1)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses a Yesomah (an orphan girl) who was betrothed and then divorced. Rebbi Elazar obligates someone who rapes her to pay Kenas, but exempts someone who seduces her ...

(b)... because she has obviously foregone the claim (and her father is no longer alive to claim it).

(c)The problem with the Mishnah the way it stands is - that it is obvious (and therefore superfluous).

2)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore establishes Rebbi Elazar like his Rebbi Akiva (in the previous Mishnah), who rules that the Kenas of a girl who was divorced after having been betrothed, like that of a Yesomah, goes to her (and not to her father).

(b)We therefore amend Rebbi Elazar's statement to a case where the father is still alive, only, because his daughter was already betrothed and then divorced, she is considered a 'Yesomah b'Chayei ha'Av'.

(c)And he is coming o teach us that, even though her father is alive, he has no right to the Kenas, and that since she has no right to it either (as we explained), the seducer is Patur.

3)

(a)Rav, who is quoted as saying that the Halachah is like Rebbi Elazar, also described him as 'Tuvina d'Chakimi' - meaning the most praiseworthy of the Chachamim (because Yonasan translates "Ashrei" as "Tuva'i").

(b)The Amora (Rebbi Yochanan's disciple, known as 'the Master of Eretz Yisrael'), is Rebbi Elazar ben Pedas. The full name of the Tana currently under discussion - is Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua.

4)

(a)Boshes is not fixed, but depends on the status of both the person who is being shamed and who is doing the shaming. Beis Din form the scale with regard to ...

1. ... the person who was doing the shaming - by assessing the shaming of an ordinary person higher than both that of a person of low status and of a person of high standing.

2. ... the person being shamed - the more important he is, the greater the shame.

(b)They would view the girl who was being shamed - as if she was a slave-girl being sold on the market (the difference between her initial value and her current value - this will be explained later in the Sugya).

(c)Kenas is equal in all cases. The principle that governs this statement is - that whenever the Torah specifies a standard payment, that payment cuts right across the board.

5)

(a)Rebbi Zeira explains that the fifty Shekalim Kenas cannot incorporate Boshes and Pegam, because it is not feasible for the Torah not to make a distinction between a princess who was raped and a girl of low status. Abaye queries Rebbi Zeira's proof from the Din of an ox that killed an Eved - where the owner has to pay thirty Shekalim irrespective of whether the Eved is a diamond-cutter or a tailor (and there is no Boshes or Pegam there).

(b)Consequently, he asks - it may well be that when it comes to cases of Kenas, the Torah makes no distinction between people of different classes.

6)

(a)So we scrap the contention that status should make any difference, and Rebbi Zeira's proof (that Boshes and Pegam must be an independent obligation, and not part of the Kenas) is from a case of two people, one of whom raped a girl naturally and the other, unnaturally - but in the reverse order (the latter one, first otherwise she would no longer be considered a Besulah). Now if Boshes and Pegam were included in Kenas, argues Rebbi Zeira, how could the Torah not differentiate between a complete Besulah and one whose Besulim has been defected?!

(b)Abaye counters this proof as well - by pointing out that in the case of an ox that gores an Eved too, the owner has to pay thirty Shekalim, irrespective of whether the Eved is healthy or sick.

(c)So Abaye himself proves the point from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Tachas Asher Inah" - implying that the fifty Shekalim is payment for the affliction of the Bi'ah, but that there are other payments that he is obligated to make.

7)

(a)Rava learns it from the Pasuk "v'Nasan ha'Ish ha'Shochev Imah la'Avi ha'Na'arah Chamishim Kesef" - which implies that the fifty Shekalim is payment for the Bi'ah only, but that there are other payments that must be made.

(b)We try to prove that the Boshes and the Pegam go to the father, from the Pasuk in Matos (written in connection with Nedarim) "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - by Darshening 'Kol Sh'vach Ne'urim l'Avihah' (all benefits that come to a Na'arah go to her father).

(c)Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "v'Chi Yimkor Ish es Bito l'Amah" - that the proceeds for the sale of a man's daughter belongs to the father, just like the work of a servant-girl belong to her master.

(d)Rav Huna's Derashah disproves the Derashah that we just made from the Pasuk "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - because if that Derashah was genuine, then why would Rav Huna need a special Pasuk for the proceeds of the sale of a man's daughter? Why not learn that too, from "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah"?

8)

(a)We cannot learn that Boshes and Pegam belong to the girl's father from ...

1. ... "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - because that Pasuk is written in connection with Nedarim, and we cannot learn Mamon from Isur.

2. ... Kenas, which as we see, also goes to the father - because neither can we learn Mamon from Kenas (which is a Chidush).

(b)So in fact - we learn that Boshes and Pegam belong to the father (and not to the girl herself) from a Sevara, from the fact that the father has the right to shame her and to cause her to become defected, by giving her to an ugly man or to a leper.

9)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that we reckon Pegam by detracting the girl's sale-value after the rape from her value before it. This cannot be referring to her value as a slave - because the fact that she was raped would not affect her value as a slave by one iota.

(b)We initially object to the suggestion that it is referring to her value as a 'wife' for the owner's slave - because why would a master care about making his slave satisfied?

(c)We conclude - that it is indeed referring to her value as a 'wife' for the owner's slave, a slave whom he wishes to repay for giving him a lot of Nachas.

10)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes as the author of our Mishnah, which states that a girl who can be sold is not subject to Kenas and vice-versa - Rebbi Meir, who holds that a Ketanah is not subject to Kenas.

(b)The Chachamim say - that a Ketanah is subject to Kenas.

(c)She can neither be sold nor is she subject to Kenas - the moment she becomes a Bogeres.

11)

(a)According to Rav Chisda, Rebbi Meir learns his opinion from the Pasuk "v'Lo Siheyeh l'Ishah" - implying a girl who is able to become his wife (which a Ketanah is not).

(b)The Rabanan, says Resh Lakish, learn their opinion from the word Na'arah itself - because it is written without a 'Hey' (implying even a Ketanah).

12)

(a)When Rav Papa b'rei d'Rav Chanan from bei Keluchis told this to Rav Shimi bar Ashi, he claimed to have heard Resh Lakish's statement in connection with the Pasuk on Motzi Shem Ra "v'Nasnu la'Avi ha'Na'arah ... ", where he said - that, since the Torah wrote "Na'arah" with a 'Hey', it is referring specifically to a Na'arah (and not to a Ketanah).

(b)We cannot extrapolate from Resh Lakish's statement that, had the Torah not written Na'arah with a 'Hey', we would have extended the Din of Motzi Shem Ra to a Ketanah - because the Torah writes there that, if the husband's accusation is verified, the girl must be stoned (and a Ketanah is not subject to any punishment at all).

(c)What we do extrapolate from it however - is that in places where the Torah writes "Na'arah" without a 'Hey', it comes to include a Ketanah (which Resh Lakish in the first Lashon learned from "Na'arah" of Kenas).