1)

(a)Assuming that Rabah too, establishes the Beraisa which rules (in Rabban Gamliel) that someone who writes two letters on two Shabbasos by Zadon Shabbos and Shig'gas Melachos is Patur, he will counter Rav Chisda's Kashya - by establishing Rabban Gamliel like Rebbi Eliezer (who holds like Rebbi Akiva does according to Rav Chisda).

(b)We query this however, based on the continuation of the Beraisa under discussion 'u'Modeh Rabban Gamliel she'Im Kasav Os Achas be'Shabos Zu ve'Os Achas be'Shabbos Acheres, she'Hu Patur' - implying that he argues with the Chachamim in another case.

(c)Assuming that Rabban Gamliel concedes that he is Patur in the case of Zadon Shabbos and Shig'gas Melachos (because he considers the days in between a Yedi'ah) - they argue by Shig'gas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos, in which case he holds Chayav, because of the principle Ein Yedi'ah le'Chatzi Shi'ur, with which the Chachamim disagree, and which is why they hold Patur.

(d)The author cannot then be Rebbi Eliezer, who says in a Beraisa, that if someone writes two letters on two different Shabbosos - he is Chayav (a proof that he concurs with Rabban Gamliel regarding Ein Yedi'ah le'Chatzi Shi'ur), in which case he cannot be the Chachamim who argue with Rabban Gamliel.

2)

(a)So we suggest that 'u'Modeh Rabban Gamliel ... ' refers to other areas of Shabbos where he argues with Rebbi Eliezer, such as 'Achas al ha'Arig' - where Rabban Gamliel renders someone who arranges one thread on the weaving-loom Chayav, even though, once the weaving process has begun, he would need to weave three threads in order to be Chayav (and Rebbi Eliezer will say Patur).

(b)Achas al ha'Arig is similar to Kosev Sh'tei Osyos bi'Shetei Shabbasos - in that it too, is only half a Shi'ur (and Rabban Gamliel holds Chayav, because the S'vara of Shabbasos ke'Gufin Dami does not apply to it).

(c)We immediately refute this suggestion however - on the basis of the Mishnah there, where Rebbi Eliezer specifically states 'Achas al ha'Arig, Chayav' (like Rabban Gamliel).

3)

(a)So Rava establishes the Machlokes by "Achas", citing a Beraisa where the Tana Kama renders someone Chayav for carrying out two half-G'rogros separately in one He'elam. Rebbi Yossi qualifies this however - by confining it to where he carries them both into the same domain (but if he carries them into two separate domains, he will be Patur) ...

(b)... because he holds Reshuyos Mechalkos (domains divide the Isur into two).

(c)Rava now explains the Machlokes between Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer - by establishing Rabban Gamliel like the Tana Kama, and Rebbi Eliezer like Rebbi Yossi.

(d)Despite the fact that Rabban Gamliel agrees with Rebbi Eliezer regarding Kasav Os Achas be'Shabbos Zu ... , he nevertheless argues with him in this case - because although on the one hand, he concedes that Shabbasos Mechalkos, on the other, he maintains that Reshuyos Ein Mechalkos.

4)

(a)We now query Rabah from our Mishnah. According to Rav Chisda, who establishes Rebbi Akiva's She'eilah by Shigegas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos, Rebbi Eliezer's answer from Nidah fits in neatly - since by Nidah too, the S'vara of Yamim she'Bintayim Mechalkos fits (as we will see shortly).

(b)But according to Rabah, who establishes the She'eilah by Zadon Shabbos ve'Shig'gas Melachos, Rebbi Eliezer ought to have said (not 'u'Mah Nidah ... ', but) 'u'Mah Nidos'.

(c)And Rabah answers - by amending the Mishnah to read 'Nidos'.

(d)Shmuel and Rav Ada bar Ahavah read 'Nidah' in our Mishnah (like Rav Chisda), whereas Rav bar Oshaya's amends it to - 'Nidos' (like Rabah).

5)

(a)According to Rav Chisda, who establishes Rebbi Akiva's She'eilah by Shig'gas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos, the S'vara of Yamim she'Bintayim Havyan Yedi'ah Lechalek applies to the case of Nidah - where the woman Toveled and became a Nidah again between one Bi'ah and the next (which is similar to Yamim she'Bintayim).

(b)On the other hand, Rebbi Eliezer's proof 'Ba al al ha'Ketanos Yochi'ach' fits in better with Rabah. Rav Chisda will explain that - it refers to Ketanos generally (but to only one Ketanah in each specific case).

6)

(a)We cite Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya in a Beraisa, who quotes Rebbi Akiva's She'eilah with regard to a man who has relations a number of times in one He'elam with his wife who is a Nidah. To which Rebbi Eliezer replied with a Kal va'Chomer from Shabbos - where he is Chayav even though only the man sinned, Kal va'Chomer Nidah, where the woman sinned too (as we learned earlier).

(b)Rebbi Akiva queries this however - due to the fact that Shabbos possesses many categories of sin, in the form of Avos and Toldos, whereas Nidah us restricted to the Bi'ah (as we learned earlier, too).

(c)And when Rebbi Eliezer tried to learn from ...

1. ... Nidos Ketanos, where one is Chayav for each Ketanah, even though there is only one type of sin - Rebbi Akiva countered that - Nidos Ketanos are different, inasmuch as they are many bodies, whereas his wife who is a Nidah, is only one person .

2. ... someone who commits bestiality with one animal a number of times, he replied that - bestiality with one animal, is indeed subject to the same She'eilah as Nidah.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that someone who is uncertain as to whether he ate ...

