Question: He should say "if it is not needed for Mezid, for we cannot kill him twice!"

Answer: If not for the other verse that he brings, we would have established this verse for Mezid, and [we would not expound] Mos Yumas, for Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam (the Torah speaks like people, who sometimes double words without need);

However, now that it is not needed for Mezid, you are forced to establish it for Shogeg, and to obligate a Korban for each one.

Question: If so (one is liable only once), why would we need the verse [from which we expound] "Devarim - ha'Devarim - Eleh ha'Devarim", since it does not come to divide (separate Chata'os for each Melachah)?

Answer: We need the number, because there are Melachos that are not important, and we need the number [of Melachos] to teach that all of them are Melachos to be liable for them.

However, from our Mishnah of 40 [less one] Melachos (73a), he properly infers that in one Helam he is liable for each one, since it did not need the count, since it explicitly lists all of them.

Question (Ri): Below (97b) it connotes that this count comes to distinguish, for it says there 'does this teach that Rebbi obligates for a Toldah in place of (i.e. where he is already liable for) the Av? A Beraisa teaches that Rebbi says, "Devarim - ha'Devarim - Eleh ha'Devarim"...'

Rashi explained there that we ask as follows. Since the count comes only to divide Chata'os [for each Melachah] - if you will say that one is liable for a Toldah in place of the Av, it should have taught more!

Based on what we explained that the count is only to teach that all are considered Melachos to be liable for them, he did not ask anything!

Answer (Ri): The text here says like in the Mechilta. It teaches there that R. Nasan says, why does it say "Lo Seva'aru Esh"? Since it says "va'Yakhel Moshe", I might think that one is not liable until he transgresses [all] 39 Melachos - "b'Charish uva'Katzir" teaches that this is not so.

Now, if not for "Lo Seva'aru", one might have thought that the count comes to teach that he is not liable for one or two, until he does all 39. Since it says "Lo Seva'aru", we learn from it that one is liable for each by itself;

If so, the count comes to teach that only for the 39 Melachos, he is liable for each one, but not for a Toldah in place of the Av.

Support #1: According to this text, now it is proven properly below (97b) that Rebbi does not obligate for a Toldah in place of the Av.

Support #2: Also, according to this text, it is fine that the Beraisa says 'since it says, "Devarim - ha'Devarim...", one might have thought that...

Inference: The verse "ha'Devarim" connotes to him that he is not liable until he transgresses all of them.

Support: Also in Pesachim (5b), it says 'since it says "Lo Yera'eh Lecha", one might have thought that one may hide [Chametz] and accept deposits from Nochrim...' (even though we have no source to forbid without this verse)!

However, according to the text in Seforim, why does it say "since it says"? Also without the verse, we would say so, as long as we do not learn separation of Melachos from some place!

Question: What is his source that he is liable twice? We can say that he is liable only once for both of them!

Answer: It is because it says "b'Charish uva'Katzir", which connotes two matters, since it did not say "b'Charish v'Katzir."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because the Klal is a Lav, and the Prat is an Aseh.

Question #1: The Klal is written also as an Aseh - "uva'Yom ha'Shevi'i Tishbos"!

Question #2: Only regarding Klal u'Ferat, we say in Mo'ed Katan (3a) that we do not expound it [like Klal u'Ferat] when the Klal is not in the expression of the Prat;

However, regarding something that left the Klal [to get a new law], we do not find anywhere [that the Klal and Prat must be in similar expressions]!

Question #3: In Mo'ed Katan, there is an opinion that we expound [Klal u'Ferat even if they are in the expression of the Prat]!

Explanation #2 (Rashi): We do not learn from Charish and Katzir (plowing and harvesting) because they are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad (two verses, one of which teaches something that we could have learned from the other verse).

Support: We say like this in Sanhedrin (67b). Ov and Yid'oni were in the Klal of all witches... and it asks that Ov and Yid'oni should be Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad.

Question: How can we learn from "Lo Seva'aru"? All the more so, [now] there are Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, and all agree that they do not teach [to elsewhere]!

Suggestion: Charish and Katzir come [to teach] like we expound in Mo'ed Katan (4a), just like Charish is Reshus (optional, also Katzir forbidden on Shabbos is Reshus, but Ketzir ha'Omer, which is a Mitzvah, is permitted on Shabbos)!

