1)

(a)Despite the fact that according to Munbaz, even someone who knows that he is sinning, has to bring a Chatas - he is called a Shogeg as long as he does not know that he is Chayav a Korban.

(b)The Rabbanan (Rebbi Akiva) maintain - that lack of knowledge of the Korban alone, does not make one a Shogeg, only if he is also unaware of the Chiyuv Ka'res.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan holds that, according to the Rabbanan, one brings a Korban if he was a Shogeg on the Ka'res (even though he was a Meizid on the La'av). According to Resh Lakish - he must also be a Shogeg on the La'av as well.

(b)Resh Lakish learns this from "Asher Lo Se'asenah ve'Ashem".

(c)Rebbi Yochanan quotes Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, who learns from , "Asher Lo Se'asenah" - that only someone who would have desisted, had he known that he was sinning, is obligated to bring a Chatas - but not an apostate (who would have sinned anyway).

(d)The Tana Kama learns that from "me'Am ha'Aretz".

3)

(a)The Tana (in the Mishnah quoted later in the Perek) found it necessary to state that 'Avos Melachos Arba'im Chaser Achas' despite the fact that all of the thirty-nine Melachos are listed there anyway - to teach us how many Chata'os someone who transgresses all the Melachos in one He'elam (without being aware of the sin in the middle), is Chayav to bring.

(b)The Tana must be speaking - about 'Zadon Shabbos ve'Shigegas Melachos', in order to be Chayav thirty-nine Chata'os; since we have already learnt that for Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos, one is only Chayav one Chatas.

(c)According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'Zadon Shabbos' means that he knew about the La'av, but not about the Chiyuv Ka'res. Resh Lakish (who requires one to be Shogeg even on the La'av) will establish 'Zadon Shabbos' by the prohibition of T'chum Shabbos, which is not one of the thirty-nine Melachos, but is nevertheless an Isur d'Oraysa - according to Rebbi Akiva.

(d)The author of the Beraisa, which says '... O she'Amar, Yodei'a Ani she'Melachah Zu Asurah, Aval Eini Yodei'a she'Chayavin Alehah Korban O Lo, Chayav' - is Munbaz.

4)

(a)When Abaye says'*ha'Kol* Modim bi'Shevu'as Bituy, she'Ein Chayavin Alehah Korban ad she'Yishgag be'La'av she'Bah' - he is referring to Rebbi Yochanan, who does not require Shigegas La'av, by cases of Chiyuv Kares.

(b)Abaye cannot be referring to Munbaz (to say that Munbaz will agree that here, it will not suffice to be Shogeg on the Korban alone, unless he is also a Shogeg on the La'av) - because there is no reason to say that. Now that, by cases of Ka'res, where the Korban is not a Chidush, Munbaz holds that Shogag be'Korban is called a Shogeg, how much more so by Shevu'as Bituy, where it is (since the Korban comes even when there is no Ka'res).

(c)Abaye's Chidush is - that here, although the Korban is a Chidush, he will not be called a Shogeg by being a Shagag be'Korban, until he becomes a Shagag be La'av.

(d)The author of the Beraisa which obligates someone who was Shogeg be'Korban by Shevu'as Bituy - is Munbaz, who holds that Shigegas Korban is called a Shogeg.

5)

(a)The Beraisa asks 'Eizehu Shigegas Shevu'as Bituy le'she'Avar'le'she'Avar?' The problem with the definition of a Shigegas Shevu'as Bituy le'she'Avar that does not exist by a Shigegas Shevu'as Bituy le'Haba is - that whereas a Shigegas Shevu'as Bituy le'Haba simply means that the one who declared it comes to contravene it, he forgot the declaration, what is it by a Shevu'as Bituy le'she'Avar that he forgot? If at the time when he swore that he ate he forgot that he did not, then he would not be Chayav, because of the Pasuk in Vayikra "ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah", from which we learn that a person is only Chayav if he is aware of the facts when he makes the Shevu'ah.

(b)According to the Rabbanan - one is indeed never Chayav a Korban for a Shevu'as Bituy in the past, only in the future (like Rebbi Yishmael in Shevu'os).

(c)According to the second Lashon, we conclude - that the author of the latter Beraisa (which holds that Shevu'as Bituy le'she'Avar is Chayav by Shigegas Korban), must be the Rabbanan (and not Munbaz, because, according to Munbaz, it goes without saying, as we explained earlier), disproving Abaye conclusively.

