Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he transgresses the La'av of "Al Tifnu", whereas the magician himself transgresses the La'av of "Lo Yimatzei b'cha ...".

Question: If "Al Tifnu" is the La'av that pertains to the person who asks the Ba'al-Ov, then he ought to be Chayav Kareis, since the Torah writes in 'Kedoshim' "ve'ha'Nefesh asher Tifneh ... ve'Hichrati osah ... " (whereas we know that he isn't)?

Explanation #2: The D'rashos must therefore be learned in the reverse, so that the Azharah for the one who asks the Ba'al Ov is Chayav because of "Lo Yimatzei b'cha ... ".

Clarification: Rashi explain that La'avin divide the number of Chata'os, since the Torah writes "Asher Lo Sa'asenah", and next to it (in connection with the Korban Chatas ("O Hoda eilav Chataso").

Implied Question: Even though in Perek K'lal Gadol, (Shabbos, 69a), it is Resh Lakish who learns from "biShegagah" that the sinner must err in the La'av; whereas according to R. Yochanan, even if he erred in the Kareis, even though he was Meizid in the La'av ...

Answer: Nevertheless, the Chata'os are dependent on the La'avin.

Source: Since we find by (the two La'avin concerning the Ketores) 'Mefatem and Sach' the Torah mentions two La'avin and one Kareis, presumably it is order to obligate the transgressor to bring two Chata'os.

Question #1: But R. Akiva is Mechayev Megadef only because the Torah writes Kareis there where it talks about Korban, as we learned in the Mishnah at the end of the first Perek of Kerisos, 7b. In that case, Hishtachava'ah, where it does not, he ought to be Patur?

Question #2: Similarly, why is Yid'oni, according to R. Yochanan, Chayav according to R. Akiva, since there too, Kareis is not written in the Parshah of Korban?

Answer #1: R. Akiva says to the Rabbanan, according to their opinion 'As far as I am concerned, no act is necessary; but you (who holds that it is), won't you at least concede that Megadef, which the Torah juxtaposes next to Korbanos, is Chayav to bring a Korban?'

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, once the Torah reveals that Megadef is Chayav a Korban, we know that one never requires an act in order to be Chayav a Korban (since 'Akimas Sefasav', according to R. Yochanan in R. Akiva, is not considered an act - seeing as it applies to the heart), as we will see later ...

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... whereas according to Resh Lakish, R. Akiva is Mechayev by Megadef, even though it is not a big act only a small one.

(Alternative Tack). Answer: The Gemara in Kerisos answers that the Tana mentions one of two possibilities.

Question: Then why did he not mention Ba'al Ov?

Answer: He needed to mention Megadef, because we would otherwise have thought that, since it writes Kareis in the place of the Korban, even the Rabbanan will concede to R. Akiva (that he is Chayav a Korban). Therefore he teaches us that he is not.

Observation: The Gemara does this often in many places.

Example (Part 1): Like we find in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 22a & 22b), where the Gemara asks that we learn that the Kohen must use is right hand from Rabah bar bar Chanah? And it answers that Kehunah requires Etzba; whereas at the end of Perek ha'Todah (Menachos, 83a) it answers 'K'dei Nasaba' (The first Limud is only mentioned by the way).

Example (Part 2): Whereas at the end of 'Dam Chatas' (Zevachim 98a & 98b), the Gemara cites both answers.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that, even if he 'blesses' (blasphemes) Hash-m all day, but he has in mind, not Hash-m, but some other god, whom he calls by the Name of Hash-m, he is not Chayav.

Question: In that case, Hishtachava'ah too, is also dependent on the heart, as we learned earlier with regard to an image 'If he does not accept it as a deity, then he has done nothing wrong'?

Explanation #2: Since the Navi writes in Nachum 1 (with regard to Ninveh) "From you there came out one who thinks evil about Hash-m. This refers to Ravshakei, who was the emissary of Sancheriv, King of Ashur (to which Ninveh belonged). And the Pasuk specifically connects it (the sin of blasphemy) to Machshavah (the heart); whereas by Hishtachavayah it does not (as we just explained).

Explanation #3: According to Tosfos' explanation above (ibid. DH 'Rava') - that S'tam Avodas-Kochavim me'Ahavah or 'mi'Yir'ah, is Chayav, the Kashya is answered too, seeing as it does not depend on the heart (whereas S'tam Megadef does [see 'Chamra ve'Chayei').

Question: Why is it necessary to preclude Eidim Zom'min from a Korban, seeing as, based on the fact that they do not require a warning, they are Chayav Misah even be'Shogeg?

Answer #1: It is necessary in a case where they became Zom'min before the conclusion of the Din, since Eidim Zom'min are not sentenced to death before the 'G'mar-Din (see 'M'lo ha'Ro'im, who queries both of Tosfos' answers).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks where they retracted of their own accord, and admitted that they lied.

Question: When the Gemara retracts from the answer of 'Kol' and concludes that Eidim Zom'min are different since their Chiyuv is based on seeing, how will we answer all the cases which the Toras Kohanim specifically precludes together with Eidim Zom'min from the word "ve'asah" - (Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo, Meisis, Madi'ach and Navi Sheker)?

Alternative Text (Part 1): The old texts do not read 'Ela Amar Rava "Sha'ani Eidim Zom'min ... , but 'Sha'ani Megadef' Ho'il ve'Yeshno be'Kol" ' ...

Alternative Text (Part 2): ... and when the Gemara then asks 've'Kol le'R. Yochanan La'av Ma'aseh Hu?' it is asking on Eidim Zom'min exclusively - since with regard to all the other cases, R. Yochanan holds that 'Kol' is not considered an act, except for 'Chasmah be'Kol', where the Kol results in an act being performed ...

Alternative Text (Part 3): ... and here too, through the speech of the Eidim Zom'min, an act is performed to implicate the defendant ...

Proof: ... as we see in the last Perek of Makos, 16b, where R. Yochanan said to the Tana 'Do not insert "Meimar" (Temurah) through whose speech an act is performed; from which we can extrapolate that 'Akimas Sefasav' alone is not considered an act, unless an act is performed through the speech.

Conclusion: Consequently, the answer of 'Kol' remains, and the Gemara retracts from it only vis-a-vis Eidim Zom'min.

Question: There is a Kashya however, from the first Perek of Kerisos, 4a, which cites this entire Sugya, but which omits the answer of 'Kol', in which case the Kashya that we asked earlier from all the cases which the Toras Kohanim precludes together with Eidim Zom'min from the word "ve'asah" remains intact.

Clarification (Part 1): Their dispute is according to the opinion who holds that a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh is not subject to Malkos, as is explained in Perek ha'Po'alim (Bava Metzi'a, 90b & 91a) ...

Clarification (Part 2): Because Resh Lakish himself - in Perek Shev'os Shetayim (Shevu'os, 21a) holds 'Lokin alav'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he (the Ba'al-Ov) brings up the Meis on his Milah.

Refutation: This is not correct however, based on the Ba'al-Ov of Shaul (who was a woman).

Explanation #2: It must therefore be the name of a specific kind of sorcery.

Proof: Indeed, the Targum's translation of "Ov ve'Yid'oni" is 'Bidin u'Zechurin'. (According to Tosfos' explanation, it is also not clear why the Tana adds the prefix ('Beis') and the suffix {'Vav') in 'bi'Zechuro' [see also Maharsha]).

Question: But if that is so, the Tana ought to have said 'ha'Ma'aleh Bidin, since that is the Targum of 'Ov' (and not 'Zechuro').