus together with her (and her husband then divorced her), Rabeinu Tam wanted to permit them to marry.

Halachic Ramifications (Part 2): Seeing as now that the Bi'ah of a Nochri is not considered a Bi'ah (like that of an animal), the principle of 'Echad le'Bo'el' (that a married woman who commits adultery is forbidden to the Bo'el) is not applicable.

Question #1: The Rivam queries Rabeinu Tam however, inasmuch as the Bi'ah of an Akum forbids her to her husband, as the Gemara says there and in Perek ha'Ishah she'Nis'armelah - that a woman who was captured by Nochrim is forbidden to her husband.

Question #2 (Part 1): And the Gemara in Megilah too (commenting on the pasuk in Megilah) cites Esther as having said 'Just as I am lost to my father's house, so too, am I lost from you!'

Question #2 (Part 2): So we see that as far as her husband is concerned, the Bi'ah of a Nochri is not compared to that of an animal?

Extension: In fact, his Bi'ah also disqualifies her from the Kehunah, even though the Bi'ah of an animal does not (since there is no Z'nus with regard to an animal, as the Gemara says in 'ha'Ba al Yevimto'.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): And it is the seed of the Akum that the Torah declared Hefker (with regard to Yichus), not the Bi'ah.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And, based on the Pasuk "ve'Nitma'ah" "veNitma'ah", since she is forbidden to her husband, she is forbidden to the Bo'el too.

Proof (Part 1): And we also say in Sotah that 'Kinuy' of a Sotah is applicable to a Nochri, and that he disqualifies the woman from eating Terumah; on which the Gemara asks that it is obvious, seeing as the Pasuk writes "ve'Nist'rah ve'Hi Nitma'ah" - both to the husband and to the Bo'el?

Proof (Part 2): And the Gemara answers that although one might have thought that "ve'Nist'rah ve'Hi Nitma'ah" applies only to where that Bi'ah creates the Isur, but not to where she is forbidden to the Bo'el anyway, this is not the case.

Proof (Part 3): So we see that "ve'Nitme'ah" applies even to a Nochri, to forbid her on her husband, and so too, on the Bo'el?

Question: And the reason that the Gemara does not ask that Esther was a case of Arayos is ...

Answer (Part 1): Because it knew that the reason of 'Karka Olam' (being passive) applies to exempt one from giving up one's life because of Arayos.

Source (Part 1): And this in turn, is due to the fact that we learn it from Arayos, where one is only obligated to die rather than actually perform the act of killing somebody else ...

Source (Part 2): But there where one does not perform an act - such as where one is thrown on to a baby to squash him to death, it seems logically that one is not obligated to give up one's life ...

Reason: Because, seeing as he does not actually do anything, he can argue 'On the contrary, who says that the blood of 'my friend' is redder? Perhaps it is my blood that is redder!'

Change of text: And when the Beraisa (on the previous Amud) says 'Af Na'arah ha'Me'urasah Tehareg ve'Al Ta'avor' we need to change the text to 'Yehareg ve'Al Ya'avor', with reference to the Bo'el, who performs an act, because the Na'arah herself, who is Karka Olam, is under no obligation to give up her life (as we just explained).

Alternative to Changing the Text: And if we retain the text ('Tehareg ... ') then what the Gemara means is that the Na'arah must give up her life rather than perform an act - such as bringing the Ervah upon herself.

Answer (Part 2): But as far as the Chilul Hash-m of Farhesya is concerned, the Gemara did not think that the answer that Esther was Karka Olam would be acceptable (which explains why Rava needed to answer that it is).

Precedent (Part 1): In similar vein, Rava says at the beginning of 'ha'Ba al Yevimto that 'There is no such thing as Oneis by Arayos, because Kishuy (stiffening) cannot take place without a person intending it to'.

Precedent (Part 2): Consequently, if they give a person a choice either to let them bring him on an Ervah or they will kill him, and he knows that if they bring him on an Ervah, he will not be able to avoid being Miskasheh, then we cannot permit him to transgress on the grounds that he did not perform an act,

Precedent (Part 3): If on the other hand, he was already in a state of Kishuy, then one is certainly permitted to let a Nochri bring him on an Erveh without having to give up one's life.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): When the Gemara asks in Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah with regard to Ya'el that she derived pleasure from the sin, and it answers that 'What is good for Resha'im is bad for the Tzadikim'; like we find that when the Snake was intimate with Chavah it injected 'Zuhama' (filth) into her.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): The Gemara is not suggesting that, despite the fact that she was Karka Olam, she ought therefore to have forfeited her life, seeing a the pleasure is considered an act (as the Gemara Darshens in Perek ha'Meni'ach, from the Pasuk "and the souls that did it shall be cut off ... ".

Explanation #1 (Part 3): Because if it was, then in our Sugya too, with regard to Esther, it should have asked the same question.

Refutation: And what's more, it seems that she was not even an Oneis, bearing in mind the fact that Sisra was running away, and he was in no position to rape her` On the contrary, he needed her to hide him from her pursuers, as is clear from the context.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): In fact, the Gemara there is querying the fact that the Pasuk praises Ya'el, when it writes "She shall be blessed more than the women in the tent!", with reference to Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Le'ah ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): For the Gemara says in Perek Mi she'Amar va'Ani be'Nazir that 'a sin performed 'li'Shemah' is greater than a Mitzvah she'Lo li'Shemah' - since the Imahos had the intention of building (K'lal Yisrael) from their husbands, yet it was considered she'Lo li'Shemah because they derived pleasure from the Mitzvah, in which case it was not considered so much li'Shemah.

Explanation #2 (Part 3): That is why the Gemara asks that Ya'el derived pleasure.

Conclusion: Now the fact that the Pasuk praises Ya'el makes sense, which it would not have done had she been raped.

Question (Part 1): When Esther finally condescended to do the wishes of Achashverosh, by declaring "Just as I have perished I will perish", why did Mordechai not divorce her first, so as to permit her to return to him ...

Question (Part 2): Seeing as not is prohibited from taking back one's divorced wife if she comits Z'nus, only after she has married?

Question (Part 3): As we learned in the Mishnah in Sotah 'Everybody agrees that he cannot warn her with regard to before they were engaged, and not with regard to after they have divorced - should she conceal herself together with a man and they then remarry. This is the rule 'Wherever the intimacy does not forbid her to her him ( her husband), he does not warn her'.

Answer: He was afraid to divorce her, in case Achashverosh would get to hear about it.

Implied Question: In the case in Yevamos where a Nochri ordered a Yisrael to cut Aspasta (a type of cattle-fodder) on Shabbos, or he would kill him, like he killed so-and-so Yisrael who refused to cook a dish on Shabbos', why did that Yisrael give up his life, seeing as it was for the Nochri's benefit?

Answer: Perhaps he was not conversant with the Halachah.

Question: But surely "va'Chai Bahem" is written in connection with Yisrael, and even a Yisrael would be obligated to forfeit his life even in secret, had the Torah not written "va'Chai Bahem"? In that case, why is it not obvious that a Nochri is subject to Kidush Hash-m (Tosfos ha'Rosh)?

Answer: Perhaps va'Chai Bahem is only needed in order not to learn other Mitzvos from Rotzei'ach and Na'arasah, who are obligated to forfeit their lives even in private. But if not for the Pasuk, logic dictates that one would not be Chayav to forfeit one's life (Tosfos ha'Rosh).