Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that it means "close to Pirkan (their time) of completing [the fast] mid'Rabanan"?

Answer: "Close to Pirkan" connotes adulthood, i.e. 12 years and one day for a girl, and 13 years and one day for a boy.

Opinion #1 (Rashi): The text does not say Tehareg (feminine), because she is not obligated to be Moser Nefesh, for she is Karka Olam (totally passive in Bi'ah).

Support #1: This explains why in Sanhedrin (74b) the Gemara asked "Esther was in public!" (why wasn't she Moser Nefesh?), but did not ask "for Giluy Arayos, Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor, even in private";

If the text does not say Tehareg, this is good. The Makshan did not ask, because he knew that Karka Olam helps [exempt from Mesiras Nefesh] for Giluy Arayos;

However, regarding in public, which is due to Chilul Hash-m, he did not think that it would help. This is why he asked "Esther was in public!"

The Gemara answered that even regarding [Chilul Hash-m] in public, she was Karka Olam, and this helps.

Support #2: Since she does not do an action, she need not submit to be killed. We learn from Rotze'ach, and regarding murder itself, one must be killed because "who says that your blood is redder (that you are more worthy to live)..."

This applies only when he does an action. If he does not do an action, e.g. others want to throw him on a baby to kill the baby, and if he will prevent them, they will kill him, and all such cases, he should not [submit to] be killed;

Just the contrary! He can say "who says that his (the baby's) blood is redder? Perhaps my blood is redder!"

Support #3: The verse equates [to Na'arah Me'orasah] a murderer who overtly kills - "ka'Asher Yakum Ish Al Re'ehu u'Rtzacho Nefesh."

Implied question: Rava (Sanhedrin 74b) disagrees with the answer Karka Olam, and answers that "their own Hana'ah is different."

Explanation: When they coerce someone to transgress a matter from which the coercer benefits, there is no Chilul Hash-m. (According to Rava, we should have asked that for Giluy Arayos, Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor, even in private!)

Answer #1: Rava argues only about in public, that Karka Olam does not help for it. He agrees that Karka Olam helps for Giluy Arayos.

Answer #2: Rava does not argue even about in public. He merely gives a second reason.

Rejection #1 (of Support #1): Some say that the Gemara did not ask that Esther was [obligated to be Moser Nefesh for] Giluy Arayos because she did not benefit from the Aveirah;

Achashverosh cast filth into her, like we answer for Ya'el in Nazir (23b) and Yevamos (103b);

The Gemara asked that Ya'el benefited from the Aveirah (Bi'ah with Sisera). This opinion explains the question "since she benefited, she should have submitted to death, due to Giluy Arayos." It answered that the good that Resha'im do is bad for Tzadikim.

Rebuttal #1 (of Rejection #1): Lack of benefit is no exemption from Mesiras Nefesh. The Isur of Ervah is even without Hana'ah!

Even though we say (Bava Kama 32a) "v'Nichresu ha'Nefashos ha'Osos" - [both receive Kares because] both of them get Hana'ah, one is liable even without Hana'ah, e.g. Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah, even though it is called Inuy (affliction, for her).

Rebuttal #2: It is impossible that she does not get [at least] a little Hana'ah.

Rebuttal #3: If she intended to save herself, why does the verse praise her (she will be blessed like the Imahos)? She did so for herself!

Rebuttal #4: Obviously, Sisera did not want to kill her. He was fleeing for his life. Just the contrary, he needed her to hide him, so the pursuers would not find him!

She enticed him with words, until he had Bi'ah with her, in order to weaken him, like is clear [in the Navi].

Opinion #2 (Tosfos): Rather, [the Gemara asked about Ya'el] because we said before this 'an Aveirah Lishmah (l'Shem Shamayim) is greater than a Mitzvah Lo Lishmah, for it says "mi'Nashim b'Ohel Tevurach."

The "women in the tent" are Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Leah. I.e. the Imahos intended to be built (have children) from their husbands.

Citation (Nazir 23b) Question: Why is she praised more than the women in the tent? She benefited from an Aveirah!

Citation (cont.) Answer: It was not such Hana'ah, for the pain exceeded the Hana'ah, since the good that Resha'im do is bad for Tzadikim.

Implied question: Also in Yevamos (103a) the Gemara asked this, even though there it did not say that an Aveirah Lishmah is greater...!

Answer: It relied on the Gemara in Nazir [which said that an Aveirah Lishmah is greater...]

The She'altos' text: The She'altos (Va'era) had the same text as Rashi, which says "Yehareg".

Question (She'altos): In Yevamos (53b), Rava asked that Ones does not apply [Aveiros of] Ervah, because an erection comes only willingly;

If so, how does Ones apply to a man? The Gemara says "even for Arayos, Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor." For a man there is no Ones, only Ratzon, because an erection comes only willingly!

