(Mishnah): They are liable only for [an Aveirah] that Zedono Kares (he is Chayav Kares if he was Mezid) and Shigegaso Chatas (he brings a Chatas for Shogeg), and similarly for a Mashi'ach;

And for idolatry [they are liable] only for something that Zedono Kares and Shigegaso Chatas.

(Gemara) Suggestion: [Par Helam Davar applies to all] "Mitzvos Hash-m" - perhaps this connotes even people who eat vermin!

Rejection #1: It says here "[v'Nelam Davar] me'Einei [ha'Kahal]", and it says there "[v'Hayah Im] me'Einei [ha'Edah]." Just like me'Einei there refers to [idolatry,] which is Zedono Kares and Shigegaso Chatas, also me'Einei here refers to something that is Zedono Kares and Shigegaso Chatas.

Suggestion: Just like me'Einei there is something that has Misas Beis Din, also me'Einei here refers to something that has Misas Beis Din!

Rejection (R. Yosi bar Chaninah): The place where idolatry was written to teach about Chayavei Kerisus, only Kares is mentioned. Misah [for idolatry] is learned from elsewhere.

Rejection #2 (Rebbi): We learn from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Aleha-Aleha." Just like Aleha written there (Achos Ishah) is Zedono Kares and Shigegaso Chatas, also Aleha here is Zedono Kares and Shigegaso Chatas.

Question: Why didn't Rebbi learn from "me'Einei-me'Einei"?

Answer #1 (R. Ze'ira): If Rebbi would expound "me'Einei-me'Einei", [he would need to say that] just like me'Einei written there (idolatry, Rebbi holds that) a Mashi'ach is liable for Shigegas Ma'aseh, also me'Einei here [a Mashi'ach is liable for] Shigegas Ma'aseh! (Even Rebbi does not say so.) Therefore, Rebbi did not expound me'Einei-me'Einei.

Answer #2 (R. Yosi): If Rebbi would expound "me'Einei-me'Einei", [he would need to say that] just like me'Einei written there has Misas Beis Din, also me'Einei here refers to something with Misas Beis Din.

Question: Doesn't Rebbi ultimately need to expound "me'Einei-me'Einei"? If not, what is his source [for idolatry] for a commoner, Nasi and Mashi'ach (that they are liable only for a matter of Kares? Some Isurim of idolatry are merely Lavim, e.g. to honor, make or benefit from idols without serving them.) Is it not from me'Einei-me'Einei?

Question (R. Chananyah, to R. Mana): If not [that Rebbi expounds "me'Einei-me'Einei"], what is his source [for idolatry] only if they partially permitted and partially fulfilled - is it not from me'Einei-me'Einei?

If not, what is his source [that one is liable for idolatry only] for Hora'as Beis Din Gadol, [but not for] Hora'as Beis Din Katan - is it not from me'Einei-me'Einei?

Question (R. Chananyah, to R. Mana): Doesn't Rebbi ultimately need to expound "me'Einei-me'Einei"? If not, what is his source that a Kohen Gadol is liable for idolatry only for Helam Davar and Shigegas Ma'aseh?

Answer (R. Mana): What do you ask from Rebbi? Rebbi holds like his opinion, that a Mashi'ach is liable [for idolatry] for Shigegas Ma'aseh! (We explained this like HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

[Rebbi holds that] it is not written Mezid Shogeg for an individual, only for Beis Din. (If one knows that Beis Din erred, and he errs to think that he should follow them, he transgresses b'Mezid, but he is Shogeg about following them. Since he does not learn from me'Einei-me'Einei, he has no source to say so for idolatry.)

(Beraisa): "Oso" excludes [a Mashi'ach's] Korban for a unique Mitzvah (idolatry), that he does not bring its blood inside [the Heichal].

Suggestion: This is like Rebbi, who holds that a Mashi'ach [is liable for idolatry] for Shigegas Ma'aseh. It is unlike Rabanan, who obligate only for Helam Davar!

Rebuttal (Rav Huna): It is needed according to Rabanan, lest one say that since [his Korban is] for Hora'ah, he brings its blood inside. Therefore, he needs to say that "Oso" excludes his Korban for a unique Mitzvah, that he does not bring its blood inside. (We explained this like GILYON EFRAYIM.)

(Mishnah): [Beis Din] is not liable for [Hora'ah about] a Lav or Aseh in the Mikdash (a Tamei person entering the Mikdash or delaying there);

One does not bring an Asham Taluy for a Lav or Aseh in the Mikdash;

However, [Beis Din] is liable for a Lav or Aseh of Nidah, and one brings an Asham Taluy for a Lav or Aseh of Nidah.

What is an Aseh of Nidah? It is to separate from a Nidah (only after the Kishuy ceases, e.g. if she became Nidah during relations);

A Lav of Nidah is not to have relations with a Nidah.

(Gemara - Kahana) Question: (Why is there no Asham Taluy for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav?) Is it impossible to have Yedi'ah at the beginning and the end and Helam in between?!

Note: R. Shmuel thought that Kahana questions why the Mishnah exempts Beis Din for Hora'ah about Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav, therefore he asked the following question.

