R. Zakai quoted a Beraisa 'Zivach, Kiter, Nisach ve'Hishtachavah be'He'elam Echad, Eino Chayav Ela Echad' with reference to the Pasuk (in Yisro [the Aseres ha'Dibros]) - "ve'Lo Sa'avdem".

Rebbi Yochanan reacted - by instructing him to take his Beraisa outside and learn it there (as will be explained later).

According to Rebbi Aba, Rebbi Zakai's Beraisa is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im in another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi learns 'Hav'arah le'La'av Yatzas' by which he means that - the Torah inserts "Lo Seva'aru Eish" in Parshas Pikudei, to reduce the punishment of someone who kindles a fire on Shabbos to Malkos (whereas all other Melachos are subject to Kareis and even to Sekilah.

Rebbi Nasan holds 'Hav'arah le'Chalek Yatzas'. Despite the fact that the Torah mentions only Hav'arah, we know to extend this to each of the other Melachos - by applying the principle 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal, ve'Yatza min ha'Kelal Lelamed, Lo Lelamed al Atzmo Yatza Ela Lelamed al ha'Kelal Kulo Yatza' (when the Torah singles out a detail from the general ruling for special treatment that treatment extends to the entire ruling).

According to Rebbi Zakai's Beraisa, "Lo Sishtachaveh lahem" (that precedes "ve'Lo Sa'avdem") - are coming to teach us that Hishtachavayah is only subject to a La'av (like Rebbi Yossi by Shabbos).

Consequently, there is nothing to divide the other aspects of Avodah, which explains why the Beraisa rules that one is only Chayav one Korban for transgressing all of them. Note, that according to Rebbi Yossi, Hishtachavayah ought not to be in the Beraisa (as we will point out later), since (even though it is subject to Sekilah) it is not subject to Kareis or to a Korban Chatas.

Had the author been Rebbi Nasan, the Beraisa would have said that - one is Chayav a Korban for each independent aspect of the Avodah (since Hishtachayah, according to him comes Lechalek.

Rav Yosef queries this however. It may well be that it is specifically by Shabbos that Rebbi Yossi learns 'Hav'arah le'La'av Yatzas' - because he specifically learns Chiluk Melachos there from another source, as we will now see (in other words, he agrees on principle with the concept of 'Chiluk Melachos').

In the Parshah of Chatas in Vayikra, the Torah writes "ve'Asah me'Achas me'Heinah". The Torah could have written in brief - either "Achas" or "Heinah", leaving us with four D'rashos, all pertaining to Shabbos "me'Achas", "me'Heinah", 'Achas sh'hi Heinah', and 'Heinah she'hi Achas'.

Explaining Rebbi Yossi, Rebbi Yonasan interprets ...

... "me'Achas" (assuming that "Achas" refers to a complete Melachah, such as writing the name 'Shimon) - comes to include someone who means to write Shimon, but ends up writing only 'Shem' (which is in itself, a complete word).

... "me'Heinah" (assuming that "Heinah" refers to an Av Melachah) - to include someone who transgresses a Toldah, who will receive the same punishment as someone who transgresses an Av.

And if 'Achas she'hi Heinah' refers to Zadon Shabbos ve'Shig'gas Melachos (for which one has to bring a Korban for each Melachah), 'Heinah she'hi Achas' refers to - Zadon Melachos ve'Shig'gas Melachos, for which one brings only one Korban.

Rav Yosef's Kashya will explain why Rebbi Yochanan told Rebbi Zakai to take his Beraisa outside - inasmuch as even Rebbi Yossi will then agree to Chiluk Avodos by Avodah-Zarah (from Hishtachavayah).

We query Rav Yosef's observation however, inasmuch as - "me'Achas me'Heinah" is not speaking about Shabbos, but about a Korban Chatas in general, in which case, it will apply equally to Avodah-Zarah as to Shabbos.

This does not however signify, that Rebbi Zakai's Beraisa is justified - because Rebbi Yossi will still concede to Chiluk Avodos from "me'Achas me'Heinah" (as opposed to learning it from Hishtachavayah).

We suggest that "Achas" refers to the cutting of the animal's two pipes, and "me'Achas" includes the cutting of one, which the Torah considers a Shechitah here because, in spite of the fact that it is not a Kasher Shechitah by a Chatas Beheimah - it is a Kasher Shechitah with regard to the Melikah of a Chatas ha'Of (the method by which birds of Kodshim are slaughtered).

If "Heinah" refers to the Avos (such as Zivu'ach, Kitur, Nisuch and Hishtachavayah), "me'Heinah" refers to Toldos - such as breaking a stick in front of the Avodah-Zarah (assuming that this is the way that the Avodah-Zarah is worshipped), which is similar to Shechitah.

And if 'Achas she'hi Heinah' refers to Zadon Avodas-Kochavim and Shig'gas Avodos (Chiluk Avodos) 'Heinah she'Hi Achas' - refers to Zadon Avodos and Shig'gas Avodas-Kochavim.

Seeing as this this latter case cannot be speaking where the sinner prostrated himself before a Shul or before an idol (as we explained earlier), we will establish it, according to ...