Answer #1 (She'altos): The case is, he needs to transgress for Refu'ah, like the case in Sanhedrin 75a;

Citation (75b): A certain man put his eyes on a woman, and desired her... (Doctors said that he will die if he does not have Bi'ah with her.) Chachamim said that he must die, and not have Bi'ah with her.

Rebuttal: "Yehareg" does not connote like this. According to his Perush, it should have said "Yamus v'Al Ya'avor"!

Answer #2 (Ri): Rava discusses when Nochrim want to stick him (his Ever) into an Ervah. The only way to avoid this is if they will kill him;

Rava teaches that he cannot claim that he is Ones, i.e. he does not do an action, rather, others do it, and he is like Karka Olam. One might have thought that he should transgress and not be killed;

Rava teaches that this is not so. Since he knows that if they will stick him, he cannot avoid Kishuy, the Kishuy is considered an action, even though it came through Ones.

Question: There is an opinion that obligates for Bi'as Ervah with an Ever Mes (without Kishuy). Even so, when they stick him and he has Bi'ah with an Ever Mes, he is exempt, for this is Ones (he was Karka Olam);

If so, what is the difference between Bi'ah with an Ever Mes, and Bi'ah with Kishuy? (It is Giluy Arayos even without his action of Kishuy, so his action did not add anything!)

Answer #1: Rava holds like he taught (Shevuos 18a), that one is exempt for Bi'ah with an Ever Mes.

Answer #2: He should have withdrawn [from the Ervah] with a small amount of Hana'ah (with an Ever Mes), but he withdrew with much Hana'ah (amidst Kishuy).

We say so about one who was having Bi'ah with a Tehorah, and she told him "I became Nidah" (Shevu'os 14a). If he withdrew amidst Kishuy, he is liable.

Even according to the opinion that obligates for Bi'ah with an Ever Mes, he is liable, for he should have withdrawn with little Hana'ah, but he withdrew with much Hana'ah;

The same applies here. If they stuck him on and he had Bi'ah with an Ever Mes, or if he had Kishuy with intent to had Bi'ah with his wife b'Heter, and they stuck him onto Ervah, he is exempt;

However, if they stuck him onto an Ervah, and then he had Kishuy, he is liable.

Conclusion: According to what I explained, the text is "Yehareg".

Alternative text: If the text says "also a Na'arah Me'orasah Tehareg", this is fine. We establish it to be when she did an action, e.g. they coerced her to bring her Ervah on him (his Ever).

Implied question: In Kesuvos (3b, regarding the decree that a Kalah have Bi'ah with the mayor before the Chupah), the Gemara asked "we should teach women that Ones is permitted!" Regarding Arayos, Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor!

Answer #1: Also there, they were Karka Olam.

Answer #2 (and Rejection #2 of Support #1 (b) - R. Tam): In Kesuvos, and regarding Esther, there was no need to be Moser Nefesh to avoid Bi'ah with a Nochri. His Bi'ah is not considered Bi'ah; and there is no Chiyuv Misah for it;

This is because the Torah was Mafkir the seed of a Nochri (does not consider it like human seed) - "v'Zirmas Susim v'Zirmasam." It is like mere Bi'ah with an animal.

Application: Based on this, R. Tam permitted a Bas Yisrael, who became an apostate and married a Nochri and repented, to marry the Nochri after he converted.

Implied question: We say [about an Eshes Ish who was Mezanah] "just like she is forbidden to her husband, she is [permanently] forbidden to the Bo'el"!

Answer: That refers only to Bi'ah with a Yisrael, but not with a Nochri.

Rebuttal #1 (Rivam): Since she is forbidden to her husband due to Bi'as Nochri, like it says in Kesuvos "[we do not teach women that Ones is permitted], for there are lewd women [who would have Bi'ah willingly with the mayor, which would forbid them to their husbands]!"

Similarly, in Kesuvos (26b) we say that a woman captured by Nochrim who intended to kill her is forbidden to her husband [lest she willingly had Bi'ah with a Nochri, in an attempt to save her life];

Also regarding Esther, it says "v'ka'Asher Avadti Avadti." (She became forbidden to Mordechai after she willingly went to Achashverosh.)

Inference: Bi'as Nochri is not considered like Bi'as Behemah regarding the Isur to her husband. Likewise, it forbids her to the Bo'el [even if he will convert later].

Rebuttal #2 (Rivam): Similarly, a single woman who had Bi'ah with a Nochri is disqualified to Kehunah, even though one who had Bi'ah with an animal is Kosher to Kehunah (Yevamos 59b).

Inference: Bi'as Nochri is not considered like Bi'as Behemah.

Only regarding lineage, we said (Yevamos 98a) that the Torah was Mafkir the seed of a Nochri.

