The definition of a ben Neichar Areil Leiv - is someone who worships idols (whose heart is uncircumcised [i.e. wicked] and who is estranged from Hash-m.

The Navi Yechezkel writes "Kol ben Neichar Areil Leiv ve'Areil Basar - Lo Yavo el Mikdashi" ..

... from which Rav Chisda learns that a Kohen Areil who does the Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash has transgressed only a La'v (but is not Chayav Misah).

And we extrapolate from the Pasuk in Emor "u'min ha'Mikdash Lo Yeitzei ve'Lo Yechalel es Mikdash Elokav" - that a Kohen Hedyot Onein (whose close relative has just died) who fails to leave the Beis-Hamikdash has also transgressed a La'v.

When Rav Ada asked Rava why we should not then go on to learn "Chilul" "Chilul" from Terumah that a Kohen Onan who serves should be Chayav Misah - he replied by citing the principle that one can only learn a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from what the Torah writes directly, but not from what is learned from an inference' (as is the case here).

And we learn from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "Ki bo Bachar Hash-m ... La'amod Le'shares" - that a Kohen transgresses a La'v if he performs the Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash sitting (though it is not clear why it is a La'v and not just an Asei).

He is not Chayav Misah because he is considered a Zar (like one who serves without the Bigdei Kehunah) - because Zar, Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim and Shesuyei Yayin are three Pesukim that come to teach us that, and we have a principle that we cannot learn from two or three Pesukim that come to teach us the same thing (see also Chidushei ha'Ran).

Rebbi learns from the Pasuk in Emor "Ach el ha'Paroches Lo Yavo ... ve'Lo Yechalel es Mikdashai" - (by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul") that a Ba'al-Mum is Chayav Misah.

Initially, we learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Terumah on the grounds that both of them are P'sul ha'Guf, which means - that it is the Kohen who is Pasul (as opposed to Nosar, where it is the object).

We refute that however, on the grounds - that there are more similarities between Nosar and a Ba'al-Mum (Kodesh, P'nim, Pigul ve'Nosar [in which case he ought to be Chayav Kareis, not just Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim]) than there are to Terumah.

So Rebbi finally learns Ba'al from Tamei she'Shimesh, which has all the advantages of Nosar and is also P'sul ha'Guf.

The Rabbanan learn from the word "Bo" (in the Pasuk in Emor in connection with Terumah ["u'Meisu Bo ki Yechaleluhu"]) - that Terumah is Chayav Misah, but not a Ba'al-Mum.

Rebbi learns that Heizid bi'Me'ilah is Chayav Misah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah.

And the Rabbanan's source for saying that this too, is only a La'v is - the same as that of Zar she'Shimesh ("u'Meisu Bo ki Yechaleluhu"), "Bo", 've'Lo bi'Me'ilah'.

Neverheless, they concede that Heizid bi'Me'ilah transgresses a La'v - because they agree with the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' in principle, and the Miy'ut of "Bo" is confined to Misah (the context in which it is written).

Rebbi Yishmael (alias the Chachamim in our Mishnah) learns that Zar she'Shimesh is Chayav Misah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yumas" ("ve'ha'Zar ha'Kareiv Yumas") "Yumas" ("Kol ha'Kareiv ha'Kareiv el Mishkan Hash-m Yamus", which is written - in Parshas Korach, following the 'death' of Korach's congregation).

Rebbi ...

... Akiva learns (that he is Chayav Sekilah) from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Navi ha'Hu ... Yumas" - because he prefers to learn "Yumas" from "Yumas" than from "Yamus".

... Yishmael on the other hand, prefers to learn from the congregation of Korach - who were also Hedyotos (ordinary people) than from a Navi she'Hidi'ach.

Rebbi Akiva counters - that a Navi who talks people into serving idols is in fact, a Hedyot.

The problem with the opinion of Rebbi Akiva is - that in our Mishnah, he learns that Zar she'Shimesh, is Chayav Chenek, like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the Beraisa?

We resolve the problem - by citing a Machlokes in this very point between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan, both according to Rebbi Akiva. The author of ...

... our Mishnah is - Rebbi Shimon.

... the Beraisa is - the Rabbanan.

What the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon have in common is - that they were all Rebbi Akiva's Talmidim.

Our Mishnah lists eight people who receive Chenek (strangulation): 'ha'Makeh Aviv ve'Imo, ve'Gonev Nefesh mi'Yisrael ve'Zaken Mamrei'. The ...

... meaning of 'Mamrei' is - a person who refuses or a rebel [like "Mamrim Heyisem im Hash-m" [Parshas Eikev]).

