Question: In any case, why do we need the Hekesh of Shogeg to Mezid? Even without the verse there "veha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh b'Yad Ramah", we would properly learn from idolatry, for which one is Chayav Kares [that one brings a Chatas for all such Aveiros]!

Answer: We should equate [Chiyuv Chatas] to idolatry only regarding matters written in that Parshah, like Rashi connotes. Therefore, we need to bring here "veha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh..."

Proof: We do not learn from idolatry that one must be Chayav stoning for Mezid, like a idolatry, since stoning is not written in that Parshah. Only Kares is written [there].

Implied question: In Makos (13b) we exclude Pesach and Milah from a Korban (for one who does not fulfill them), because [Chiyuv Chatas is for matters like] idolatry, in which the Torah said "do not do", and [Pesach and Milah] are Mitzvos to do an action (even though this is not written in the Parshah)!

Answer: Also this is written [in the Parshah]. "Veha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh b'Yad Ramah" connotes "what [Hash-m] commanded not to do."

Question: Rabanan [of Munvaz] here is R. Akiva, and R. Akiva holds in Kerisus (7b) that this verse of Megadef is written regarding blasphemy!

Answer: The expression used here "the entire Torah is equated to idolatry" was adopted due to Rabanan of R. Akiva. According to R. Akiva, we can say that the entire Torah is equated to blasphemy.

Question: According to Munvaz, what is the source for the Drashah of R. Yehoshua ben Levi (that one brings a Chatas for Mitzvos like idolatry, Chayavei Kerisus transgressed through action)?

Answer (Ri): He learns like Rebbi expounds [a Gezeirah Shavah "Aleha-Aleha"] in Yevamos (9a) and Horiyos (8a). It says here "v'Noda'ah ha'Chatas Asher Chat'u Aleha", and it says "Ishah Al Achosah Lo Sikach Litzror Legalos Ervasah Aleha."

Implied question: Why can't we say that he was Shogeg about the Lav and Mezid about the Korban (he knew that one is liable a Korban for this Aveirah)?

Answer: It is unreasonable to obligate one who was Mezid about the Korban. [Surely] he is not "Shav mi'Yedi'aso." (One brings a Korban only if he would have refrained from the Aveirah, had he known.)

Implied question: Why can't we say that he was Shogeg about the Lav and the Korban?

Answer: It is reasonable that since [Shogeg] is equated to Mezid, even if he is Mezid about everything, [except for] one matter in which he is Shogeg, i.e. [liability to bring] a Korban, we should obligate him.

Distinction: However, when there is stoning, we require that he is Shogeg also about stoning. If he was Mezid about stoning, we should not obligate him a Korban. Since he does not refrain from liability for stoning, obviously had he known that there is also a Korban, he would not have refrain, and he is not "Shav mi'Yedi'aso."

Implied question: When one was Mezid about Kares, he is considered "Shav mi'Yedi'aso" regarding [had he known that there is also] a Korban!

Answer #1: This is because Teshuvah helps for Kares (to remove it), but it does not help for [exempting from] a Korban.

Answer #2: Regarding Kares, we can properly say that had he known that there is Kares with the Korban, he would have refrained.

Explanation: R. Yochanan's reason is because there is no Lav in the Hekesh of R. Yehoshua [ben Levi]. Only Kares is written there.

Support: This is why it asks what is the reason for Reish Lakish, but it does not ask what is the reason for R. Yochanan.

Explanation: We must say that R. Yochanan discusses according to Rabanan, who hold of R. Yehoshua ben Levi's Hekesh;

However, according to Rebbi, who learns from the Gezeirah Shavah "Aleha-Aleha", R. Yochanan agrees that he requires that he was Shogeg about the Lav and Kares [to be obligated a Korban], for there is a Lav in that verse "Ishah Al Achosah Lo Sikach..."

Question (Ri): What is Reish Lakish's source that Rabanan expound so, and require Shegagah of the Lav?

Suggestion: He understands that it is proper to expound the verse like this.

Rejection: You are forced to say that he holds that it is not proper to expound like this, for he holds like Munvaz, like it says above, and Munvaz does not require Shegagah of the Lav, only Shegagah of the Korban alone;

This is like a Beraisa teaches explicitly below 'or he said "I know that this Melachah is forbidden, but I do not know whether or not one is liable a Korban", he is liable', and it did not say "[I do not know] whether or not one is liable a Korban and lashes."

