Question: Here we compare a convert to a captive. If so, he should question the Mishnah itself, for R. Yehudah does not equate a convert to a captive!

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If a captive was redeemed, she retains her Kedushah (Chezkas Heter to Kehunah).

Inference: Regarding the others (a convert and freed Shifchah), R. Yehudah agrees to the first Tana [that they have no fine]!

Answer (Ri): The Mishnah is fine. He agrees that a convert has no fine, for surely she has Chezkas Be'ulah. She had Bi'ah before she intended to convert;

And even if she intended to convert from three years and one day, she did not guard herself, for she cannot become pregnant.

However, from this [Beraisa in which R. Yehudah says] that she must wait three months, even though she intended to convert, and guards herself...

Even so, he says he that she must wait three months, for she cannot guard herself from Nochrim. All the more so, a captive, who is given into their hands [must wait]!

Explanation (Rashi): Since 24 hours of retroactive Tum'ah do not apply (she was a Nochris, whose blood is not Tamei), also from her last Bedikah, Chachamim did not decree (she has no retroactive Tum'ah at all);

R. Yosi, who says that she is retroactively Teme'ah for 24 hours, he does not literally mean 24 hours. Rather, the law of 24 hours (i.e. retroactive Tum'ah) applies to her from when she converted.

Question: We discuss also a minor, who does not guard herself, for she does not know to guard herself, and R. Yehudah says that she retains her Kedushah!

He taught in our Mishnah "above three years and a day." (Surely, such a young girl does not know to guard herself!)

Answer: A very young girl does not submit to Bi'ah. When she does submit, she has a little Da'as (understanding), and knows to guard herself.

Inference: Even a minor, who is not proper to become pregnant, R. Yehudah requires her to wait, since it says "above three years and a day." He decrees a minor due to an adult.

Question (Ri, R. Tam - Yevamos 42b - Beraisa: If [a married woman] was Redufah or a minor... R. Meir obligates her to wait three months;

Citation (cont.): R. Yehudah permits to become Mekudeshes or married immediately.

Inference: R. Yehudah does not decree a minor due to an adult!

Suggestion: He decrees more about a convert, freed Shifchah and captive, in order to distinguish between a baby conceived in Kedushah from one conceived not in Kedushah.

Rejection #1: According to Rava, who explains there before this the reason to wait, that it is a decree lest one marry his paternal sister or do Yibum with the wife of his maternal sister...

... There is more reason to decree about a minor Bas Yisrael, to whom apply all of these concerns explained there;

However, regarding a convert, captive or freed Shifchah, concern lest he marry his paternal sister does not apply.

Rejection #2: Shmuel holds oppositely to R. Yehudah!

Shmuel said (Yevamos 34b) that all of them must wait three months, except for a minor convert or freed Shifchah. However, a minor Bas Yisrael must wait three months.

Inference: Regarding a minor Bas Yisrael, he decrees about a minor due to an adult, but regarding a convert and freed Shifchah, he does not decree. This is opposite to R. Yehudah!

Rejection #3: According to Shmuel, granted, regarding a minor Bas Yisrael, he holds like R. Meir. However, regarding a convert, like whom does he hold? He is unlike R. Yehudah, and unlike R. Yosi!

R. Yehudah holds that both a minor and adult [convert] must wait. According to R. Yosi, even an adult need not wait!

Defense #1 (from Rejections #2,3 - Maharsha): However, based on what we establish [the Beraisa] here to be when we saw that she had Bi'ah, he can hold like R. Yehudah;

We can say that only when we saw that she had Bi'ah, R. Yehudah decrees about a minor due to an adult, but not for one who is not Vadai Be'ulah.

Defense #2: Based on the latter version there, it is not difficult at all, even though Shmuel holds oppositely from R. Yehudah (Maharam Shif - Shmuel decrees a married minor due to an adult, and R. Yehudah does not, in the Beraisa of Redufah. They hold oppositely about a convert! Shmuel permits even an adult, and R. Yehudah forbids even a minor.)

This is because the reason is not because we decree a minor due to an adult. Even an adult [convert] is permitted [according to Shmuel], because she turns over! (Maharam Shif -also according to Defense #2, Rejection #1 stands. The Ri answers even Rejection #1.)

Answer (Ri): In Yevamos (35a) we bring the Beraisa brought here. There, it does not say "above three years and a day." Also in the Tosefta, these words are not in the text.

Based on this, it is fine. We discuss an adult, but [R. Yehudah] agrees that a minor need not wait, like it says in the Beraisa of Redufah.

Shmuel holds like R. Yehudah regarding a convert, and like R. Meir regarding a Bas Yisrael. Perhaps R. Meir agrees that a minor convert need not wait.

