Implied Question: At the beginning of Perek ha'Golin, (Makos, Daf 7a & 7b) where Rava learns from "bi'Shegagah to preclude 'Omer Mutar' ...

Answer #1: ... the correct text there Rabah, since Abaye answers after him.

Answer #2: Alternatively, with regard to Galus, the Torah writes "bi'Shegagah" a number of times (in which case, it could even be Rava).

Explanation #1: In Perek K'lal Gadol (Shabbos, 70a), Rashi explains that what the Gemara is asking is - what the 'Mem' of "me'Achas" and the 'Mem' of "me'Heinah" come to teach us (according to R. Yossi).

Question: The wording however, 'Mai Ta'ama' does not imply this.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): The explanation of 'What is R; Yossi's reason?' is that we need it for 'Shimon' and 'Shem mi'Shimon', and for Avos and Toldos?

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And the Gemara answers that since the two words are juxtaposed, we also learn 'Achas she'Hi Heinah' and 'Heinah she'Hi Achas' from there.

Clarification: This means that he did not know about Shabbos with regard to any Melachah ...

Proof: ... as is evident in Perek K'lal Gadol (Shabbos, 70a & 70b) where, regarding this very case, the Gemara cites the Mishnah of 'Arba'im Melachos Chaser Achas Achas', in connection with which R. Yochanan explains 'that he performed them all in one He'elam ('forgetting').

Distinction: ... and it is not comparable to where one forgot that Shabbos exists, in which case the Mishnah there obligates him to bring one Chatas (like in our case), since, whereas there he forgot completely, such as where he was captured among Nochrim; whereas here we are speaking where, had someone reminded him, he would have remembered.

Question: How can the Gemara then conclude 've'Tifshot'? Perhaps the reason that he is only Chayav one Chatas in this case is because the Tana is speaking where the perpetrator forgot Shabbos completely, such as someone who was captured as a child?

Answer: The Gemara could have answered like that.

Alternative Answer #1: In fact, the Gemara in the beginning of Kerisos, 3b, actually does answer that the case (of Shigegas Avodas-Kochavim ve'Zadon Melachos) is speaking with regard to a child who was captured ....

Alternative Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks where even to grown-up, who, based on the Pasuk in Yisro, 20:20 "Elohei Kesef v'Elokei Zahav", believes that the Isur pertaining to Avodah-Zarah is confined to idols made of silver and gold, but not to those made of any other materials.

Alternative Answer #3 (Question): Similarly, the Gemara could have established it in a case where he embraced an idol just like its adherents used to do, only he thought that this was not the way that one formally worshipped it.

Answer: Only since the answer ('ve'Yifshot') does not remain anyway, the Gemara did not bother to present these answers.

Statement: In Perek K'lal Gadol (Shabbos, 70a & 70b) Rav Nachman answers Rava that, when all's said and done, he forgot Shabbos, in which case he is only Chayav one Chatas.

Question: However, in the second Perek of Shevu'os (19b & 20a) regarding Tum'ah, and in the third Perek, 26a, regarding Shevu'ah, Rav Nachman himself resolves the same She'eilah stringently, whereas here he resolves it leniently.

Answer: It is different here, because the main part of the Mitzvah is Shabbos (of which the Melachos are but a detail).

Question (Part 1): It is possible to establish the entire Beraisa by other Mitzvos, and when the Tana says 'which is not the case by other Mitzvos', he is referring to someone who Shechts and sprinkles outside (the Azarah), where he is only Chayav one Chatas, as Abaye stated in Perek Echad Dinei Manonos ...

Question (Part 2): And even according to R. Avahu, who disagrees, one can establish it according to R. Yishmael, where he both Shechted it and sprinkled the blood, or according to R. Akiva, where he offerered it up and sprinkled the blood unintentionally ...

Question (Part 3): ... such as where he needs to Shecht Chulin, which he does intentionally, but the animal then turns out to be Kodshim.

Question (Part 4): And correspondingly regrding Shabbos, where he needs to cut up something that is detached, which he does intentionally, only it then turns out to have been attached, where he is Patur because it the Torah only forbids 'Meleches Machsheves' (where one intends to perform a Melachah on Shabbos).

Answer: The Tana could not have answered like this, since it implies that that he is Patur on Shabbos because he was Shogeg without Kavanah. But if that were so, then he would be Patur even if he means to cut up what is attached and it turns to be another attached article, seeing as it is not 'Meleches Machsheves'.

Question: Why do we not establish the case by other Mitzvos, such as homosexuality and bestiality in one Ha'alamah?'

Answer: Because it is appropriate to refer to Avodah-Zarah as 'other Mitzvos', seeing as it is compared to all the Mitzvos; but not to raping, which is not!

Implied Question: ... Even though we do establish the Seifa by Chalavim (which is also not compared to all the Mitzvos ...

Answer: ... since the Reisha mentions 'other Mitzvos', the Seifa mentions it too.

Question: The problem remains however, that the Gemara implies that if the Reisha as well as the Seifa was speaking about Chalavim, everything would be fine (even though Chalavim are not compared to the entire Torah?

Clarification: Rashi explains that we learn it from "Asher Chata bah", as the Gemara explains in Kerisos, 19a. - 'to preclude Mis'asek'.

Question: The question then arises however, why Shmuel needs to learn Mis'asek on Shabbos from 'Meleches Machsheves', and not from "bah"?

Answer #1: Shmuel learns from 'Meleches Machsheves' that one is Patur even though he derived benefit from his act (which is Chayav by other Isurim, in spite of "bah").

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, the Mis'asek that the Torah exempts from "bah", according to Rava refers to where one intends to cut Talush and inadvertently cuts Mechubar (meaning that he subsequently discovered that it was Mechubar), in which case his intention has been carried out.

Answer #2 (Part 2): Because if he meant to cut a different Mechubar, he would be Patur, even if he initially intended to cut Mechubar, like the Din regarding somebody who means to extinguish one lamp and inadvertently extinguishes another lamp, which the Gemara in the same Perek, on Daf 20a, exempts from a Chatas.

Answer #2 (Part 3): And according to Abaye, the case of Mis'asek refers to where he intends to pick up an object that is Talush and inadvertently cuts what is Mechubar (meaning that he subsequently discovered that it was Mechubar). All of these cases fall under the category of 'Meleches Machsheves' (seeing as he achieved what he intended to), and he is only Patur because of "bah".

Answer #2 (Part 4): Whereas the 'Mis'asek' of Shmuel, which he exempts because it is not Meleches Machsheves', speaks where the perpetrator means to cut one Mechubar, and inadvertently cut a different Mechubar, where he does not achieve what he intended to.

Implied Question (Part 1): When the Gemara in Kerisos, with reference to the D'rashah "asher Chata bah", 'P'rat le'Mis'asek', asks 'Mis'asek of what? If it is Mis'asek of Chalavim and Arayos, he is Chayav, seing as he derived pleasure; It must therefore of Shabbos, - but he is Patur, since Shmuel stated "ha'Mis'asaek ... " ?'

Implied Question (Part 2): This implies that Shmuel is speaking about the same case of Mis'asek as the D'rashah of "asher Chata bah"?

Answer: The Gemara only cites Shmuel to counter Chalavim va'Arayos (to which the Pasuk "Asher Chata bah" does not pertain).