Question: But the Mishnah regarding Shevu'as ha'Eidus teaches that a Shevu'ah cannot apply to an Isur mi'de'Rabanan!?

The requirement of bringing a Korban for Shevu'as ha'Eidus (if he is sworn to testify but then denies, falsely, that he has any information) applies only to one who is otherwise fit as a witness.

Who does this exclude?

(R. Papa): It excludes the King (who may not testify due to his honor) and is Patur from bringing a Korban.

(R. Acha b. Ya'akov): It excludes (and exempts) those who are Pasul mi'de'Rabanan from testifying, such as a gambler.

A gambler is only excluded mi'de'Rabanan and yet the Shevu'ah does not apply to him!

By extension, the same should be true for a Shevu'as Bitui which should not apply to an Isur de'Rabanan!?

Answer: Shevu'as ha'Eidus is different since it cannot apply to the gambler who, having been excluded mi'de'Rabanan, is not subject to the Lav of not testifying.

Question: But we do find the word 'Asur' used regarding a Chiyuv Kareis!?

The Beraisa teaches that the Chiyuv Kareis only applies to eating and drinking, not to the other afflictions.

Still, the term 'Asur' is used for all the Inuyim.

Answer: The term 'Asur' applies to Chatzi Shiur, even as it is true that eating a full shiur would incur Kareis.

Alternate Answer: The term 'Asur' is used, since it applies to the other Inuyim.

This is supported by the citation from the Sha'ar Sifrei d'bei Rav that the word "Shabason" is the license given to the Chachamim to add other Inuyim onto eating and drinking (the same way that Shabason is used to add other Melachos onto the 39 on Shabbos), and they are called Isurim.

R. Yochanan holds that Chatzi Shi'ur is an Isur Torah while Resh Lakish holds it is an Isur de'Rabanan.

R. Yochanan holds that things which may aggregate must be viewed, from the outset, as the Isur.

Resh Lakish holds that the Torah specifically prohibited Achilah (and less than a Shi'ur is not called Achilah).

Question (R. Yochanan of Resh Lakish): The Beraisa (searching for the Isur of eating Chelev Koy as well as Chatzi Shiur finds the word "Kol") indicates that a tiny amount is an Isur Torah!?

Answer: The word "Kol" is an Asmachta which the Rabanan use.

This seems likely, since, if it were an actual Isur Torah, it would be prohibiting Koy. And It is not reasonable that the word "Kol" would come to prohibit a Safek (since it is only a doubt for us)!

Question: That is not an indication, since that Tana could hold that Koy is a separate creature, necessitating a special word to prohibit its Chelev.

This is supported by the statement of R. Idi b. Avin in Kerisus, where 'Kol' in the Beraisa comes to include Koy.

Again, there, the Pasuk could not be including a Safek!

The Beraisa teaches that the Inuy is only through passive, not active affliction ('Shev ve'Al Ta'Asei').

Question: Perhaps if he finds himself in the sun he should not move into the shade (or the opposite)!?

Answer: The Inuy is comparable to Isur Melachah, where we do not distinguish within the same activity (an act is either a Melachah or it is not, just as sitting in the sun is either an Inuy or it is not).

The Beraisa further teaches that Inuy is like Melachah on Yom Kipur.

Just as Melachah is prohibited elsewhere (as by Shabbos), so, too, Inuy is Chayav elsewhere (as by eating Pigul and Nosar).

We are not to think, however, that only the Kareis foods are prohibited on Yom Kipur.

The Pasuk is understood to prohibit other foods (Tevel, Neveilah, Chulin, Terumah, Kodshim) to be eaten on Yom Kipur, all from the inclusive word "Te'anu".

If one would argue with the implications of "Te'anu", another support may be brought to include all foods from the reference to Inuy which causes loss of Nefesh (eating and drinking).

What is the need for the the Pasuk if one would argue support?

Answer: Perhaps one would feel that "Te'anu" refers to Arayos, the Torah thus speaks of Inuy which causes loss of Nefesh, meaning eating and drinking.

The Tana de'Bei R. Yishmael links the Inuy of Yom Kipur with the Inuy to which Hash-m subjected the people in the Midbar, both being based on hunger.

Question: Learn from Lavan's use of the word "Te'aneh" that it refers to abstention from cohabitation?

Answer: It is more reasonable to link general distress and not to personal distress.

Question: Link it to the general distress in Mitzrayim which, we have learned, was Perishus Derech Eretz!?

Answer: Rather, we link to deprivation by Divine decree (Yom Kipur and the Man in the Midbar) and not to deprivation by human decree.

R. Ami and R. Asi argue over what the deprivation involved.

One said it was the lack of 'Pas be'Salo'.

One said it was the inability to see (differentiate) the food.

R. Yosef reported this as the source that a blind person does not feel satisfied.

Abaye further taught that food should be eaten when it is light.

R. Zeira supported this with the Pasuk "Tov Mar'eh Einayim... "

Resh Lakish extended this to the pleasure of seeing one's wife.