1. ... Cheilev or not - must bring an Asham Taluy, and the same applies to where he is uncertain as to whether he ate ...

2. ... a Shi'ur of Cheilev or not, or whether he ate ...

3. ... the piece of Shuman that was lying in front of him or the piece of Cheilev.

(b)The Tana issues a similar ruling with regard to ...

1. ... incest - where someone is uncertain as to whether the woman with whom he was intimate was his wife or his sister, both of whom were with him in the house, and ...

2. ... Chilul Shabbos - where he is uncertain as to whether he performed a specific Melachah on Shabbos or on a weekday.

8)

(a)One is only Chayav an Asham Taluy - if, at the time when he did what he did, he thought that it was permitted ...

(b)... but if he was uncertain at the time (and still went ahead and did it) - he is considered a Meizid as far as the act is concerned (and is therefore Chayav a Chatas).

(c)The Mishnah rules that somebody who eats ...

1. ... Cheilev twice, has to bring only one Asham Taluy - provided he ate them in one He'elam, but two - if he ate them in two Ha'alamos.

2. ... Cheilev, Dam, Pigul and Nosar in one He'elam - is obligated to bring four Ashamos Taluy, one for each sin.

(d)The principle that governs the Din of Asham Taluy in this regard is that - as many Chata'os as one has to bring for Hoda, that is how many Ashamos Taluy one has to bring for Lo Hoda.

9)

(a)Rav Asi establishes the case of 'Safek Achal Cheilev ... ' where a person ate the only piece that was lying before him. According to Chiya bar Rav however - one is only Chayav an Asham Taluy if he ate one of two pieces, one of Isur and one of Heter.

(b)Initially, we establish their Machlokes over the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with Asham Taluy) "ve'As'sah Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m". When we say that ...

1. ... Rav Asi holds 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores', we mean that since the word "Mitzvos" is written with only one 'Vav', he Darshens it as if the Torah had written 'Mitzvas' (in the singular).

2. ... Chiya bar Rav holds 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra', we mean - that he goes after the way it is read ("Mitzvos"), as if it had been written with two 'Vavin').

10)

(a)Rav Huna (or Chiya bar Rav) queries Rav Asi from the Mishnah itself, which continues 'Cheilev ve'Shuman Lefanav ... ' on the assumption that - since the Seifa speaks by two pieces, so does the Reisha.

(b)Rav Asi (who was annoyed at the Kashya) answered them that - although the Seifa speaks about two pieces, the Reisha speaks about one.

(c)And he answered the Kashya that, having taught us that one is Chayav by Chatichah Achas, why did the Tana find it necessary to insert the case of Chatichah Achas mi'Shetei Chatichos - with the principle Zu, ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu (This, and no need to mention that).

(d)According to Chiya bar Rav, on the other hand, the Tana finds it necessary to repeat the same case twice - because having begun with a vague statement, he found it necessary fit to explain what he originally meant with his second one.

11)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - obligates an Asham Taluy in a case of Chatichah Achas mi'Shetei Chatichos, but not in a case of Chatachah Achas (like his [Rav's] son, Chiya).

(b)Rabah attributes Rav's ruling - to the Pasuk "Achas mo'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m", as we explained earlier.

(c)Abaye queries Rav from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer obligates someone who eats the Cheilev of a Coy - which is a Safek Beheimah (whose Cheilev is forbidden), Safek Chayah (whose Cheilev is permitted) ...

(d)... to which Rabah replied that - Rebbi Eliezer does certainly not require one of two pieces (because he holds 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores').

12)

(a)Abaye also queried Rav from a Mishnah ...

1. ... in Yevamos (in connection with a Yevamah who performed Yibum within three months of her husband's death) and who then becomes pregnant immediately. The Tana obligates the Yavam to divorce her, and to bring an Asham Taluy - because she may be pregnant from her deceased husband, in which case the brother is living with Eishes Achiv who had children (which carries with it a Chiyuv Kareis).

2. ... in Nidah (in connection where after being intimate with one's wife, blood is found on one of their cloths). If blood is found either on the man's cloth, or on the woman's cloth immediately after they were intimate - then she is a Vaday Nidah, and they are Chayav a Chatas.

(b)Whereas if blood is found on her cloth only a short while later - she is a Safek Nidah, and is Patur from a Chatas, though the Beraisa obligates her to bring an Asham Taluy.

(c)To reconcile these rulings with Rav, who requires Chatichah Achas mi'Sh'tei Chatochos, Rabah establishes them - according to Rebbi Eliezer, who, we just saw, does not.

13)

(a)Rebbi Zeira too, cites Rav like Rav Yehudah did earlier, only he ascribes Rav's ruling to the fact that - when there are two pieces, it leaves the opportunity of ascertaining whether one transgressed or not ...

(b)... so that, should it be proven that he did, he will be able to bring the Chatas that he is really Chayav (and which the Asham Taluy only covers in the interim, as we will see later).

(c)The difference between the reason of Rebbi Zeira and that of Rabah (the Pasuk "Mitzvos") - manifests itself where there are one and a half pieces, and after eating the k'Zayis, he is not sure whether he ate the Heter or the Isur. On the one hand, it is possible to ascertain whether he sinned or not (Rebbi Zeira), in which case he is Chayav an Asham Taluy, whereas on the other, there is not a Shi'ur of two Mitzvos and he is Patur (Rabah).

(d)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira all three Kashyos that Abaye asked Rabah (from Coy, from Yevamah and from Nidah), to which Rebbi Zeira, basing his answer on the Beraisa of Coy - answered by establishing them all according to Rebbi Eliezer, who does not require the possibility of ascertaining the sin.