Rejection: If so, how did we want to learn from it initially (that one brings one Korban for each Melachah)? It does not come for this!

Answer (Ri): They are not Sheloshah Kesuvim because they are not written all as a Lav or all as an Aseh. Therefore, we learn (separate Chata'os) from burning ("Lo Seva'aru Esh"), and now Charish v'Katzir is extra for like we expound in Mo'ed Katan.

Question: It needed to write "Lo Seva'aru" due to the end of the verse "b'Chol Moshvoseichem", from which we expound in Yevamos (6b) and Sanhedrin (35b) that execution does not override Shabbos!

Answer: It could have written a different expression (e.g. do not do any Melachah - Zera Yitzchak), and not "Lo Seva'aru";

[Also] for what we expounded above (20a) "but you may burn [limbs and Chelev on the Mizbe'ach on Shabbos]", it did not need to write "Lo Seva'aru."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): I.e. still, why do we need the Mem in "me'Achas" and "mi'Henah"?

Objection: [The Gemara's words] "what is the reason" connote unlike this.

Explanation #2 (Ri): It means as follows. What is R. Yosi's reason? The verse is needed to teach about one who wrote "Shem" from "Shimon" (i.e. only part of what he intended to write)", and for Avos and Toldos. What is the source to obligate for each one?

[The Gemara] explains that "me'Achas" teaches "Shem" from "Shimon", and "mi'Henah" teaches Avos and Toldos. Even so, since the Torah wrote them adjacent to each other, we expound Achas (one) that is Henah (many), and many that are one.

Implied question: We did not need to say this, since we discuss according to R. Yosi, and he holds below (103b) that one is liable even for one scratch on two boards, or two scratches on one board!

Answer: The Gemara prefers to use the expression of our Mishnah (103b) 'R. Yehudah says, we find a small name from a big name - "Shem" from "Shimon".'

Explanation: Shmuel holds that [the verses do not connote] like R. Nasan [expounds], and not like R. Yosi. We must say that Shmuel had a tradition [to expound] like he did. (If not, he could not argue with both Tana'im!)

Explanation (Ri): Even if he did not know about any Melachah of Shabbos, it is considered that he forgot both, like is proven below;

[The Gemara] said according to R. Yochanan "granted, if you will say that when he forgot both of them he is liable..." This shows that even when he did not know anything about Shabbos, it is considered that he forgot both!

Observation: We must distinguish between this, and one who forgot the essence of Shabbos. Here it is not so forgotten. When they remind him, he remembers;

However, one who forgot the essence of Shabbos, this is like a baby that Nochrim captured.

Implied question #1: In Shevuos (19a), Rava asked Rav Nachman "if he forgot both [Tum'ah and the Mikdash], what is the law?", and he answered "he forgot the Tum'ah. He is liable."

Implied question #2: In Shevuos (26a) [Rava asked about one who forgot both the Shevu'ah and the item he swore about, and Rav Nachman] answered "he forgot the Shevu'ah. He is liable."

Answer: There, he properly answered that we are stringent. Here, he answered to exempt him, because he holds that Shigegas Shabbos is primary, for the primary Mitzvah is due to Shabbos.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): They said to him "today is Shabbos", and he separated [from the Melachah].

Question: Perhaps also had they said to him "this is a Melachah", he would have separated, even if they would not remind him that it is Shabbos!

Explanation #2 (Ri): It means as follows. If he refrains due to Shabbos, that he says by himself that had they informed him only that it is Shabbos, he would have separated, and had they informed of the Melachos, he would not have separated, if so Helam Shabbos is primary. It was more forgotten;

If he refrains due to Melachos, that they ask him, and he says that had they informed him of the Melachos, they would not have needed to inform him [that it is] Shabbos, but had they informed him that it is Shabbos, he would have needed that they inform him of the Melachos, Helam of the Melachos is primary, and he is liable for every one;

However, when both of them are forgotten equally, he did not resolve anything. Rav Ashi comes to resolve only part of the question. I.e. sometimes we can distinguish which Helam is primary.

Consequence: The text does not say like is written in Seforim "if when they informed him about Shabbos, they would still need to inform him of the Melachos, he has Helam of the Melachos..."

Source: According to the Ri's Perush, it would still need to explain that if they informed him about Melachos, they would not need to inform him of Shabbos!