Citation (Sotah 26b): One may warn his wife about [seclusion with] a Nochri, and a Nochri disqualifies [a woman he is Bo'el] to Terumah.

Citation (cont.) Question: This is obvious! The Torah says "v'Nisterah v'Hi Nitme'ah" - she is forbidden to her husband, the Bo'el and Terumah!

Citation (cont.) Answer: One might have thought that "v'Nisterah v'Hi Nitme'ah" applies only when the Bi'ah forbids her [to the Bo'el. Rav Hamnuna] teaches that this is not so.

Inference: Even regarding a Nochri, "Nitme'ah" forbids to her husband, and the same applies to the Bo'el.

Suggestion: Perhaps we should infer oppositely from there! We suggested that that since she is forbidden to him even without the Bi'ah, the Bi'ah does not forbid her to her husband;

Inference: We do not need a verse to forbid her to the Nochri through the Bi'ah.

Consequence: If so, a convert is permitted through (i.e. in spite of) the Bi'ah he did when he was a Nochri;

Proof: If we would say that he is forbidden, we could establish the verse to teach even about [Bi'as] Nochri, i.e. to forbid him after conversion!

Rejection: There [we do not expound that the Bi'ah forbids her to the Nochri after conversion, because] while he was a Nochri, [in any case] she is forbidden to have Bi'ah with a Nochri. (It is unreasonable to expound the verse to teach about after conversion, for it is not relevant now, and will probably never apply, for most Nochrim do not convert.)

Question: Since there is an Isur Misah for Bi'as Nochri, why didn't Mordechai divorce Esther before she went to Achashverosh to save Klal Yisrael?

Answer: Mordechai feared lest a Get publicize that she was his wife, and the matter would become known to the king.

Support: If you would not say so, [even if there were no Isur Misah for Bi'as Nochri], why didn't Mordechai divorce her, lest she become Asur to him through the Bi'ah, and then he would be able to remarry her afterwards?

The Isur of Machazir Gerushaso is [only if she married in between, but] not through Bi'as Zenus. This is clear from Sotah 18b. A man cannot stipulate [that the Sotah water kill his wife] for [Zenus] after he will divorce her [because it does not forbid her to him].

Question: [R. Zeira] says in Avodah Zarah (54a) that Ne'evad [an animal worshipped] b'Ones is forbidden. We explain that Nochrim forced one to bow to his own animal. The Gemara asked that the Torah exempts Ones. We learn from "vela'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar";

What was the question? The verse discusses only Karka Olam, but one who one did an action must be Moser Nefesh. One who bows to idolatry does an action!

Implied Suggestion: Perhaps the case is that Nochrim bent his stature [and he was passive].

Rejection #1: If so he did not do anything. This is not bowing;

He does not even look like one who bows, i.e. [he is not even] like one who bends down and picks up his coins in front of idolatry.

Rejection #2: (The Gemara there said that one can forbid only his own property.) If so, this is not a case of a man forbidding his own property. The Nochrim who bend his posture forbid his animal to idolatry, if this would forbid it.

Answer #1: [R. Zeira] means that the Torah exempts Ones from Misah. Since he is exempt from Misas Beis Din, even though he is obligated to be Moser Nefesh, this is not considered Ne'evad to forbid through this Avodah;

There is a good proof from the verse that b'Ones, one is exempt from death, even if he does an action, even though the Na'arah did not do anything;

This is because the verse equates Na'arah Me'orasah to a Rotze'ach. Just like a Rotze'ach Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor regarding an action, also regarding Na'arah, the Bo'el must be killed, or she must be killed, rather than do an action.

Regarding this, the verse says that b'Di'eved, if a Na'arah [was not Moser Nefesh, and] did an action due to Ones, we do not punish her at all.

The same applies to one who bowed to idolatry lest they kill him. We can learn from this to exempt him b'Di'eved, even if he did an action.

R. Zeira holds that since b'Di'eved one who served is exempt, his Avodah does not forbid the animal due to Ne'evad.

Even though if there were not Ones Misah, he would be Chayav according to Abaye, even though he did not accept it to be his god [it is permitted].

According to Rava [without Ones Misah he is liable] if he accepted it to be his god, i.e. he specified that he bows to accept it to be his god, even though his mouth and heart are dissimilar. His mouth says that he serves it to be his god, but his heart is to Hash-m.

Rava answered R. Zeira (Avodah Zarah 5a) that it is considered Ne'evad even though he is exempt from death.

Answer #2: [R. Zeira] holds that regarding Misas Beis Din, there is no distinction between doing an action and inaction. We find that a woman is liable for Giluy Arayos b'Ratzon (if she desired it), even though she is Karka Olam;

When we exempt Ones from Misas Beis Din, like it says "vela'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar", this is whether or not she did an action.