Implied question: We find this when his colleague inserted food in his gullet!

Answer: We assume that the verse discusses even when he puts in his [own] mouth.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [There must be a Lav because] he is liable a Chatas. A Chatas comes only for a Lav with Kares, like the Mishnah (Kerisus 2a) says "Pesach and Milah are Mitzvos Aseh [with Kares], and there is no Chatas."

Question: In Makos (13b) it connotes that Korban does not require a Lav!

It asks there "perhaps the Lav is for Korban, for Pesach and Milah have no Lav, and there is no Korban for [transgressing] them!"

It answers there "the reason is because the entire Torah is equated to idolatry. Just like idolatry [the Torah commands to] be passive and not do, [Chatas is brought for such Aveiros], to exclude these (Pesach and Milah, in which the Torah commands) to do an action.

Explanation #2: Here we ask "what is the source for a Lav?" because Shochet and Maileh b'Chutz is listed in Makos (13b) among Aveiros for which one is lashed. The question) does not refer to our Mishnah (here. Perhaps he is liable Kares or Chatas, which do not require a Lav.)

Implied question: Why does it say in Kerisus (2a) "Pesach and Milah are Mitzvos Aseh"? (This implies that there is no Korban because there is no Lav!)

Answer: I.e. they are Mitzvos to do an action, therefore there is no Chatas for them.

Question #1: Below in our Sugya (106b) it connotes that it comes to exclude a Lav, for Rava asked that a Mishnah teaches that Pesach and Milah are Mitzvos Aseh. We should learn [that a Lav forbids them] from a Kal va'Chomer from Mosir (not eating Korbanos within the allotted time)! For Mosir, the Torah did not punish, but it warned [with a Lav...]

Strengthening of question: And similarly in Eruvin (96a) "this excludes Pesach and Milah, which are Mitzvos Aseh", and it asks 'it is written "v'Shmarta Es ha'Chukah", and R. Ilai taught that whenever it says Hishamer, Pen, or Al, this is a Lav!'

Inference: [The Gemara understands that] "this excludes Pesach and Milah, which are Mitzvos Aseh" to means that they have no Lav and [therefore there is no] warning!

Suggestion: Our Sugya is like Ravina, who gives a different answer in Makos (13b). We can say according to him that Korban requires a Lav.

Rejection: In any case Rava contradicts himself, i.e. Rava in our Sugya and the conclusion in Makos that Korban does not require a Lav according to Rava.

Question #2: Also according to Rashi it is a little difficult. Why does it attribute the reason for Pesach and Milah [to have no Chatas] because there is no Lav? I already know this because there is no action!

Even according to R. Akiva, who says that it does not require an action, Reish Lakish said in Kerisus (3b) "granted, R. Akiva does not require a big action, but he requires a small action!

Answer (to Question #2): We can establish our Sugya like R. Yochanan, who says that R. Akiva does not require an action at all.

Explanation #3: [The Makshan] infers from the wording of the Mishnah [in Kerisus], which taught "Pesach and Milah are Mitzvos Aseh", i.e. they have an action, and the wording connotes also that there is no Lav at all.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Even though it is served through disgrace, and this person serves it honorably (through Shechitah), and we do not apply "Eichah Ya'avdu ha'Goyim ha'Eleh Es Eloheihem v'E'eseh Ken", even so, he is liable. What is the source?

Explanation #2: It seems that all of these are not normally served through Shechitah, even though they are [served] honorably, we do not learn from "Eichah Ya'avdu", like is proven in Sanhedrin (63a);

Abaye said "why are three [Lavim written about] bowing to idolatry? One is when this is k'Darkah (how it is normally served), one is for Lo k'Darkah, and one is to divide (to bring a Korban for each different Avodah did in one Helam (forgetting));

[The Gemara] asks "we know k'Darkah from Eichah Ya'avdu! Rather, one is for Lo k'Darkah, and even totally Lo k'Darkah, that it is served through disgrace, e.g. [Ba'al] Pe'or and Markulis, and one is for k'Darkah and Lo k'Darkah...

Explanation: It is k'Darkah for it is served honorably, but bowing is Lo k'Darkah.

Question: What is the source here for slaughtering an animal to Markulis? Perhaps the verse discusses Mechubadim (idolatries served honorably), but not through Shechitah, but not Mevuzim (those served through disgrace), such as Pe'or and Markulis!

Answer #1: [The Torah] revealed regarding bowing that Mechubadim and Mevuzim are the same. The same applies to Shechitah.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): Two verses are written about Shechitah - the verse here "v'Lo Yizbechu Od", and it is written also "Zove'ach la'E-lohim Yacharam";

We expound [from the latter] in Sanhedrin (61a) that Shechitah was taught by itself to teach about the Klal, that one is liable for every Avodas Penim (Avodah done to Hash-m in the Mikdash), even Lo k'Darkah (of that idolatry).

