Clarification: Zonah, in the event that he is a Kohen.

Clarification: In which case one is not Chayav because of Zonah.

Question: Rebbi Moshe from Pontoise queries this from the Gemara in 'ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos, 61a & 61b) which defines 'Zonah' as a Giyores and a Meshuchreres, and how much more so a Nochris?

Answer #1: Since the Torah writes "Zonah Lo Yikach", he is only Chayav because of Zonah there where Kidushin takes effect, as it does by a Giyores, but not by a Nochris.

Answer #2: Furthermore, the Pasuk implies that it is speaking about a woman who is permitted to a Yisrael and forbidden to a Kohen, to exclude a Nochris, who is forbidden to both of them.

Question #1: The question remains however, that in Perek Kol ha'Asurin (Temurah, 29a & 29b), Rava declares a Kohen who has relations with a Nochris Chayav Malkos because of Zonah - mi'd'Oraysa?

Rejected Answer: And it would be a Dochek (a forced answer) to establish our Gemara like Abaye there.

Question #2: Furthermore, in Perek Asarah Yuchsin (Kidushin, 78a) Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon argue with regard to a Giyores to a Kohen - and Eveb Rebbi Shimon there permits her only if she converted before the age of three, in which case her 'virginity came into effect whilst she was a Yisre'eilis', but not a Kutis?

Answer (Part 1): It therefore seems that our Sugya is speaking where the girl was specifically prevented under guard, from having relations with a man; and even if she wasn't, one cannot give the man Malkos mi'd'Oraysa on a Safek that maybe she did.

Answer (Part 2): But where we know that she was had relations with him, he will receive Malkos mi'd'Oraysa, like Rava in Temurah.

Implied Question: And as for the case in Kidushin, even though she is forbidden mi'd'Oraysa ...

Answer: That is not because of Zonah, but because it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv ...

Proof (Part 1): As is implied in the Yerushalmi (in the last Perek of Kidushin), where Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi related a story that happened with a family that lived in the south, which was being stigmatized. Rebbi sent Rebbi Rumnus to investigate the matter, and he discovered that the grandmother had converted before the age of three and a day. Rebbi declared the family Kasher, and when Rav Hoshaya established that ruling like Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi Ze'ira disagreed. Quoting a number of sources, ending with Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan, he validated the child of a Kohen and a Bogeres according to all opinions, because, although a Bogeres is forbidden to a Kohen, it is through the Pasuk "ve'Hu Ishah bi'Vesulehah Yikach", which is a La'av that based on an Asei, which is considered an Asei.

Proof (Part 2): By the same token, the prohibition of marrying a Be'ulah is based on the Asei "Ki Im Besulah me'Amav Yikach Ishah" - "Besuah", 've'Lo Giyores', which is also a La'av that is based on an Asei, and is therefore an Asei (and not subject to Malkos)..

Conclusion: One can learn from there that min ha'Torah, there is no Malkos (for a Kohen who has relations with a Nochris), and the Chachamim therefore needed to issue a decree in order render him subject to Malkos (but not because of Zonah).

Implied Question: Our Sugya however, implies that the case of the Yerushalmi is Chayav because of 'Zonah' ...

Proof: ... since the Gemara cites it in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto, which tries to learn from it that the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon. And the Gemara there refuting the proof, states - That case is different, because, since he married her, he married her' and it cites Rav and Rebbi Yochanan, who forbid a Kohen to marry a Bogeres or a Mukas Eitz, yet if he did, they are married. To which the Gemara retorts 'That is all very well there, where the woman is anyway going to become a Be'ulah whilst she is married to him; But can we also say here by the same token that she is anyway going to become a Zonah whilst she is married to him?

Answer: We must therefore say that 'Zonah' is La'av Davka (is not to be taken literally).

Clarification (Part 1): The reason that the Tana does not list 'Molek' is because the Gemara in Perek ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh (Zevachim, 107a & 107b) extrapolates the P'tur of Molek from the Pasuk "asher Yishchat" - implying that one is Chayav for Shechitah, but not for Melikah. Whereas all those that are included in the list, the Gemara in the last Perek of Zevachim, 115a & 115b learns from the Pasuk "asher Ya'aleh ... , implying that one is only Chayav for an Avodah that concludes the overall Avodah - like Ha'ala'ah (burning on the Mizbe'ach).

Clarification (Part 2): Nor does the Tana list 'Holachah', since it is dispensable, by initially standing next to the Mizbe'ach and sprinkling.

Question: Why does the Tana not insert 'placing the oil and the wicks in the Menorah, which is followed by the Hadlakah, for which reason the Gemara in the second Perek of Yoma, 24a & 24b exempts a Zar (since there is an Avodah after them).

Clarification (Part 3): One cannot however, ask why the Beraisa omits Hadlakah itself, seeing as it is not considered an Avodah, as the Gemara sstates in Zevachim.

Query: He was not accurate ...

Proof #1: ... since both the Tenufah and the Hagashah (to the southwestern corner) precede the Melichah, as the Beraisa specifically states 'He performed the Tenufah, he did the Hagashah, he took the Kemitzah, he performed the Melichah and he did the Haktarah.

Proof #2: Moreover, the Gemara in ha'Kometz Rabah asks (with reference to 'Lo Malach') 'Do you really think that a Zar may approach the Mizbe'ach?' - and that is because the Melichah comes after the Tenufah and the Hagashah.