Answer #2 (for R. Meir): Yisre'elim are suspected to transgress Shemitah, but not to transgress Shabbos.

Question: Why is the second answer needed?

Answer: One might have thought that sometimes the 30th day before Shemitah is Shabbos, and people will remember that a tree was planted on that day (so that the 30 days will be considered the first of the three years of Orlah, in which the fruits are forbidden). The Beraisa teaches that Yisrael are not suspected to transgress Shabbos, so we are not concerned for this.

Answer (for R. Yehudah): In R. Yehudah's area, people were very stringent about Shemitah (so we are not concerned lest they transgress).

A man in R. Yehudah's area was insulted. He retorted by saying 'at least I don't eat (forbidden) Peros of Shemitah like you do!'

Question (Beraisa): If a non-Kohen ate Tamei Terumah (b'Shogeg), he pays an equal quantity of Tahor Chulin (it becomes Terumah). If he paid with Tamei Chulin:

Sumchus cites R. Meir to say that if this was Shogeg, it is valid payment. If he was Mezid, it is not valid payment;

Chachamim say, in either case, it is payment (it becomes Terumah), but he must also pay Tahor Chulin.

Question: (According to R. Meir) when he gave Tamei Chulin b'Mezid, why is it invalid? He ate something totally unfit for the Kohen, and paid something (Rashi - he thought would be; Tosfos - at the time was Chulin, and) permitted for the Kohen to eat when he is Tamei!

Answer (Rava): The Beraisa is abbreviated. It should say as follows. If he ate Tamei Terumah, he pays back Chulin. It may be Tahor or Tamei. If he ate Tahor Terumah, he pays back Tahor Chulin;

If he paid Tamei Chulin, Sumchus cites R. Meir to say that if this was Shogeg, it is valid payment. If he was Mezid, it is not payment;

Chachamim say, in either case it is payment, but he must also pay Tahor Chulin.

(Culmination of question - Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): R. Meir holds that we do not fine Shogeg due to Mezid, and Chachamim say that we do!

Answer: There the man intended to fulfill his Mitzvah to pay. R. Meir does not fine one who was engaged in a Mitzvah.

Question (Beraisa): If blood of a Korban became Tamei and was thrown on the Mizbe'ach, if it was b'Shogeg, the Korban may be eaten. If it was b'Mezid, the Korban is forbidden.

Answer: There the man intended to get atonement. It is improper to fine him.

Question (Mishnah): If one tithed food on Shabbos b'Shogeg, the food may be eaten. If he was Mezid, it is forbidden.

Answer: There the man intended to make his food permissible. It is improper to fine him.

Question (Mishnah): If one immersed Kelim on Shabbos b'Shogeg, he may use them. If he was Mezid, he may not.

Answer: There the man intended to be Metaher his Kelim. It is not fitting to fine him.

Contradiction: Elsewhere, R. Yehudah fines about mid'Rabanan laws!

(Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yehudah): (There was a mixture of forbidden Parech nuts, i.e. an esteemed species, with permitted nuts. Whole Parech nuts are never Batel in a mixture.) The nuts fell and broke. Whether this was Shogeg or Mezid, the mixture is still forbidden;

R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, if they fell b'Shogeg, the nuts can become Batel (in the proper amount of permitted nuts). If they fell b'Mezid, they are not Batel.

Mid'Oraisa, any minority is Batel. Mid'Rabanan, a minority of important things is not Batel, and R. Yehudah fines!

Answer: There, he fines lest the person scheme to make them fall so they will become Batel.

Contradiction: There, R. Yosi fines one who was Mezid. Elsewhere, he does not!

(Mishnah): If one has a tree of Orlah or Kilai ha'Kerem (a forbidden crossbreed in a vineyard), and cannot remember which tree this is, he may not harvest his trees. (A tree cannot become Batel, but the Peros can. Normally, Kil'ai ha'Kerem is evident! Perhaps a sapling grew b'Isur in a vineyard and was replanted among similar trees. Alternatively, a vine was growing next to a tree in an orchard, forbade the tree, and the vine was removed.)

