(Beraisa): "Lo Tenacheshu v'Lo Te'onenu" refers to people who look for or act according to omens of weasels, birds and fish.

(Mishnah): If one desecrates Shabbos by something that is Chayav Kares (for Mezid) and Chayav Korban b'Shogeg (if he was Mezid and warned, he is Chayav Misah).

(Gemara) Question: This implies that there is a desecration of Shabbos that is not Chayav Korban or Kares. What is it?

Answer #1: According to R. Akiva, the Torah forbids to leave the Techum (2000 Amos around the city) on Shabbos. This is not Chayav Korban or Kares;

Answer #2: According to R. Yosi, burning on Shabbos is only a Lav.

(Mishnah): One is liable for cursing his father and mother only if he curses with Hash-m's name;

R. Meir says, if he cursed with a Kinuy he is liable;

Chachamim say, he is exempt.

(Gemara) Question: Who are the Chachamim who exempt?

Answer: It is R. Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi.

(Beraisa - R. Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi) Question: What do we learn from "b'Nokvo Shem Yumas"?

Answer: One is liable for cursing a parent only if he used Hash-m's name.

(Beraisa): "Ish Ish" includes a daughter, Tumtum (one of unknown gender, his genitals are covered) and Androginus (one who has male and female genitals);

Question (R. Yoshiyah): "Asher Yekalel Es Aviv v'Es Imo" teaches only if he curses both. What is the source if he curses only one of them?

Answer (R. Yoshiyah): "Aviv v'Imo Kilel" - cursing is written next to the mother (as well as next to the father) to teach that he is liable even if he curses only one of them.

R. Yonason says, the 'Vov' in "Aviv v'Es Imo" connotes even one, unless the Torah explicitly says 'together' (like it does regarding Kilayim).

"Mos Yumas" - by stoning.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is a different Misas Beis Din!

Rejection: It says here "Damav Bo." It says regarding Ov and Yid'oni "Demeihem Bam." There (it explicitly says that) it means stoning, and the same applies here.

Question: This teaches the punishment. What Lav forbids this?

Answer: If his father was a judge, he transgresses "Elokim Lo Sekalel";

If his father was a Nasi (king), he transgresses "v'Nasi v'Amcha Lo Sa'or."

Question: If his father was neither a judge nor a Nasi, what is the source?

Answer #1: We learn from a Binyan Av (precedent) from both of them:

Each has its own stringency. We are commanded to follow rulings of a judge, but not of a Nasi;

We are commanded not to rebel against a Nasi, but not against a judge.

The Tzad ha'Shavah of (what is common to) them is that they act like someone of your nation, and we are commanded not to curse them. Likewise, one may not curse his father!

Objection: One may not curse a judge or a Nasi due to their greatness. This does not apply to one's father!

Answer #2: "Lo Sekalel Cheresh" - just like one may not curse a deaf-mute, also one's father.

Question: One may not curse him because he is deaf. This does not apply to one's father!

Answer: We learn from a Nasi and a judge that deafness is not the criteria.

Question: We cannot learn from a judge or a Nasi. Their greatness causes the Isur to curse them!

Answer: If we try to learn from a deaf-mute we are still forced to conclude that each has its own stringency. We learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of them. They act like one of your nation, and we are commanded not to curse them. The same applies to one's father.

Objection: We cannot learn from these, for each of them is special!

Answer #3: The Torah could have omitted Nasi or a judge (it could be learned from the other two), so we use it to teach about one's father.

Question: This is like the opinion that "Elokim Lo Sekalel" refers to a judge;

According to the opinion that it refers to Hash-m (and forbids blasphemy), how can we answer?

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "Elokim Lo Sekalel" refers to a judge;

R. Akiva says, it refers to Hash-m.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): "Elokim Lo Sekalel" forbids blasphemy.

Answer: We must say that R. Yishmael learns the Isur of blasphemy from cursing a judge (there is no other source);

Likewise, R. Akiva learns the Isur of cursing a judge from blasphemy!

Question: We understand R. Yishmael (the Torah calls a judge 'Elokim' to teach that it applies also to Hash-m). However, according to R. Akiva, perhaps there is no Isur to curse a judge!

