Clarification: Rashi explains that the main reason (that Sekilah is the worst punishment) is because (it is given to someone who blasphemes Hash-m and to one who serves Avodah-Zarah, and) stretching out one's hand against Hash-m is the worst sin.

Proof: And this is also implied in Perek ha'Nisrafin (later on Daf 79b), where the Gemara comments 'If Sekilah was not the most stringent, then why is it given to someone who curses Hash-m and to someone who worships idols?'

Question: 'Let Sayaf prove otherwise, since it has been given to tthe inhabitants of an Ir ha'Nidachas, who stretched out their hand against Hash-m, yet Sereifah is more stringent than it, as is evident from our Sugya?

Answer: Sayaf (by Ir ha'Nidachas) has an additional stringency, in that their property is destroyed too, and the two combined punishments are equivalent to Sekilah.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara will shortly declare 'to the contrary, Sayaf must be more stringent than Sekilah, seeing as it is given to the members of Ir ha'Nidachas?' And, it concludes, the Chumra is the fact that their property is destroyed. This implies that the destruction of their property is the initial Chumra that results in a more stringent punishment (and not that the two combine to render this the strictest punishment?

Answer (Part 1): That speaks before we know that Sayaf on its own is a lighter punishment, where it is logical to say that since it already has the Chumra that their property is destroyed, it follows that their punishment is more stringent too.

Answer (Part 2): But once we conclude that Sayaf is a more lenient punishment, it makes more sense to say that they receive the more stringent punishment for stretching out their hand against Hash-m, due to the additional Chumra of their property being destroyed which combines with it.

Observation: It could equally have learned this from a 'Kal va'Chomer from Sereifah or from Sayaf, which are more stringent than Chenek (strangulation), and Sekilah is more stringent than them.

Precedent: In similar fashion to what the Gemara will say later according to R. Shimon.

Question #1: But Sekilah is also given to someone who curses his father and mother, whose honor (by the same token) is compared to that of Hash-m?

Question #2 (Part 1): Furthermore, is it because their honor is compared to that of Hash-m, that it should be more stringent than Kavod ha'Makom itself ...

Question #2 (Part 2): Since, in 'Keitzad ha'Regel' (Bava Kama, Daf 25a) the Gemara states 'Kal va'Chomer the Shechinah (that Miriam ought to be sent out of the camp for) fourteen days (from which we see that Kavod ha'Shechinah is more Chamur than Kibud Av va'Eim)?

Answer: The Gemara does not mean to say that it should be more stringent than Sekilah, but that, since their Kavod is compared to that of Hash-m, it should be as stringent as Sekilah, since it is compared to it.

Question (Part 1): Even though logically speaking, Sayaf is more stringent, the Gezeirah-Shavah overrides the logic.

Question (Part 2): In that case, earlier too, where we learned that Sekilah is more stringent than Sereifah because it is given to those who stretch out their hand against Hash-m, why does the Gezeirah-Shavah not come there too, and override the logic? Why do we not say there too, that, based on the Gezeirah-Shavah, the Torah takes both an Arusah and a Nesu'ah out of the K'lal of Sekilah into that of Sereifah; because just as "Avihah" that is written by Sekilah speaks about an Arusah, so too, does "Avihah" that is written by Sereifah speaks about an Arusah? (See Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Clarification: The reason that it is obvious to the Gemara that a Nesu'ah comes to be stringent, is the Gezeirah-Shavah that we cited earlier - 'Just as "Avihah" that is mentioned by Sekilah, Sekilah is more stringent than Chenek, so too, "Avihah" that is mentioned by Sereifah, Sereifah is more stringent tham Chenek'.

Question: In that case, why does the Torah need to write "Liz'nos", seeing as it cannot be speaking about Chilul Shabbos, due to the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Avihah" "Avihah"?

Answer: We would nevertheless not have excluded Chilul Shabbos, since we would have established the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' to preclude a Penuyah (who is unmarried), and since the Torah inserts the words "ki Seichel" (who defiles herself), we would have thought that it is also speaking about Chilul Shabbos (see Maharam).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this Tana doesn't hold of the D'rashah 'If they previously treated him with sanctity, they now treated him with profanity'.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, he does, and the Torah ought to have simply written "she is defiled, without mentioning her father.

Proof for Explanation #1 (Part 1): The Sugya later however (on the following Amud), implies that he doesn't ...

Proof for Explanation #1 (Part 2): ... when Rav Ashi says there 'Like whom do we call even a Rasha the son of a Tzadik 'Rasha bar Rasha'? Like that Tana ... ', implying that R. Akiva and R.Shimon, who argue with R. Yishmael, don't hold of that S'vara!

Question: But the Gemara said earlier according to R. Shimon 'What is his Chumra?' In that she desecrates her father.

Answer (Part 1): We therefore need to say that in fact, everyone agrees with this D'rashah, since a Pasuk never leaves its simple explanation.

Answer (Part 2): ... and the Gemara says 'like this Tana' only because he mentioned it explicitly.

Clarification: Rashi explains that he Darshens from the extra 'Vav', and that he holds like R. Akiva, who Darshens like this later on.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Seifa then asks from where we know that the same applies if she is married to a Kuti, a Chalal, a Nasin, or a Mamzer - implying that Kidushin is effective on Chayvei La'avin, even though R. Akiva (in Yevamos, 69a) holds 'Ein Kidushin Tofsin be'Chayvei La'avin'?

Answer: That is only with regards to Chayvei La'avin that are blood-relatives, but not to other Chayvei La'avin.

Question: And when the Gemara shortly establishes the Beraisa like R. Elazar, who holds 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah, As'ah Zonah', even though we have learned (there) that R. Akiva disagrees with R. Elazar ...

Answer #1: ... he nevertheless concedes that she becomes a Zonah after many Bi'os.

Answer #2: Alternatively, this Beraisa goes entirely like Rebbi Shimon, as we will establish it shortly; and he holds, on the one hand like Rebbi Elazar regarding a Panuy (who is not married) who is intimate with a Penuyah, whilst on the other, he holds like Rebbi Akiva, who Darshens the extra 'Vav'.

Question: Nevertheless, we are forced to query R. Akiva himself, who will say shortly that 'We may have thought that we should include even a Penuyah ... ", but does the Torah not write "Liz'nos"?

Answer: We must therefore say that he holds like R. Elazar.