Implied question: Why couldn't we say that he knew it regarding Isi's law (that there is a Melachah for which one is not Chayav Misah)?

Answer: One is Chayav Chatas also for that Melachah, like I explained above (6b. One of the 39 Chata'os is for that Melachah, so we cannot say that he remembered it.)

Question (Ri): Why didn't we say that he knew the Aseh of Shabbos - "uva'Yom ha'Shevi'i Tishbos...", and it says "u'Shmartem Es ha'Shabbos"? (Rashba - we could have said so. Ramban - if he did not know the Lav, it is considered that he forgot the essence of Shabbos, and he is liable only once.)

Explanation #1: E.g. he swore that he will not eat and he ate, and at the time of eating he forgot the Isur Shevu'ah;

We apply to him "ha'Adam", for at the time of the Shevu'ah, i.e. when he swore, he knew well the Isur of [a false] Shevu'ah, just at the time he ate he thought that it is permitted to transgress his Shevu'ah. (From "ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah" we exclude one who was unaware.)

Explanation #2 (Rashi): At the time he ate, he forgot that he swore.

Rebuttal: This is not called that he was Shogeg about the Lav, due to not remembering that he swore.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): However, according to Rabanan who argue with Munvaz, we do not find Shegagas Shevu'as Bituy in the past;

They hold like R. Yishmael, who said in Shevuos (25a) that one is liable [for Shevu'as Bituy] only in the future.

Objection (R. Eliezer, to the Rashbam): Rabanan of Munvaz are R. Akiva, and R. Akiva explicitly obligates for the past in Shevuos (25a)!

Explanation #2 (Rashi): [Some texts say that it cannot be Munvaz, for this is no Chidush. Rather, it is like Rabanan, and Abaye is refuted.]

Proof - Citation (Shevu'os 26b): Rava asked Rav Nachman "which is Shegagas Bituy in the past?", and he answered that the person says "I know that this Shevu'ah is forbidden, but I do not know whether or not one is liable a Korban for it";

[Rava] asked him "is this like Munvaz?" [Rav Nachman] answered that it is even like Rabanan. Even though in the entire Torah they hold that Shegagas Korban [is not Shogeg to obligate a Korban, Shevu'ah is different].

Question (Rashi): Why is this obvious? It teaches that even though normally [forgetting the Lav] is Shegagah, here it is not Shegagah, for we require "ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah"!

Answer: This is not difficult. If it was needed for this, it should teach explicitly "ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah" to exclude Ones! Rather, it connotes that it comes to teach that [forgetting the Lav] is considered Shegagah.

Question: Without this Beraisa, we could have challenged Abaye from our Mishnah in Shevuos in which R. Akiva obligates Shevu'as Bituy in the past, and we find this only if he was Mezid about the Lav!

Explanation #3: The Rashbam answered R. Eliezer that according to Rabanan, who hold that Shegagas Korban is not considered Shegagah, we find Shegagas Shevu'as Bituy in the past when he knows that this Shevu'ah is forbidden, but he does not know that there is a Lav. Rather, he thinks that there is an Isur Aseh;

This is properly considered ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah.

Proof: In Shevuos (26a), from ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah we exclude only one who thought at the time of the Shevu'ah that he swears truthfully, like Rav's Talmidim. One of them swore that Rav said a certain law [and the other swore that Rav said differently. Rav told the one who erred that he will not be punished for a false oath, for this is Ones.]

Explanation #3 (cont.): Therefore, we say "who [taught] this? It is Munvaz", for according to Rabanan, it should have taught "I do not know whether or not one is liable for it", and Rava' question to Rav Nachman in Shevuos, it argues with Abaye.

Explanation #1: However, he may walk as far as he wants (Chachamim exempt him from concern for Techumim), except for the day he observes [to be Shabbos]. If not, he would never reach civilization!

Implied question: Why did it say "how is [the day he observes to be Shabbos] recognized?" (It is recognized through his observance of the Techum!)

Answer: Shabbos is not recognized through sitting and not walking.

Explanation #2: Even on the day he observes [to be Shabbos], he may walk as far as he wants. Now, [the day] is recognized only through Kidush (Rav Pores).