(Gemara) Suggestion: R. Meir (the first Tana) holds that Isur Chal Al Isur (a second prohibition can take effect on something that is already forbidden. The Chelev was forbidden before it became Kodesh or Nosar... )!

Rejection: He holds that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, unless the new Isur is Kolel (it forbids also things which were previously permitted) or Mosif (forbids the Isur to more people (or in more ways) than it was forbidden beforehand):

At first the person was Tahor, so only Chelev was forbidden. When he became Tamei, all Kodshim became forbidden to him, so the Isur Tum'ah takes effect on Chelev;

At first Chelev was forbidden to eat but permitted to benefit from it. When it became Kodesh, it became Asur b'Hana'ah, therefore the Isur Kodesh takes effect on the Chelev;

Even when it was Kodesh, the Chelev was forbidden to people but could be offered on the Mizbe'ach. When it became Nosar, it became forbidden to the Mizbe'ach, therefore the Isur Nosar takes effect regarding people;

When Yom Kipur came, all food became forbidden, therefore the Isur to eat on Yom Kipur takes effect also on the Chelev.

Question: Why didn't the Mishnah list a fifth Chiyuv Chatas, for Pigul?

Answer #1: Pigul and Nosar cannot apply to the same animal. (If it was Pigul, it is immediately forbidden to people and the Mizbe'ach. Nothing else becomes forbidden when it becomes Nosar). The Tana discusses eating from only one animal.

Question: Pigul and Nosar can apply to the same animal! If a limb of Pigul was offered on the Mizbe'ach, it ceases to be Pigul. It will become Nosar (at dawn, and the rest of the animal is Pigul), like Ula taught!

(Ula): If a Pigul Kometz was thrown on the Mizbe'ach, it loses the status of Pigul. It becomes Nosar.

Answer #2: The Tana discusses eating from only one limb.

Question: Pigul and Nosar can apply to the same limb, if a limb of Pigul was put partially on the Mizbe'ach, and part of it hangs outside the Mizbe'ach. Only the part on the Mizbe'ach ceases to be Pigul and becomes Nosar!

Answer: No, a limb is considered to be entirely on or entirely off the Mizbe'ach. It depends on its majority. (The whole limb will become Nosar or remain Pigul.)

Suggestion: We can resolve (affirmatively) Rami bar Chama's question, whether or not a limb is judged according to its majority (Tosfos - if it is partially on the Mizbe'ach, and partially on the ramp)!

Answer #3 (and rejection of suggestion): The Tana discusses eating only one k'Zayis.

Question: One of the Chata'os is for (eating on) Yom Kipur. The Shi'ur to be liable is k'Koseves (a large date), which is two k'Zeisim!

Answer #1 (R. Zeira): The case is, he ate a kidney with its Chelev (a k'Koseves in all. He is liable for the other Isurim for a k'Zayis of Chelev, and the Chelev helps cause the Chiyuv for Yom Kipur).

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): He ate dates with the Chelev to complete the Shi'ur of k'Koseves.

Answer #4 (Rav Ada bar Acha): The text of the Mishnah says that one is liable five Chata'os (and an Asham), i.e. he is liable also for a k'Zayis of Pigul.

Rav Ada disagrees with the answers given above.

Question: If so, he can be liable a sixth Chatas, if he ate also a k'Zayis blood!

Answer: The Tana teaches the Chiyuvim that can come for one swallowing. One cannot swallow more than two k'Zeisim at once.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If it was Shabbos...

Question: Even if it was not Shabbos, he liable for Hotza'ah on Yom Kipur!

Answer (Rafram): This teaches that prohibitions of carrying apply only on Shabbos, but not on Yom Kipur.

Rejection: Perhaps carrying is forbidden on Yom Kipur. R. Meir means, if it was Shabbos and he took the food outside, he is liable for (Hotza'ah on) Shabbos and Yom Kipur!

Rather, Rafram learned from the following Beraisa;

(Beraisa): "V'Shilach b'Yad Ish Iti" teaches that (the goat may be sent to Azazel) even by a Zar, even if he is Tamei, even on Shabbos. The man must be designated from before Yom Kipur.