Question (R. Shmuel bar Avadumi, to R. Mana): Can we find this regarding tbose (Beis Din) who rule?! (Helam Tum'ah in the middle does not apply to them. Our Mishnah properly exempts them!)

Answer (R. Mana): We (Kahana) question why people who enter [are exempt from Asham Taluy]. Do you bring us [a reason to exempt] those who rule?!

Question: What is the reason [why people who enter are exempt from Asham Taluy]?

Answer (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Mitzvos-Mitzvos" - just like Mitzvos said below [regarding Par Helam Davar] refers to [Aveiros for which an individual brings a Chatas] Kavu'a (not Oleh v'Yored), also here (Asham Taluy applies when an individual brings Chatas) Kavu'a. (We explained this like KORBAN HA'EDAH, Shevu'os 2:4.)

Question: Are people not liable for all Mitzvos Aseh in the Torah?! (Why must the Mishnah teach that they are liable for an Aseh of Nidah?)

Note: The Reisha teaches that Beis Din is not liable for a Lav or Aseh in the Mikdash. Presumably, the Seifa teaches that Beis Din is liable for a Lav or Aseh of Nidah. However, it is hard to say that this question refers to Beis Din, for Beis Din is liable only for Chayavei Kerisus. The only Mitzvos Aseh with Kares are Korban Pesach, Bris Milah, Tum'as Mikdash and Nidah! Rather, we must say that the Makshan thought that the Mishnah teaches that people are liable for a Lav or Aseh of Nidah, and asks that this is obvious! (PF)

Answer (Rav Masniyah): Our Mishnah comes only to teach a matter that resembles a matter [taught in the Reisha];

What is the case [of Tum'as Mikdash]? If a Tamei entered the Mikdash he is liable. If a Tahor entered and became Tamei, if he left on a long path he is liable. If he left on a short path he is exempt.

Question: Correspondingly, if he had Bi'ah with a Nidah, he is liable. If he was having Bi'ah with a Tehorah, and she told him "I became Tamei", if he left on a long path he is liable. What is his short path? (If he withdraws immediately, he is liable!)

Answer: [His short path is] to cool down (cause the erection to cease).

Question: What is the source of this Aseh of Nidah?

Answer (R. Avin): [We learn from] "v'Hizartem Es Bnei Yisrael mi'Tum'asam".

Question (R. Yochanan, to R. Shimon bei R. Yosi bar Lekuniya): What is the source for a Lav forbidding Bi'ah with a Temei'ah?

[R. Shimon] was carrying a rockpile. He threw it in back of him, and said "matters that children say every day [when learning Chumash] in the Beis ha'Keneses, you ask me?! "V'El Ishah b'Nidas Tum'asah Lo Sikrav Legalos Ervasah"!

R. Yochanan: I do not need to ask about this, rather, I need to ask if one was having Bi'ah with a Temei'ah, he is liable. If he was having Bi'ah with a Tehorah, and she told him "I became Tamei", if he withdrew immediately, [for which Lav] is he liable?

R. Shimon: I and you need [to learn this]! Let us go outside and learn.

They went out, and heard someone teaching Chizkiyah's teaching "v'Im Shachav Yishkav Ish Osah" teaches only that one who has Bi'ah with a Nidah is liable;

If he was having Bi'ah with a Tehorah, and she told him "I became Tamei", and he withdrew immediately, is he liable? It says "va'Tehi Nidasah Alav" - even if he separated, her Nidah is upon him.

Question: What should he do [if he was having Bi'ah with a Tehorah, and she told him "I became Tamei"]?

Answer (R. Hoshayah citing Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): He should cool down (so the erection will cease).

Question: If he did not cool down [what should he do]?

Answer (R. Yosi): I apply to him "Al Tikrav" - do not separate [until the erection ceases].

Question: [Can an expression of] Kerivah (coming close, mean) separation?!

Answer (Rav Huna citing R. Aba): [Yes,] like "ha'Omrim Kerav Elecha Al Tiga Bi Ki Kidashticha" (keep to youself and stay away from me...).

(R. Ze'ira): He should see (feel the severity of the Isur like) a sword cutting his flesh (and he will cool down).

Question: Is everyone like R. Ze'ira?! (Only one with awesome Yir'as Shamayim can do so! What can others do? We explained R. Ze'ira and this question like TZIYON YERUSHALAYIM.)

Answer (R. Tanchuma citing Rav Huna): He presses his fingers into the wall, and he will cool down.

(R. Shmuel bar Nachman): "Va'Teshev b'Eisan Kashto" - [Yosef's] Ever was stretched (amidst desire for Potifar's wife), and it returned (the erection ceased).

(R. Avun): His semen scattered, and came out through his fingernails - "va'Yafozu Zero'ei Yadav."

(Rav Huna citing Rav Masnah): He looked intently and saw the image of Yakov Avinu - "mi'Ydei Avir Yakov."

(R. Avin): He saw also the image of Rachel [about whom it says "Ro'ah Hi"] - "mi'Sham Ro'eh Even Yisrael."