1)

(a)We query both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish from a Beraisa, which discusses a case concerning two paths, one Tamei and one Tahor, and it is not currently known which is which. The Tana rules there that someone who traverses both paths and then enters the Beis-Hamikdash - is Chayav a Chatas.

(b)If he enters the Beis-Hamikdash after traversing the first path, is sprinkled with the ashes of the Parah Adumah, Tovels and then traverses the second path and enters the Beis-Hamikdash again, the Tana Kama rules that he is Chayav too. Rebbi Shimon - renders him Patur ...

(c)... because, seeing as the first Safek Tum'ah was removed in the middle, it is like two separate cases, each one a Safek Tum'ah, neither of which has a definite Yedi'ah.

2)

(a)Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Shimon exempts him from a Korban in both cases. The problem with that is - on what grounds he disagrees with the Tana Kama's first ruling, seeing as there was both Vaday Tum'ah and Vaday Yedi'ah.

(b)Rava establishes the Reisha where, when the sinner traversed the second path, he forgot that he had previously traversed the first one, and the basis of their Machlokes is - whether part of a Yedi'ah (at no stage did he know that he was Vaday Tamei, even when he was in fact Vaday Tamei) is considered a Yedi'ah (the Tana Kama) or not (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah).

(c)The problem with the Seifa is why the Tana Kama renders him Chayav, seeing as there is no Vaday Yedi'ah, as Rebbi Shimon explains. Resh Lakish therefore establishes the author as Rebbi Yishmael, who says that - a Chatas does not require a Yedi'ah.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan rules that - here they gave a Safek Yedi'ah the Din of a Vaday Yedi'ah.

3)

(a)The Kashya on ...

1. ... Resh Lakish is - why he cites Rebbi Yishmael and not Rebbi (who, according to his opinion in the previous Sugya, permits bringing a Chatas with a Safek Yedi'ah).

2. ... Rebbi Yochanan, whose 'Ka'an Asu Safek Yedi'ah ki'Yedi'ah' we initially think - extends to all cases, whereas he stated earlier (with regard to Cheilev) that a Safek Yedi'ah does not have the Din of a Yedi'ah.

(b)We resolve the Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan, however, based on the word Ka'an - which means here exclusively, to preclude all other cases of Chatas, which do require a Vaday Yedi'ah.

(c)His current source for this is the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Ne'elam mimenu ve'Hu Tamei" (incorporating a Yedi'ah where there is a Safek). He cannot learn the rest of the Torah from here with a Binyan Av - because of the Pasuk in Vayikra "O Hoda eilav Chataso", which teaches us that a Chatas requires a Yedi'ah.

4)

(a)And the reason that Resh Lakish cites Rebbi Yishmael rather than Rebbi is - to teach us that Rebbi Yishmael does not require a Vaday Yedi'ah either.

(b)Rebbi Yishmael in the Mishnah in Shevu'os, learns from the Torah's insertion of the word "ve'Ne'elam" twice that - he is Chayav both for having forgotten the Tum'ah and for having forgotten the Isur Mikdash (in other words, Tum'as Mikdash does not require a Yedi'ah).

(c)Resh Lakish nevertheless needs our Mishnah to teach us that - to teach us that not only does he not learn it from a Pasuk, but that he does not learn it from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai either.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses someone who takes a piece of either Cheilev or Nosar (both of which are lying in front of him) and eats it - thinking that he is eating Shuman (Kasher fat).

(b)Alternatively, he is intimate with either his wife who is a Nidah or with his sister, both of whom are with him in the house - thinking that it is his wife who is not a Nidah.

(c)The third case cited by the Mishnah is that of Shabbos which is followed by Yom Kipur (or vice-versa), which he transgressed - during the period of dusk (Bein-ha'Shemashos), without knowing which one he is transgressing.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue over whether all of these must bring a Chatas or not. Rebbi Yehoshua's source for exempting them is the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Chatas " ... asher Chata bah" (which implies that one must be able to define exactly which sin he is performing).

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Yossi, Rebbi Eliezer concedes that he is Patur in the case of Shabbos and Yom Kipur, because according to him - night occurs during a specific moment during the Bein ha'Shemashos period, in which case he may well have performed half the Melachah on Shabbos and half, on Yom Kipur.