According to the latter version there, in which Shmuel said that all must wait, except for an adult convert or freed slave...

[Also] a minor Bas Yisrael need not wait after Zenus, because Zenus of a minor is not common;

However, regarding Nisu'in he decrees about a minor due to an adult. Regarding a convert he holds like R. Yosi, and regarding a Bas Yisrael he holds like R. Meir, who decrees about a minor due to an adult. He holds that R. Meir decrees only about Nisu'in;

Perhaps regarding Nisu'in R. Yosi agrees with R. Meir. However, he surely argues about Zenus, for he permits one who raped or enticed, even an adult.

Alternate text: Some texts, in the Beraisa of Redufah, say "R. Yosi" in place of R. Yehudah. We explained there.

Question (Ri): It connotes that because we established this when we saw that she had Bi'ah, it is difficult what is R. Yosi's reason;

Even without this he should question the Beraisa of R. Yosi brought below of a raped or enticed woman!

The Sugya connotes that this Makshan himself brought [the Beraisa below].

Alternate text: Some texts say below "Abaye said to him 'granted, a convert, since she intends to convert...'"

According to this text, it is fine. This Makshan (who said 'if so, what is R. Yosi's reason?') did not know the Beraisa below. Abaye brought it!

Support: This is the text in Yevamos (35a).

Explanation: He (Rabah) answers according to R. Yochanan (36b, who says that R. Yehudah holds that a Shevuyah retains her Kedushah);

He himself (Rabah) explains [there] that R. Yehudah's reason is lest a sinner profit, so it is not difficult at all.

Disclaimer: However, Rabah only said perhaps [this is his reason].

Explanation: Now, one who was raped or enticed is not difficult;

However, one who leaves due to her tooth or eye (her master knocked it out), R. Yehudah agrees that she must wait. Why would she turn over?! (She did not expect to be freed.)

Explanation: Based on how we establish our Mishnah in Sanhedrin (73b) to discuss a Mefutah, we must establish this when he had Bi'ah with her and she became a Bogeres, like I explained above (29a DH v'Al. If she were still a Na'arah, even without Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei, he would be exempt, for he receives the fine for Bi'ah with her.)

Implied question: It could have taught Eshes Aviv and one's daughter-in-law, for it teaches also Arayos through Kidushin!

Answer: The Tana omitted cases.

Explanation: Above (35a DH Rava), I explained why he does not learn from "Rasha-Rasha." (Since the verse says Rasha regarding lashes, Rasha-Rasha teaches only about the lashes themselves.)

Question: In Bava Kama (83b), we ask "we need the verse "v'Lo Sikchu Chofer" to teach that we do not take money from him and kill him, and answered that we learn this from Kedei Rish'aso;

We should have said that we learn this from "Lo Yihyeh Ason." We use Kedei Rish'aso for lashes and money!

Answer: There, we erred just like we erred here initially to say that we learn Misah and money from Kedei Rish'aso.

Implied question: Why didn't we ask that this is written regarding lashes and money?

Answer #1: We were not particular to ask this, because we could have answered that we learn from Lo Yihyeh Ason.

Answer #2: The Gemara there said for a mere Siman [that we do not give two punishments, but not that this verse is the source].

Explanation: Rabanan learn lashes and money, and also Misah and lashes, from Kedei Rish'aso, which connotes that if one was obligated, together with lashes, Misah or money, you obligate him for only one.

Implied question: It says [adjacent to this verse] "Arba'im Yakenu Lo Yosif"! (When he is obligated Misah and lashes, we should say that he is lashed.)

Answer: We should not say that he is lashed and does not die, just like he is lashed and does not pay, for then he profits! (Had he been liable only Misah, he would have died.) We ask like this in Sanhedrin (81a).

Question: Regarding money and lashes, we say that he pays money, even if this is more lenient!

Answer: That is because the Torah has mercy on the one who was wounded.

Question (Rashba): Why do we need a verse? We learn from Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah. We do not distinguish between Shogeg and Mezid!

Just like for Mezid, we do not take money from him and exempt him from death, also for Shogeg, we do not take money from him and exempt him from Galus!

Answer (Ri): We cannot equate Shogeg and Mezid in such a case, since the redemption of both of them is not the same;

The redemption of Mezid would exempt him from death, and the exempt of Shogeg would exempt him from Galus.

Explanation (Rashi, on the Torah): In his Perush on the Torah, Rashi brought this Drashah from "v'Atah Teva'er ha'Dam ha'Naki."

Objection: He did not look here! (We learn from "Ki Im b'Dam Shofcho.")

Defense: However, we can defend his Perush. Our Sugya, which establishes v'Atah Teva'er to equate murderers to Eglah Arufah (they are killed the same way), is like the opinion that choking is more stringent [than the sword];

It is proven from Sanhedrin (52b) that according to the opinion that choking is more lenient, we learn that a murderer is killed through a sword from Nakom Yinakem;

Therefore, according to him, v'Atah Teva'er is extra, to teach about when the calf was beheaded, and afterwards they found the murderer;

We expound "vela'Aretz Lo Yechupar" to teach like Rava, in Kerisus 26a, that we kill Eglah Arufah even if Yom Kipur passed [after the murdered body was found].

Question: What is the source [to behead the calf] mi'Mul Arpo (in line with the back of the neck)? It says "v'Arfu", which connotes the Oref itself (opposite the face)!

Answer: In Sotah (46b), we learn [from a Gezeirah Shavah] "Arifah-Arifah" from Chatas ha'Of (Melikah is done Mul Arpo).

Observation: We could have said "this is fine for the opinion that choking is more stringent. However, according to the opinion that choking is more lenient [how can we answer? Above (DH v'Achar Kach), Tosfos said that the latter opinion learns from v'Atah Teva'er that we kill a murderer even if he was found after the calf was beheaded, but not how we kill him.]

Observation: This reason would not teach that we kill from the neck. If we would insert the knife in his heart, this would be a nice death (he would die quickly).

Explanation: It says "v'Gam Ba'alav Yumas." You are forced to say that this is not b'Yedei Adam;

Proof: It says "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh Rotze'ach Hu" - you kill him for his murder (but not because his animal killed)! Rather, surely it is b'Yedei Shamayim

Implied question: In Sanhedrin (15a), we expound from this that we execute an ox the same way we execute his owner (a person)!

Answer: This is because it is written "Yumas" (he will be killed), and not Yamus" (he will die).

Suggestion: The entire version comes for this (latter) Drashah!

Answer: If so, it should have written "the ox will be stoned like the owner", and no more, or 'v'Gam k'Ba'alav Yumas';

Therefore (since it wrote "v'Gam Ba'alav Yumas"), we learn both from it.

Question: How did we think to learn Misah b'Yedei Adam from Misah b'Yedei Shamayim?!

Answer (Maharam): Since a Hekesh equates death of the ox to death of the owner, we equate also death of the owner b'Yedei Adam to death of the owner due to an ox.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Idolatry, Shabbos and Arayos [are lenient], because there is a Kaparah through a Korban for one who transgressed b'Shogeg;

Also murder [is lenient], for there is Kaparah through Galus.

Question: If so, in the conclusion, why do we need "Cherem", "Kol Cherem" and "v'Lo Sikchu Chofer", i.e. three verses?

It should suffice "v'Lo Sikchu Chofer" and "Cherem." One teaches [one who killed] through ascent, and one teaches [one who killed] through descent, for which there is Kaparah for Shigegaso, so it is a light Misah, according to Rashi!

Explanation #2: Rather, light Misos are only those for which there is Kaparah through money or a Korban.

The Kaparah for a Shogeg murderer is not through money, rather, through Galus [so it is not considered a light Misah].

Explanation #2 (cont.): The means as follows. I would know only severe Misos, for which there is no Kaparah for Shigegasan through a Korban...

I.e. those without Kares, e.g. enticing an individual or city to do idolatry, a false prophet, Zaken Mamrei, wounding a parent or cursing a parent, kidnapping...

And Megadef (blasphemy), according to Rabanan, who say in Kerisus (3b) that he does not bring a Korban for Shogeg, for it says "la'Oseh bi'Shgagah", to exclude Megadef, who does not do an action, and Rotze'ach (are severe);

Light Misos are such as idolatry, Shabbos and Arayos, which have Kares, and one brings a Korban for Shigegasan.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Gemara asks "we learn this automatically, from v'Lo Sikchu Chofer. From there we learn all severe Misos. Why do we need a [second] verse for severe Misos?

However, surely we need a verse for light Misos.

The Gemara answers that we need two verses for severe Misos. One teaches [one who killed] through ascent, for which there is no Kaparah for Shigegaso at all [and similarly all Misos without any Kaparah, e.g. enticing...], and one teaches about descent, for which there is Kaparah through Galus.

Question (Rashba): Why do we need a verse for light Misos such as idolatry, Shabbos and Arayos?

How does Kofer apply to them, according to the opinion [that when a Mu'ad ox kills a person, the owner pays] the value of the victim?

Answer: R. Yishmael, the son of R. Yochanan ben Brokah (who taught our Beraisa) teaches like he taught elsewhere (Bava Kama 40a), that Kofer is the value of the [owner of] the damager.