(Rafram): Since a verse is needed to permit sending the goat on Shabbos (even though we know that it is permitted on Yom Kipur), this teaches that prohibitions of carrying apply only on Shabbos, but not on Yom Kipur.

Rejection: Perhaps carrying is forbidden on Yom Kipur;

The Mitzvah is to send it on Yom Kipur, in spite of the Isur Hotza'ah of Yom Kipur. However, without a verse we would not know that it also overrides the Isur Hotza'ah of Shabbos.

Rafram's teaching is rejected.

(Mishnah): One can be liable six Chata'os for one act of Bi'ah. One who has relations with his daughter can be liable for this and for (other Arayos, i.e. if she is also) his sister, his brother's wife, his father's brother's wife, a married woman, and a Nidah.

(Gemara) Question: (A Stam (anonymous) Mishnah is assumed to be like R. Meir.) R. Meir holds that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur!

Answer: He holds that (normally) Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, but if the new Isur is Kolel or Mosif, it takes effect;

The case is, Esav fathered Plonis through his mother. The Isurim of one's daughter and sister come simultaneously;

Plonis married Esav's brother. Since this forbids her to Esav's brothers (even paternal brothers, who were formerly permitted to her) the Isur Eshes Ach takes effect also on Esav;

After (she was widowed or divorced), she married Esav's father's brother (Yishmael). Since the Isur Eshes Achi Aviv takes effect on Yishmael's nephews (who were formerly permitted to her, e.g. sons of Midyan), it also takes effect on Esav. (Alternatively - since she becomes forbidden to Yishmael's sons (Eshes Av) or to his brothers (Eshes Ach), the Isur Eshes Achi Aviv takes effect on Esav);

Since the Isur Eshes Ish forbids her to all men, it also takes effect on Esav.

Since the Isur Nidah forbids her to her husband, it also takes effect on Esav.

(Mishnah): If (Esav) has relations with his daughter's daughter (Plonis), he can be liable for this and for his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, his father's brother's wife, a married woman, and a Nidah. (The case is, Plonis married, at different times, Esav's son, Esav's brother, and Esav's uncle.)

R. Yosi says, if Esav's father (Yitzchak) had transgressed and married Plonis, Esav will be liable also for Eshes Av.

(Gemara) Question: Yitzchak cannot marry (be Mekadesh) her (even b'Di'evad, for she is Eshes Achiv)!

Answer (R. Yochanan): The case is, she fell to Yibum to Yitzchak. (We must say that she had married a maternal brother of Esav.)

Question: If so, why does it say that Yitzchak transgressed?

Answer (R. Yakov): One's son's daughter-in-law is a Sheniyah, i.e. forbidden mid'Rabanan;

(Beraisa): A daughter-in-law is Ervah. One's son's daughter-in-law is a Sheniyah.

Similarly, one's son's daughter is Ervah. The daughter of one's son's son, or of the son's son's son, etc. for all generations are Sheniyos.

Question: In our Mishnah, R. Yosi (is Mechayev for Eshes Av, he) holds that Isur Chal Al Isur. Elsewhere, he holds otherwise!

(Mishnah): One who is Chayav two different Misos receives the more stringent one;

If one is liable two Misos for one transgression, he receives the more stringent one;

R. Yosi says, he receives the one that arose first.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): He receives the one that arose first. If Reuven's mother-in-law (Leah, was single) and got married (and Reuven had relations with her), he is judged for (relations with) a mother-in-law (stoning);

If Leah was married when Reuven married her daughter, he is judged for Eshes Ish (choking).

Answer (R. Avahu and Ravin): R. Yosi agrees that an Isur Mosif is Chal on other Isurim.

Question: Why is Eshes Av an Isur Mosif?

Answer: The case is, Yitzchak has another son (Yakov). Since Eshes Av forbids Plonis to Yakov, it also takes effect on Esav.

(Mishnah): If one has relations with Chamoso (his mother-in-law), he can be liable also for relations with his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, his father's brother's wife, his wife's sister, a married woman, and a Nidah;

The same applies to relations with Em (the mother of) Chamoso or Em Chamav (father-in-law).

R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, one is liable three times for Chamoso if she is also Em Chamoso and Em Chamav;

Chachamim say, they are all one Shem. (He is liable only once.)