(b)He therefore establishes their Machlokes in a case where he performed a Melachah during the day, but cannot remember whether it was Shabbos that he transgressed or Yom Kipur. Alternatively, they are arguing over Shabbos which is not Yom Kipur (or vice-versa) - and he cannot remember which Melachah he performed.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah maintains that, according to Rebbi Yehoshua - someone who knows that he sinned, but not exactly how, is Patur from an Asham Taluy as well as from a Chatas.

7)

(a)Rebbi Shimon Shezuri and Rebbi Shimon qualify the Machlokes to where there are two names; but in a case where there is only one name - if he picked figs say, from one of two fig-trees that were standing in front of him, and he did not know from which one, Rebbi Yehoshua will concede that he is Chayav.

(b)And two names incorporates - either if he is unsure whether he reaped or ground, picked figs or grapes, or whether he meant to perform one Melachah but inadvertently performed another (because "bah", according to Rebbi Yehoshua refers both to the performing of the sin and to the knowledge of what he did [see end of Sugya. See also Rashash]).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah extends the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua to - where the sinner picked grapes when he meant to pick figs, or white figs when he meant to pick black ones, or vice-versa (Mis'asek [even there, Rebbi Yehoshua exempts him from a Chatas]).

(d)He doubts however, that Rebbi Yehoshua would have said such a thing. He therefore concludes that Rebbi Yehoshua learns that " ... asher Chata bah" must comes to exempt Mis'asek of Heter (as Abaye and Rava will explain later [and not to the Mis'asek of Isur, as he originally thought]).

8)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa, objected to Rebbi Yehoshua's lenient ruling in the Reisha of our Mishnah - seeing as either way, he is performing an Isur; so what difference will it make whether he knows which Isur he is performing or not?

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua replied with the Pasuk " ... asher Chata bah" - which implies that he must be aware at the time which Isur he is contravening.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer learns from "bah"that - if he meant to perform one Isur and ended up performing another, he is Patur (because he did not achieve what he intended to [Mis'asek]).

9)

(a)We reject the possibility that Rebbi Eliezer is referring to Mis'asek of Chalavim and Arayos due to a statement by Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel. The case of ha'Mis'asek ...

1. ... by Chalavim is - where he intended to pick up the piece of Shuman lying in front of him, and he inadvertently picked up the piece of Cheilev) or where both pieces were Cheilev, and thinking that they were both Shuman, he meant to pick up one of them, but inadvertently picked up the other (see Tosfos DH 'Lashon Tosfos').

2. ... by Arayos is - where he intended to be intimate with his wife, but she moved away, and he was inadvertently intimate with his sister instead.

(b)Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel states that - 'ha'Mis'asek ba'Chalavim va'Arayos, Chayav, she'Kein Neheneh' (the pleasure that he experiences obligates him to bring a Chatas, even though his sin was performed inadvertently).

(c)We therefore conclude that Rebbi Eliezer must be referring to Mis'asek on Shabbos, which, according to Rava, means that one means to cut something that is detached, but inadvertently detaches something that is attached instead. According to Abaye, it refers to - where he means to pick up* something that is detached and he inadvertently detaches something that is attached.

(d)Abaye disagrees with Rava - because in his opinion, since he initially intended to cut, no matter what, he is Chayav a Chatas.

(e)The P'tur of Mis'asek on Shabbos is based on the Pasuk in Vayakhel "Meleches Machshaves".

10)

(a)Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel exempts Mis'asek on Shabbos based on the Pasuk in Vayakhel - "Meleches Machsheves" (implying that one achieves what one meant to achieve (and not something else).

(b)Rebbi Eliezer nevertheless needs to come on to the D'rashah of "bah" - because he does not agree with the D'rashah of Meleches Machsheves.

(c)And we only cite Shmuel in the first place - because he is the one to explicitly permit Mis'asek on Shabbos.

(d)Rebbi Yehoshua on the other hand, who learns from " ... asher Chata bah" that one must be aware of which sin he performed - will hold like Shmuel.