... definition of a 'Zakein Mamrei' is - an elder who refuses to accept a majority ruling of his local Beis-Din, and goes on to teach his own opinion an a specific issue (as will be explained later).

A Navi Sheker and one who prophesies in the name of Avodah-Zarah - are both subject to Chenek.

An adulterer and the Zomemin of a bas Kohen receive Chenek too, despite the fact that the bas Kohen herself is sentenced to Sereifah. This is - because the Torah writes in Ki Seitzei "Ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv" (from which we Darshen ''Le'Achiv", 've'Lo la'Achoso').

The last of the Nechenakin is - someone who is intimate with a bas Kohen who is married (and whom we just mentioned).

We learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Makeh Aviv ve'Imo Mos Yumas" that someone who strikes his parents is Chayav Chenek - by virtue of the principle 'that S'tam Misah in the Torah means 'Chenek'.

We initially learn from the fact that a murderer receives Sayaf, that Makeh Aviv ve'Imo is not speaking when he actually killed them - because it is not conceivable that someone receives a lighter punishment for killing his parents than for killing a stranger.

We refute this proof however - becuse according to Rebbi Shimon, Chenek is indeed more stringent than Hereg.

So we finally learn it from the Pasuk there "Makeh Ish va'Meis Mos Yumas", and the Pasuk in Mas'ei "O be'Eivah Hikahu va'Yamos" - which teach us that whenever the Torah refers to someone who is killed, it uses an expression of Misah (from which we can infer, that when it doesn't, it must be speaking where he did not kill his parents.

Despite having written ...

... "Makeh Ish ... ", the Torah needs to write there "Kol Makeh Nefesh ... ", to teach us that one is Chayav even for killing a Katan (even though he is not Chayav to keep the Mitzvos).

... "Kol Makeh Nefesh", the Torah needs to write "Makeh Ish" - to teach us that one is only Chayav for killing someone who is destined to live, but not if he killed a Nefel.

The definition of a 'Nefel' in this context is - an eighth month baby who was born alive, but who will not survive.

We then learn from the Pasuk in Emor ...

... "Makeh Adam ... Makeh Beheimah" - that 'Makeh Aviv ve'Imo' (like Makeh Beheimah) is only Chayav if he makes a wound.

... "Nefesh" - that one is only Chayav to pay the owner of the animal that one struck if he made a wound (since "Nefesh" implies blood).

Rebbi Yirmiyah rejects this D'rashah however, on the grounds - that 'Hikchishah ba'Avanim' (beating an animal until it becomes weak, without actually causing a wound) ought to then be Patur (which is highly illogical).

So we learn that Makeh Aviv ve'Imo is only Chayav if he makes a wound - 'Im Eino Inyan' from the Pasuk of Makeh Beheimah (which is not needed for itself, since Makeh Beheimah does not require a wound, as we just explained).

And from the Hekesh of Adam to Beheimah we learn Tana de'bei Chizkiyah (to exempt someone who kills a person from payment, even if he is Shogeg or Oneis ... just like one is Chayav to pay for wounding an animal whether he is Shogeg or Oneis ... (as we learned in the previous Perek).

According to those who do not hold of Tana de'bei Chizkiyah, Rav Dimi bar Chin'na learns from the Hekesh - that just as Makeh Beheimah is Patur if he is a vet attempting to cure the animal, so too, is a doctor who is trying to cure his father Patur, if in the process, he inadvertently wounds him.

Rav Masna resolves the She'eilah of whether a son is allowed to let his father's blood or not, from the word ''Kamocha" (in the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Ahavta le'Re'acha Kamocha") - which forbids a Yisrael to do to his people would he would not like done to him, to preclude curing him when he is ill (which is therefore permitted by a father too).

Rav - would not permit his son to remove a splinter from his body ...

... and Mar b'rei de'Ravina would not allow his son to squeeze the pus out of a boil, in case they inadvertently caused a wound in the process.

They were not afraid of the same thing happening by anyone other than a father (in spite of the fact that wounding him is also subject to two Lavin, "Lo Yosif" and "Pen Yosif") - because the Shogeg of a La'v is much less serious than that of Misah (which requires a Chatas).

We query the Mishnah in Shabbos, which permits picking up a small needle to remove a splinter - which surely ought to be forbidden, in case one inadvertently makes a wound (and Shabbos is a Chiyuv Sekilah).

We answer - that even if one did, it would only considered 'Kilkul' (destructive) for which one is not Chayav on Shabbos.

The Kashya remains however, according to those who hold Mekalkel ba'Chaburah Chayav. So we finally answer the Kashya by establishing the Mishnah according to Rebbi Shimon - who holds that one is Patur for an inadvertent act, because in his opinion 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah, Patur' (under which category an inadvertent wound falls).