Question #1 (against Explanation #3): From [the former] verse we learn only a Lav. What is the source for punishment (Misah) for Mevuzim?

Question #2: We need both for Mechubadim - one for a punishment, and one for a Lav!

Question #3: [The Gemara] should not have brought Eichah Ya'avdu. Rather, it should have said "if it need not teach about k'Darkah of Mechubadim, for it says Zove'ach la'E-lohim Yacharam, we use it to teach about Lo k'Darkah"!

Conclusion: Explanation #2 is primary, for R. Elazar comes to teach about all Lo k'Darkah that he is liable;

He mentioned Markulis for a bigger Chidush, and we learn from bowing that there is no distinction between Mechubadim and Mevuzim, like I explained.

Proof: It says in Sanhedrin (64b) "why is Kares written three times regarding idolatry? One teaches k'Darkah, one teaches Lo k'Darkah, and one is for Molech" (this is like the opinion Molech is not idolatry. Tana'im argue about this.)

Observation: We do not require another verse to teach that [one is liable both] for Mechubadim and Mevuzim!

Question: It asks in Sanhedrin (60b) "I should say that bowing was taught by itself to teach about the Klal! (One is liable for showing honor to idolatry, even if it is not Avodas Penim.) If so, what would we learn from "Zove'ach...."? It would teach that intent is projected from one Avodah to another. (If one did an Avodah in order to later pour the blood or burn the Chelev to idolatry, he is liable is as if he did this first Avodah for idolatry);

The Gemara asks from R. Elazar's teaching that if one slaughters an animal to Markulis, (he is liable due to "v'Lo Yizbechu Od"). He should know this from bowing!

What was the question? Perhaps he needs a Lav for intent in one Avodah to [do] another Avodah [l'Shem idolatry]! It is always the case that v'Lo Yizbechu is the Lav for Zove'ach la'E-lohim Yacharam! (Since the latter verse teaches projection of intent from one Avodah to another, v'Lo Yizbechu is the Lav for it!)

Answer: If it were true that bowing teaches about the Klal, if so Lo Sa'avdem, which we establish (Sanhedrin 60b) for hugging and kissing, would be extra for a Lav for intent in one Avodah for another Avodah, for from bowing we would learn even Chiyuv Misah for hugging and kissing.

Implied question: Why does [the Beraisa] bring for Shechitah a Lav for Ha'alah?

Answer: It relies on the conclusion (at the end of this Amud), that learns from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Hava'ah-Hava'ah" or "Sham-Sham."

Question: However, according to Abaye below it is difficult. It should have brought the Kal v'Chomer!

Implied question: We should say that Pesach and Milah disprove this (there is Kares without a Lav)!

Answer: We can challenge (the question from them), for they are Mitzvos to do an action. (Regarding Mitzvos to refrain, whenever there is Kares there is a Lav.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): A Beraisa in Me'ilah (16b) teaches "v'Lo Teshaktzu Es Nafshoseichem bi'Vehemah uv'Of..."

The verse began with eating and ended with Tum'ah, to teach that just like the Shi'ur of Tum'ah of Tamei Sheratzim (k'Adashah, the volume of a lentil) is the Shi'ur [to be liable] for eating all Sheratzim, for all are included in this verse "uv'Chol Asher Tirmosh...";

We learn the Shi'ur of Tum'ah in Chagigah (11b), for the initial creation of a Chomet (snail or chameleon?) is k'Adashah. Until here is from Rashi.

Rebuttal: Amidst his sharpness, he did not investigate! It explicitly concludes there that this is only for Tamei Sheratzim, but not for Tehorim, for we say "the verse discusses those that are separated", for the verse ends "Asher Hivdalti Lachem Letamei"! (Tehorim are those that are not Metamei when they die. All are forbidden to eat.)

Explanation #2: We must say that "any amount" here discusses a Beriyah, that one is liable for any amount due to Beriyah, like we say in Chagigah (10a), in Nazir (52a), in Makos (17a) and in Chulin (96b).

Question: We should learn Kares for all of them from Chelev, which was totally permitted [in Chayos]! (Mishmeros Kehunah - above, the Havah Amina that after Bamos were forbidden, there is Kares for Korbanos Hukdeshu when Bamos were permitted, was from this Kal v'Chomer. "Zos" refuted this, and also refutes the Kal v'Chomer to learn Kares for all of these.)

Implied question: Why did it mention Mosir more than theft, robbery and several Lavim in the Torah?

Answer: Mosir does not do an act, similar to Pesach and Milah.

Support: This is why it did not mention also those above, for one can ask that they have an action.