Rather, the text says "if he refrains due to Melachos...", and Ravina said "he refrains due to Shabbos only due to Melachos!" I.e. since both are forgotten, this that one is more forgotten does not make a difference;

Rather, there is no difference. In both cases it is a question.

Defense (of the text in Seforim - Rashba): Rav Ashi comes to resolve that when he forgot both of them he is liable. [Rav Ashi says that] if he refrains due to Shabbos, that Shabbos was more forgotten, this is Helam Shabbos;

If when they inform him about Shabbos, they still need to inform him of the Melachos, even if also when they would inform him about Melachos, they would need to inform him of Shabbos, which is Helam of both of them, this is like Helam Melachos, and he is liable [for every Melachah].

Proof: Above, it mentioned "if he refrains due to Shabbos", and here it says "if when they inform him about Shabbos..."

Implied question: Why did [Ravina] say "he refrains due to (remembering) Melachos only due to Shabbos!"? (Rav Ashi obligates for every Melachah when he forgot both!)

Answer: He means that rather, it is due to Shabbos, and Shigegas Shabbos is primary, and he is liable only once. [If you would explain] differently, [Ravina] did not ask at all, since when both are equally [forgotten], he is liable for every one!

Explanation (Rashbam): He found out and separated a Korban, and before Kaparah (offering it), he found out about the harvesting and grinding of Shigegas Melachos;

However, if he found out only after Kaparah, they are not Nigrar, and all agree that he needs two Korbanos, for all agree that Kaparah divides.

Limitation: This is only if he separated a Korban. If he did not separate, and found out about the harvesting and grinding of Shigegas Melachos, he brings whichever he wants, for it depends on him;

If he wants, he separates one Chatas for Shigegas Shabbos, and [the Aveiros of] Shegagas Melachos are Nigrarim with it;

Or, if he wants, he separates two Korbanos for harvesting and grinding of Shegagas Melachos, and [the Aveiros of] Shegagas Shabbos are Nigrarim with them.

Support: This is like Rava said below. If he ate two k'Zeisim of Chelev in one Helam and found out about one of them... if he brought a Korban for the first...

Inference: Even though he found out first about the first, since he did not yet separate a Korban, the middle one is not Nigrar with it, in order to be obligated a Korban for the third;

Rather, if he wants, he brings a Korban for the middle and atones for all of them.

Question: Now, it connotes that Rava holds that separations do not divide, since [the Aveiros of] Shigegas Melachos are Nigrarim with those of Shigegas Shabbos. This is like Reish Lakish;

Rava himself rules like [Reish Lakish against R. Yochanan] only in three places (Yevamos 36a, and this is not one of them)!

Answer #1: R. Chananel explained that the Halachah follows Rabah, the Rebbi of Abaye. This connotes that his text says Rabah [and not Rava].

Support: It connotes like this (the text says Rabah), for he is mentioned before Abaye. (Normally, the earlier Chacham is mentioned first. Rabah was Rosh Yeshivah before Abaye, and Abaye before Rava.) Also below, it says "what was obvious to Rava and Abaye..."

Answer #2: Even if the text says Rava, we can say that in Yevamos he discusses only matters that apply nowadays.

Question (Ri): Below (71b), we ask whether or not [R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish] argue about whether separation divides. We should resolve that they argue about whether separation divides!

If they argued about whether Yedi'ah divides, but all agree that separation divides, if so, Rabah and Abaye, who hold here that separation does not divide, like whom do they hold?

Note: Amora'im can argue with earlier Amora'im. However, is difficult to say that Rabah and Abaye are a third opinion, for R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish were the first generation of Amora'im, and they were the greatest of Eretz Yisrael, and we do not find that any of their colleagues argued with them!

Answer: We could reject and say that here we discuss when he did not separate until after he found out also about Shigegas Melachos.

Note: It seems that Tosfos does not retract from the Rashbam's Perush, that he separated before he found out about Shigegas Melachos. However, since we could say otherwise, the Gemara could not answer the question.)

Implied question: [If so,] why does it say that he found out about Shigegas Shabbos [and afterwards he found out Shigegas Melachos? Is it not because he separated a Korban in between?]

Answer: It means that at the end he separated for Shigegas Shabbos.