If he harvested the trees, and he knows that there are more than 200 times as much permitted Peros as forbidden Peros, the latter are Batel, provided that he did not intend for this;

R. Yosi says, even if he intended for this, the forbidden Peros are Batel.

Answer (Rava and Ravin): Normally, one would be careful not to allow one tree to forbid all his trees, and he would clearly designate the forbidden tree. This case is rare, so R. Yosi makes no fine.

(Mishnah): If a Kohen was Mefagel (disqualified a Korban through intent to eat or offer some of it outside the allowed time or place) b'Mezid, he must pay for it.

(Gemara - Beraisa): If Reuven was working with Shimon's Taharos (Tahor food or Kelim) and he told Shimon that they became Tamei, he is believed;

The same applies if he was offering Shimon's Korban and he told him that it became Pigul.

If he tells him 'your food or Korban that I worked with on a previous day became Tamei or Pigul', he is not believed.

Question: Why is he believed only in the Reisha?

Answer #1 (Abaye): He is believed only when it is b'Yado (he could make it Tamei or Pigul) at the time he tells him.

Answer #2 (Rava): Reuven is not believed when he did not tell Shimon the first time he saw him (after, according to Reuven, it became Tamei).

(R. Ami): If Levi told David 'the Peros that we were working with the other day became Tamei', letter of the law he is not believed.

(R. Asi citing R. Yochanan citing R. Yosi): The Torah believes him!

Question: Where does the Torah say this?

Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Bisna): We learn from the Chata'os offered in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim on Yom Kipur. (Tosfos - we know that every Korban can become disqualified due to Pigul through any of its four Avodos with the blood.)

Question: How could we know that they became Pigul (through throwing the blood)? "No (other) man will be in the Ohel Mo'ed (when the Kohen Gadol offers these)"!

Answer: We must say that the Kohen Gadol is believed!

Objection: Perhaps from outside we heard him say that he sprinkles with intent to burn the Chelev on the Mizbe'ach after the allowed time!

Answer: We would not know that he said this when he sprinkled. Perhaps he said this after sprinkling!

Objection: Perhaps someone saw the Kohen Gadol through an opening in the wall of the Heichal (and knows that he said this while sprinkling)!

This is left difficult. (Chasam Sofer DH Kohen - if one witness were not believed, they would have needed to build an opening. The Gemara initially assumed that no opening was built, and later challenged this.)

A scribe said 'the Sefer Torah that I wrote for Ploni is Pasul because I wrote the occurrences of Hash-m's name Lo Lishmah (without intent).

R. Ami: Who has the Sefer Torah?

The scribe: Ploni has it.

R. Ami: You forfeit your wages through your admission, but you are not believed to disqualify the Sefer Torah.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): Granted, he is not paid for writing those names, but he should get paid for writing the rest!

Answer (R. Ami): Since the names are not Lishmah, the Sefer Torah is worthless.

Question: Why can't he overwrite the names with intention to sanctify them?

Answer #1: R. Ami holds like Chachamim who argue with R. Yehudah.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): In a place where Hash-m's name must be written, a scribe mistakenly thought that he needs to write 'Yehudah.' He omitted the 'Daled' (it turns out that he wrote Hash-m's name without intent). He overwrites the letters with intention to make them Kodesh;

Chachamim say, this is not a nice writing of Hash-m's name.

Answer #2: R. Ami could even hold like R. Yehudah. R. Yehudah permits overwriting His name once, but not every place it occurs, for such a Sefer appears spotted. (Chasam Sofer - R. Yirmeyah thought that he can overwrite the names Lishmah. Even though this will not permit it for Kri'as ha'Torah b'Tzibur, it may be used to teach children. R. Ami answered that even then, it must be buried.)

A scribe said 'the Sefer Torah that I wrote for Ploni is Pasul because I did not tan the hide for the parchments Lishmah.

R. Avahu: Who has the Sefer Torah?

The scribe: Ploni has it.

R. Avahu: Since you are believed to forfeit your wages, you are also believed to disqualify the Sefer Torah.

Question: Why is this different than R. Ami's case?

Answer: There, one can say that the scribe really wrote it Lishmah, but he thought that he could disqualify the Sefer and still receive most of his wages, like R. Yirmeyah thought. Here, the scribe knows that he forfeits his entire wage. Presumably, he is telling the truth! (Even in this case, the scribe would receive the value of a Chumash that one may learn from, but this is very small compared to the value of a Kosher Sefer Torah.)