(d)We refute that Lashon however - by establishing the author as Munbaz. As for the problem concerning what the Chidush will then be, we explain that even according to Munbaz, the Tana needs to inform us that Shevu'os Bituy is unique, inasmuch as in other cases of Shevu'ah, it is possible to be Shogeg in the Ka'res, in the La'av or in the Korban; whereas by Shevu'os Bituy, neither of the former two is possible, and the aspect of Shogeg is confined to Shagag be'Korban (as we explained).

6)

(a)According to Abaye, Rebbi Yochanan will agree that by Terumah (which carries a Chiyuv Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim and not Ka'res), one is only Chayav to pay the extra fifth for being a Shogeg on the La'av - the alternative would be to be a Shogeg on the Chiyuv Misah - much in the same way as Shagag be'Kares (in those cases where there is a Chiyuv Kares).

(b)Rava indeed says that 'Misah bi'Mekom Ka'res Omedes, ve'Chomesh bi'Mekom Korban Ka'i', and one will be Chayav the extra fifth for Shagag be'Misah, in the same way as one is Chayav a Korban for Shagag be'Ka'res.

7)

(a)According to Rav Huna, someone who loses track of the days of the week, is obligated to count six days from the moment he realizes his dilemna, and observe the seventh day as Shabbos. Chiya bar Rav says - that he counts that first day, and observe the following day as Shabbos.

(b)Either way - he subsequently continues to observe every seventh day as Shabbos.

(c)Rav Huna bases his opinion on the creation of the world, where Shabbos followed the six days of the creation, Chiya bar Rav, on the creation of Adam, who was created on Friday, and observed the following day as Shabbos.

(d)We prove Rav Huna right from the Beraisa 'Hayah Mehalech ba'Derech ... Meshamer Yom Echad le'Shishah' - because had the Tana held that Shabbos follows the day that he realized his dilemna, he should have said 'Meshamer Yom Echad, u'Moneh Shishah'.

8)

(a)As far as Melachah is concerned - there is absolutely no difference between his Shabbos and the other six days: He is permitted to do whatever is necessary for his survival even on his Shabbos, whereas what is not, is forbidden even on the other days of the week (Regarding walking beyond the Techum Shabbos, seer Tosfos DH 'Oseh'.)

(b)The practical difference between them is - regarding Kidush and Havdalah, which he recites on his Shabbos, but not on the other six days.

(c)We reject the suggestion that on the day before his Shabbos arrives, he prepares a double quota of whatever he needs, to survive, thereby enabling him to fully observe his Shabbos - on the grounds that he cannot be alllowed to perform excess Melachah on any one day for the next, in case that day is Shabbos.

9)

(a)He would he be permitted to treat one day a week as a regular week-day - if he could recall how many days before he had entered the desert (since he knows with certainty that he would not have entered the desert on a Shabbos).

(b)We initially assume - that he would not have entered the desert on Friday either. In that case, he should be permitted to treat both every subsequent seventh and eighth day as week-days.

(c)We retract from this later suggestion however - because it may have happened that a caravan left on Friday, and he took the opportunity and booked a seat on it.

10)

(a)The apparent contradiction between the Pasuk "ve'Shamru B'nei Yisrael es ha'Shabbos" and the Pasuk "ve'es Shabsosai Tishmoru" - is the fact that the former is written in the singular (suggesting that one brings a Chatas for each Shabbos that one contravenes), whilst the latter is written in the plural, implying that one brings only one Korban for all of them.

(b)Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah resolves the apparent discrepancy - by establishing the former by 'ha'Shoche'ach Ikar Shabbos' of our Mishnah (when he is Chayav only one Korban for breaking many Shabbasos); and the latter, by 'ha'Yode'a Ikar Shabbos' (when he is Chayav one Korban for each Shabbos).

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak argues - that, if anything, the Pesukim must be understood the other way round. The first Pasuk implies one Korban for each Shabbos, and the second, one Korban for many Shabbasos.

(d)Their Machlokes has no ramifications, since it is only a matter of which way round to learn the Pesukim, but the basic facts are the same. In fact, the Torah expressed itself somewhat vaguely, leaving it to the Chachamim to conclude the D'rashah the way they saw fit. 'Shigegas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos').