1)

(a)We refer to an Asham Shifchah Charufah as an Asham Vaday - to preclude from an Asham Taluy. In fact, there are two more cases of Asham Vaday that come to atone for a sin: an Asham Me'ilos and an Asham Gezeilos.

(b)A man who is Bo'el a Shifchah Charufah has to bring an Asham, whether he did so be'Shogeg or be'Meizid. According to Ula, if he is Bo'el her five times, and becomes aware of the sin after each Bi'ah, then according to those who hold that ...

1. ... an Asham Vaday does require a Yedi'ah (Rebbi Akiva) - he will be Chayav as many Ashamos as there were Yedi'os.

2. ... an Asham Vaday does not need a Yedi'ah - he will always be Chayav only one Asham, even in a case of Shogeg, even if he had a Yedi'ah in between each one (even according to Rebbi Yochanan, who learnt above that Yedi'os Mechalkos - according to the first opinion there), because since this Asham does not require a Yedi'ah, Yedi'ah is not Chashuv, and does not divide.

(c)Five Bi'os without a Yedi'ah simply means - that he did not have a Yedi'ah until afterwards (whilst with a Yedi'ah means that he was aware at the time of each Bi'ah, that he was contravening).

(d)Rav Hamnuna querying Ula, asked him whether, by the same token, a man will also be Patur from a second Asham (according to Rebbi Akiva), if, after the first Bi'ah, he designates a Korban and asks the Kohen to delay bringing it until he has been Bo'el again. Ula replied - that even those who hold that a Yedi'ah does not divide, concede that Hafrashah (designating one's Korban) does, as we learnt earlier in the Sugya.

2)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he stated that according to Rebbi Akiva, according to whom an Asham Vaday requires a Yedi'ah, even Resh Lakish (who holds that Yedi'os do not divide) will agree that here, the Yedi'os will divide. In that case, we will establish the Mishnah, which obligates only one Asham for many Bi'os with a Shifchah - either in a case of Meizid or of Shogeg in one He'elam (where he did not know at all in between the Bi'os that he was transgressing.

(b)Rav Dimi does not come to argue with Ula - because Ula speaks according to those who hold that an Asham does not need a Yedi'ah to be Chayav, and Rav Dimi, according to those who hold that it does.

(c)Abaye refutes this version of Rav Dimi however, from the Din of Chatas (where a Yedi'ah is also required) - yet Resh Lakish argues with Rebbi Yochanan, maintaining that a Yedi'ah between the bringing of the Korbanos does not divide.

3)

(a)Abaye therefore suggested to Rav Dimi that he should learn - that according to Rebbi Akiva, even Resh Lakish will agree that Hafrashah will divide between one Bi'ah and the other (as we just explained). To which Rav Dimi agreed.

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan, even a Yedi'ah between the Bi'os will divide (according to Rebbi Akiva).

(c)Despite the fact that a Yedi'ah in between two Bi'os of a Shifchah Charufah does not divide, a Yedi'ah in between two k'Zeisei Cheilev does - because by Chelev, the Chiyuv Korban comes for the number of Shegagos, and if someone became aware in between that he had sinned, then he has transgressed two Shegagos, and is Chayav two Chata'os. Whereas by a Shifchah Charufah, for whom one is Chayav even be'Meizid, the Yedi'ah has nothing to do with the number of Shegagos.

4)

(a)When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said 'ha'Kol Modim be'Shifchah Charufah' (that there is Chiluk Yedi'os), 've'ha'Kol Modim be'Shifchah Charufah' (that there is not), 'u'Machlokes be'Shifchah Charufah'. When he said 'ha'Kol', he meant - Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

(b)When he said ...

1. ... 'ha'Kol Modim be'Shifchah Charufah' (that there is Chiluk Yedi'os) - he was referring to Bi'ah after having designated one's Korban for the previous Bi'ah (like Rav Hamnuna).

2. ... 've'ha'Kol Modim be'Shifchah Charufah' (that there is no Chiluk Yedi'os) - he was referring to a Yedi'ah in between two Bi'os, according to Rebbi Tarfon, who holds that a Yedi'ah does not divide (like Ula).

3. ... 'u'Machlokes be'Shifchah Charufah' - he meant according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that it does, and over which Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue).

5)

(a)'Shogeg' on Shabbos - is someone who means to perform a certain Melachah on Shabbos, but who forgets, either that it is Shabbos, or that the Melachah is forbidden on Shabbos.

(b)From "Asher Chata Bah" (written in connection with the sin-offering of a Nasi) we learn -that if someone who intended to commit an act that is permitted (e.g. to pick a knife), but inadvertently commits one that is forbidden (e.g. he detaches a vegetable with it as he is picking it up), is called (not a Shogeg, but) an 'O'nes', and is Patur from a Korban. He is described as 'Mis'asek' (see also Tosfos).

(c)According to Rava, someone who specifically intends to cut something that is detached, but inadvertently severs something that is attached, is also called 'Misasek' and is Patur from a Korban (since he did not intend to do something which is forbidden). Abaye maintains - that since he did specifically intended to cut (an act which, unlike picking something up, is sometimes forbidden), he is considered a Shogeg, and not an O'nes.

6)

(a)The Beraisa writes 'Chomer Shabbos mi'She'ar Mitzvos ... she'ha'Shabbos, Asah Sh'tayim be'He'alam Echad, Chayav Al Kol Echad ve'Echad, Mah she'Ein Ken bi'She'ar Mitzvos'. The initial problem with this Beraisa is - how to establish it. Because, if the Tana is speaking by someone who ...

1. ... performed two different Melachos be'Shigegas Melachos - the equivalent case of other 'Mitzvos' would be if he ate, for example, Cheilev and blood. Why in that case, should he not be Chayav two Chata'os there as well?

2. ... ate Cheilev twice in one He'elam, then the equivalent case by Shabbos would be when he reaped twice in one He'elam - then there is no reason for to be Chayav two Chata'os on Shabbos any more than by other 'Mitzvos'?

(b)We therefore establish Shabbos by someone who reaped and ground (be'Shigegas Melachos) and 'She'ar Mitzvos' of the Reisha by Avodah Zarah - and the four aspects of Avodah-Zarah that one would contravene, for which one would bring only one Chatas are Shechitah, sacrificing incense, pouring wine and prostrating oneself before the idol. For performing all of these in one Ha'alamah, one would only be obligated to bring one Chatas.

(c)We then attempt to establish the Seifa too - 've'Chomer She'ar Mitzvos mi'Shabbos, she'bi'She'ar Mitzvos, Shagag be'Lo Miskaven, Chayav, Mah she'Ein Ken, be'Shabbos' by Avodah Zarah. This cannot mean that someone who bows down to an idol, believing it to be a Shul, is Chayav - because idolatry is rooted in the heart, and one cannot be Chayav for intending to serve Hash-m.

(d)Nor can the Tana be referring to someone who bows down to the bust of a king in deference to the king - because 'mi'Mah-Nafshach', if he intended to worship him as a god, then he is Meizid; and if he did it purely to honor him, it is permitted.

7)

(a)According to Abaye, the Seifa of the previous Beraisa could be speaking about somebody who bows down to an idol out of love or out of fear of who the person who ordered him to do so (and not out of conviction). Rava says - that someone who bows down to an idol out of love or fear, is Patur (though this does not mean that it is permitted to do so).

(b)Rava cannot explain the Beraisa by 'Omer Mutar' (when he thinks that what he is doing is permitted [implying that Omer Mutar is Chayav by other sins, but Patur by Shabbos]) - because Rava himself asked Rav Nachman (earlier in the Masechta), whether Omer Mutar is Chayav one Chatas (for many Melachos on many Shabbasos) or many Chata'os, but certainly not Patur altogether.