Answer: If so, it should say 'Elokim Lo Sekal';

Rather, it says "Sekalel" to teach that it also forbids cursing a judge.

(Mishnah): One is not stoned for Bi'ah with a Na'arah Me'orasah, Ad (unless) she is a Na'arah (less than six months after becoming Bas Mitzvah), a virgin, Arusah, and in her father's house.

If two men had Bi'ah with her, the first is stoned, and the second is choked.

(Gemara - Beraisa): "Na'arah" excludes a Bogeres (more than six months after becoming Bas Mitzvah). "Besulah" excludes a non-virgin. "Me'orasah" excludes a Nesu'ah. "Beis Aviha" excludes one whose father's messengers handed her over to her husband's (to take her for Chupah).

(Rav Yehudah): Our Mishnah is like R. Meir, but Chachamim say that "Na'arah" includes a minor. (She must be at least three years old, for only then Bi'ah with her is considered Bi'ah.)

Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Perhaps the Mishnah is like Chachamim. 'Unless she is a Na'arah' excludes a Bogeres!

Answer (Ravina): It says 'Ad (until) she is a Na'arah...', to exclude a minor.

It should have said 'one is liable only for a Na'arah, a virgin, Arusah, and in her father's house;

This cannot be refuted,

Question (R. Yakov bar Ada): According to R. Meir, if one had Bi'ah with am Arusah minor, what is the law?

Does the Parashah totally exclude (Bi'ah with) a minor (he is exempt), or does it apply to a minor, except for stoning?

Answer (Rav): Presumably, it applies, except for stoning (he is choked).

Question: "U'Mesu Gam Shneihem" teaches that they must be alike (i.e. both are adults and are Chayav Misah. If not, neither is killed!)

Rav was silent.

Question (Shmuel): Rav should have answered "u'Mes ha'Ish Asher Shochav Imah Levado"!

Answer: Tana'im argue like Rav and Shmuel do.

(Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "U'Mesu Gam Shneihem" - only if they are alike;

R. Yonason says, "u'Mes ha'Ish... Levado" (if she is a minor).

Question: What does R. Yonason learn from "u'Mesu Gam Shneihem"?

Answer (Rava): This excludes acts of Chidudim (he touches the Ever to other parts of her body. She does not get much pleasure from this, surely she is exempt.) The verse teaches that (also) he is exempt.

R. Yoshiyah does not need a verse to teach this. Obviously, one is not liable for it.

Question: What does R. Yoshiyah learn from "u'Mes ha'Ish... Levado"?

Answer: He learns Rebbi's law.

(Beraisa): If 10 men had Bi'ah with a Na'arah Me'orasah, and she is still a virgin (e.g. they had abnormal Bi'ah), all are stoned;

Rebbi says, the first is stoned, and the others are choked.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): "U'Vas Ish Kohen Ki Sechel Liznos" - the beginning (this will be explained);

Similarly, it says "u'Mes ha'Ish Asher Shochav Imah Levado."

Question: What does Rebbi teach?

Answer #1 (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Rebbi holds like R. Yishmael, who says that an Arusah is burned, but a Nesu'ah is not;

"...Ki Sechel Liznos" teaches that if her first Bi'ah was adultery, she is burned. If she had Bi'ah before this, she is choked.

Question: How is this similar to "u'Mes..."?

Answer: Just like an Arusah is stoned only if (she was a virgin, and) her first Bi'ah was adultery, also a Bas Kohen is burned only if her first Bi'ah was adultery.

Answer #2 (Rav Bivi bar Abayem citing Rav Yosef): Rebbi holds like R. Meir, who says that (also a Nesu'ah is burned, but) if she married a Pasul (someone forbidden to marry a Bas Yisrael), she is choked for adultery.

"...Ki Sechel Liznos" teaches that if her first Chilul (profane ate) was adultery, she is burned. If not, she is choked.

Question: How is this similar to "u'Mes..."?

Answer: That verse gives a special law (stoning) for first Bi'ah (of a Na'arah Me'orasah). Similarly, our verse gives a special law (burning) for her first Chilul.