11)

(a)The Chachamim query Rebbi Yossi (who disputes their ruling with regard to the Bein ha'Shemashos between Shabbos and Yom Kipur) - from a case where someone picks up an article to transport it from one domain to the other, where, assuming that he is standing near the R'shus ha'Rabim, he will transgress immediately (thereby substantiating their case regarding Bein ha'Shemashos of Shabbos and Yom Kipur that follow one another.

(b)When Rebbi Yossi said to them 'Dikdaktem Acharai', he meant that - they were trying to catch him out ...

(c)... and he responded - by insisting that it is still possible for half of the carrying to have taken place on Shabbos and half, on Yom-Tov.

(d)What makes us think that if we follow the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, he ought to be Chayav, even according to Rebbi Yossi is - Rebbi Eliezer's ruling in the Mishnah in Shabbos 've'Achas al ha'Arig' ('And one on the weaving-loom', which we cited in the previous Perek), because it is a 'G'mar Melachah' (completes a Melachah), in which case he ought also to be Chayav for concluding the carrying (even though it is not the full Shi'ur).

(e)Rebbi Yossi therefore amends Rebbi Eliezer's statement in the Mishnah in Shabbos ('Achas al ha'Arig ... ') to read - 'Shenayim al ha'Arig', which is a full Shi'ur at the end (though not at the beginning, since at that stage, the weaving will come apart).

12)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ki Secheta ve'Lo Yada" that - Asham Taluy requires a proper Yedi'ah, as a result of which, if he is unable to define his sin, he is Patur.

(b)Rebbi Shimon counters that, by Darshening the Pasuk there "ve'Asah ve'Lo Yada" - to mean that someone who knows that he sinned, but who cannot identify the sin, is Chayav to bring an Asham Taluy.

(c)Rebbi Shimon's interpretation of the Pasuk now leads us to ask - whether, according to him, if he is not sure that he sinned (such as where he does not know whether he ate a piece of Cheilev or of Shuman) he is also Chayav an Asham Taluy?

(d)We resolve the She'eilah from the Seifa of the Beraisa 'Chata ve'Lo Yada ba'Meh Chata, O Safek Chata Safek Lo Chata, Meivi Asham Taluy'. We know that the author is Rebbi Shimon - because the Reisha 'Chata ve'Lo Yada ba'Meh Chata' goes like him.

13)

(a)We again cite Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel, who exempts Mis'asek on Shabbos because of Meleches Machsheves. And we query him from the Mishnah in Shabbos (in connection with Tinokos) - where the Mohel circumcised a baby whose eighth day fell after Shabbos, in lieu of the one whose eighth day fell on Shabbos.

(b)There too, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue over whether he is Chayav or Patur. Rebbi Yehoshua rules Patur - because he erred in a D'var Mitzvah ...

(c)... from which we can extrapolate that - otherwise he would be Chayav, even though it is a clear-cut case of Mis'asek

(d)Shmuel will reconciles his ruling by Mis'asek with this Mishnah however, by declaring B'ris Milah to be different - since it is a wound which is pure Kilkul (destruction) which ought really to be Patur (like all other cases of Kilkul). And since it is nevertheless Chayav, Mis'asek too is Chayav.

14)

(a)Rav Yehudah himself queried Shmuel from Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who exempts someone who meant to pick figs but who picked grapes - implying that if it was the same species of fruit, he would be Chayav (whereas Shmuel exempts Mis'asek unconditionally).

(b)Shmuel responded by establishing the Mishnah in a case of 'she'Avad Melaket mi'Libo'. What he meant ...

1. ... was that - the Tana is speaking where he initially intended to pick grapes, say, only then he forgot about that and thinking that he really wanted figs, he mistakenly picked grapes instead.

2. ... when he said 'Shin'na, Shvok Masnisin ve'Ta Basra'i' was that - the sharp one (Rav Yehudah) should ignore the simple interpretation of the Mishnah and follow his interpretation instead.

(c)This dispenses with the Kashya on Shmuel - because (since he achieved what he initially set out to do) it is no longer Mis'asek.

(d)Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehoshua exempts him from a Chatas - because he did not do what he intended at this point (in which case it falls outside the category of "Meleches Machsheves").