Clarification: The murderers who came to live there, had to pay the various taxes to the Levi'im; that one should not think that the Levi'im were obligated to put them up in their cities (free of charge).

Clarification: The murderers were exempt from paying anything to the Levi'im.

Clarification: It seems that it is specifically according to R. Meir that the Gezeirah-Shavah is necessary, since R. Yehudah learns his ruling by Rotze'ach from a Pasuk (see Maharam).

Extension: ... and by the same token, the Beraisa's statement 've'Chein ba'Golah' too, goes according to R. Meir.

Explanation #1: The Tana omits a Zar who serves in the Beis-Hamikdash, a Tamei who serves, a Zar who eats Terumah, a blemished Kohen who serves, an Onein who brings a Korban, someone who moves the Choshen from the Eifod, and someone who extinguishes a coal from on the Mizbe'ach - because he only mentions cases where there is a Chidush.

Explanation #2: And he inserts Chayvei Kerisus which are not subject to Miysos Beis-Din, to teach us that, even though they are subject to Kareis, they receive Malkos. Nor is it necessary to look for any other Chidush in all those cases.

Rashi Disagrees: Rashi however, does push to find a reason even for them.

The Reason for 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol': The reason that the Tana mentions 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol' is because he wants to add the Halachah that for marrying an Almanah who is also a Gerushah, a Kohen Gadol is Chayav two Malkos.

Rashi's Explanation: Rashi explains that he is Chayav because of Gerushah, seeing as we learn Chalutzah from the 'Vav' of "ve'Ishah Gerushah ... ", implying that a Chalutzah is subject to Malkos d'Oraysa.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because the Gemara in Kidushin specifically clarifies Chalutzah as de'Rabbanan.

Alternative Explanation #1: And the reason the Tana mentions Chalutzah (who is never subject to Malkos) is either because of Gerushah, who is ...

Alternative Explanation #2: ... or because a Chalutzah is subject to Makas Mardus (de'Rabbanan). Only since he receives Malkos d'Oraysa for Gerushah, he is exempt from Makas Mardus.

Rashi's Explanation: Chayvei Kerisus were included in all Arayos, as the Torah writes " ... and all the souls will be cut-off"; So why does the Torah then need to mention Kareis specifically with regard to 'Achoso', when it writes "ve'Ish ki Yikach es Achosah ... ve'Nichr'su"?

Question: According to Rashi, the Gemara ought to have said that "Achoso" was included in all the Arayos (rather than all Chayvei Kerisus)?

Alternative Explanation: What the Gemara therefore means is that Chayvei Kerisus were included in Malkos, seeing as we learn that every La'av is subject to Malkos from "Ve'hayah Im Bim Hakos ha'Rasha". In that case, why did the Torah need to mention Kareis by 'Achoso' (in Kedoshim), which is written together with all the other Arayos in Acharei-Mos, when the Torah writes "ve'Nichr'su ha'Nafashos"?

Conclusion: And that is why the Torah mentions Kareis in Kedoshim, to teach us that 'Achoso' (with reference to all Chayvei Kerisos) is Chayav Kareis and not Malkos (according to R. Yitzchak).

Question: According to R. Yitzchak, why does the Torah need to insert a La'av for Chayvei Kerisus, bearing in mind the Gemara conclusion that a Korban does not require a warning?

Answer: Perhaps it comes for an extra punishment, just like the La'avin that are written by 'La'av she'bi'Chelalos' and by 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei', even though they are also not subject to Malkos.

Clarification: Granted, if someone who is Chayav Misah does Teshuvah, Beis-Din are not empowered to pardon him, nevertheless, why should he not receive both punishments (Misah and Malkos)?

Clarification: R. Akiva's reason is based on the Pasuk "K'dei Rish'aso". Consequently, Chayvei Miysos who did not receive a warning for Misah, only for Malkos, by whom there is indeed only one 'Rish'ah', will indeed receive Malkos.

Question: The Gemara in Shabbos asks that the La'av of Mechamer ought not to be subject to Malkos, because it is a 'La'av she'Nitan le'Azharas Miysas Beis-Din', even though there is no 'Rish'ah' ofMisah there?

Answer: The Gemara there goes according to Rava, who establishes R. Akiva whenever the person is warned for Malkos, who nevertheless does not receive Malkos because it is a 'La'av she'Nitan le'Azharas Miysas Beis-Din'.

Clarification: To preclude these (Pesach & Milah), which are Mitzvos Asei.

Kashya from the Gemara in Eruvin: We now query the Kashya of the Gemara in Eruvin, 96a, on R. Avin, who says that "Hishamer" is always a Lo Sa'aseh

The Question (cont.): On what grounds does the Gemara then ask why, according to R. Akiva, who maintains that the Pasuk "ve'Shamarta es ha'Chukah ... " pertains to the Korban Pesach, the Mishnah then says 'Pesach Ein Lo Korban, Mipnei she'Hu Mitzvas Asei', seeing as, according to R. Avin, the word "Hishamer" is written by the Korban Pesach, and it is a Lo Sa'aseh as well? In any event it is different than Avodas-Kochavim (as our Sugya explains), since, unlike Avodas-Kochavim, which one transgresses be'Kum va'Asei (by doing something), one transgresses Pesach 'be'Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh (by not doing something)?

Answer: The basic Kashya there is why the Mishnah uses the Lashon 'Kum va'Asei' with regard to Korban Pesach, implying that there is no La'av at all (when according to R. Avin, there is!)

Question: Granted that a Korban does not requires an Azharah, asks R. Shlomoh from 'Droyes'; Nevertheless, seeing as we do need the La'av to divide them regarding Korban, they ought not to receive Malkos be'Meizid (just as we say here that if a Korban would require an Azharah, then there would be no Malkos for Chayvei Kareis?

Answer: The fact is that we know the Chiyuv Korban without the La'av. Consequently, the fact that we need the La'av to divide with regard to Korban, will not deter us from learning Malkos too, from it.

Clarification: Pesach and Milah, which are positive Mitzvos.

Question: Why do we need a Hekesh (to Avodas-Kochavim) to preclude Pesach and Milah (from a Korban)? Why not learn it from the Toras Kohanim, which based on the Pasuk "ve'Asah Achas", to precludes Meisis and Madi'ach (someone who talks an individual or an entire town into serving Avodah-Zarah), Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo, and Eidim Zomemin (all of whom did not perform an act) from binging a Korban? The same should apply to Pesach and Milah, both of which do not entail an act either?

Answer: Perhaps one can answer that we nevertheless require the Hekesh to Avodas-Kochavim, on account of another D'rashah cited by the Toras Kohanim, which precludes Meisis and Madi'ach from a Korban, because, unlike Avodas-Kochavim, they are not subject to Kareis - which Pesach and Milah are, in which case we would have thought that they are Chayav a Korban.

Question: Regarding Milah however, the question reemains, seeing as, in any event, it is not comparable to Avodas-Kochavim, inasmuch as (unlike the latter, which is subject to Kareis immediately), Kareis hangs in abeyance until he dies, seeing as one always has the opportunity to become Patur from Kareis by performing the Milah during one's life-time?

Answer: The fact is that as long as one has not done so, one remains Chayav Kareis.