... Abaye - by someone who did so me'Ahavah u'mi'Yir'ah.

... Rava - by 'Omer Mutar' (as we explained earlier).

Rava himself once asked Rav Nachman whether 'He'elam Zeh ve'Zeh be'Yado' (where one forgot both Avodas-Kochavim at large and the Avodos) is Chayav a Chatas or Patur.

We learn from Rava's current explanation - that he is Patur, thereby resolving the She'eilah.

We finally refute the suggestion that the Pesukim "me'Achas me'Heinah" can possibly be speaking about Avodah-Zarah - on the basis of what we learned earlier, that a Kohen Gadol's Chatas for Avodah-Zarah consists of a she-goat (like everybody else), whereas in that Parshah (which deals with a regular Chatas), the Torah obligates him to bring a bull (and a Nasi, a he-goat), as opposed to everyone else's she-goat.

So we finally learn Chiluk Avodos by Avodah-Zarah from Hishtachavayah like Rav Yosef. Nevertheless, Rebbi Zakai's Beraisa is not proved wrong - since we learn that one is only Chayav one Korban from "Lo Sa'avdem", as we will see later.

According to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, who has a different version of the Beraisa that Rebbi Zakai cited in front of Rebbi Yochanan, the Chumra that the Tana ascribes to Shabbos over other Mitzvos is that - if someone transgresses twice in one He'elam, he is Chayav two Korbanos, whereas by other Mitzvos, he is Chayav only one.

And he says that - whereas someone who is 'Shagag be'Lo Miskaven' by other Mitzvos is Chayav, by Shabbos, he is Patur.

The problem with the Reisha, if we assume that the Tana is speaking about a case of ...

... someone who reaped and ground in one He'elam on Shabbos is that - in the equivalent case by other Mitzvos (such as someone who ate Cheilev and blood in one He'elam), he is also Chayav to bring two Korbanos.

... someone who ate Cheilev twice in one He'elam (even on two different days) is that - in the equivalent case by Shabbos (if someone reaped twice in one He'elam), he is also Chayav only one Korban Chatas.

We Initially think that this is why Rebbi Yochanan instructed Rebbi Zakai to take the Beraisa outside. We resolve Rebbi Zakai however, by establishing the Beraisa by Ketzirah and Techinah, whereas the equivalent case by other Mitzvos speaks specifically by Avodah-Zarah, according to Rebbi Ami, who rules - 'Zivach ve'Kitar ve'Nisach be'He'elam Echad, Eino Chayav Ela Achas'.

We cannot establish the Seifa, which obligates 'Shagag be'Lo Miskaven' by Avodas-Kochavim, because we have difficulty is establishing the case (in the same way as we discussed earlier). We could however - establish it by Ahavah and Yir'ah according to Abaye.

The problem in establishing it by 'Omer Mutar', according to Rava - lies in the words 'Mah she'Ein Kein be'Shabbos' (bearing in mind Rava's She'eilah 'He'elam Zeh ve'Zeh be'Yado Mahu' [that we quoted earlier]). Rava was asking Rav Nachman there whether the perpetrator is Chayav one Chatas or two, but he is certainly not Patur).

We dismiss the problem by finally establishing the Reisha by Avodas-Kochavim and the Seifa by Shabbos, both by 'Shagag be'Lo Miskaven' (Mis'asek). The case with regard to other Mitzvos is - where someone mistakes a piece of Cheilev for spit and swallows it, or where he mistakes his sister for his wife, and is intimate with her.

The equivalent case by Shabbos (where he is Patur) is - where he intends to pick up what he believes to be a detached vegetable, which is in fact attached, and which he actually detaches as he picks it up (See Tosfos DH 'Lehagbihah es ha'Talush').

The Chiyuv of Mis'asek by Chalavim va'Arayos is based on a statement of Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel - who obligates bringing a Chatas because the perpetrator derived pleasure from them (and it is as if he performed the act intentionally, turning him into a Shogeg).

Yet he is Patur by Shabbos - because Shabbos requires 'Meleches Machsheves', which means that he actually intended to perform the act that he performed.

Even though it is possible to establish the Reisha of Rebbi Zakai's Beraisa by Avodas-Kochavim, and the Seifa by other Mitzvos, Rebbi Yochanan instructed Rebbi Zakai to take the Beraisa outside - because he is averse to establishing the Reisha and the Seifa in two different ways (or like two different Tana'im).

The source of Rebbi Yochanan's opinion lies in Bava Metzi'a, where we established the Reisha of the Mishnah in Perek ha'Mafkid (which exempts a Shomer from paying for the barrel which he used for his own benefit and which subsequently broke after he replaced it, without informing the owner) like Rebbi Yishmael, and the Seifa (which declares him Chayav) like Rebbi Akiva. The basis of their Machlokes is - whether the owner needs to be informed (that he used the article and replaced it ['Ba'inan Da'as Ba'alim' - Rebbi Akiva]) or not (Rebbi Yishmael).

Rebbi Yochanan declared - that he would carry to the bathhouse the clothes of anyone who would establish both the Reisha and the Seifa according to one Tana, (generally something that only a slave would do).