Question: According to R. Yochanan, bending one's posture is an act. If so, also moving one's lips should be an act. Chachamim should not exempt Megadef from a Korban!

Answer (Rava): Normally, moving one's lips is considered an act. Megadef is different, since the Isur is primarily (the intention) in his heart.

Question (R. Zeira - Beraisa): Edim Zomemim are excluded (from bringing a Chatas) because they do not do an action.

Testimony is "Al Pi" (through the mouth of) witnesses (yet it is not is considered an act)!

Answer #2 (Rava): False testimony is different because it depends on Re'iyah (what they allegedly saw. Seeing is not an action. This is like our text, and Rashi. Tosfos - it depends on "Im (Lo Yagid)" they are liable only for testifying in Beis Din. If their speech was an action, they would be liable even outside. Rif (in Sanhedrin) - false testimony is different because it is possible through "Ayah". (If one witness testified, and we ask the other if he saw the same, it suffices for him to say the word "Ayah" (yes), which consists of gutteral sounds (made in the throat), he need not move his lips.)

(Mishnah): One who eats Chelev (gets Kares).

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "Kol Chelev Shor v'Chesev va'Ez Lo Sochelu" obligates separate Chiyuvim for Chelev of the three Kosher animals;

Chachamim say, he is liable only once.

Suggestion #1: R. Yishmael holds that one is lashed (more than once) for Lav shebi'Chlalos (different Isurim forbidden by one Lav). Chachamim hold that one is not lashed (more than once) for Lav shebi'Chlalos.

Retraction - Suggestion #2: R. Yishmael agrees that normally, one is not lashed for Lav shebi'Chlalos. Here is different, for there are extra words in the verse;

It could have said just "Kol Chelev Lo Sochelu." Shor v'Chesev va'Ez are extra. Surely, this is to be Mechalek (a separate Chiyuv for Chelev of each)!

Chachamim disagree. "Kol Chelev Lo Sochelu" would forbid even Chelev of Chayos. Therefore, it says Shor v'Chesev va'Ez to teach that only their Chelev is forbidden.

Question: Chachamim's objection is strong. How can R. Yishmael argue?

Suggestion #3: Rather, R. Yishmael says that it could have said just "(Kol Chelev) Shor (Lo Sochelu)." Kesev va'Ez are extra, to be Mechalek.

Chachamim disagree. Had it said just Shor, we would have learned a Gezeirah Shavah "Shor-Shor" from (the prohibition of animals to go on) Har Sinai (Rashi - from the Mitzvah to let one's animals rest on Shabbos) to include all animals and birds!

Therefore, it says also Kesev va'Ez, to teach that other Chelev is permitted.

Question: Chachamim's objection is strong. How can R. Yishmael argue?

Suggestion #4: Rather, R. Yishmael says that it could have said just "Kesev," or just "Ez". It writes Shor v'Chesev va'Ez, to be Mechalek.

Chachamim argue. Had it said just Kesev, we would think that only sheep's Chelev is forbidden, for it has more Chelev offered to Hash-m, i.e. the tail, but Chelev of cattle and goats is permitted;

(R. Chananya): The Torah gives separate commands to burn Eimurim (the parts that are burned, e.g. the Chelev) of a Bechor Shor, Kesev and R. Eliezer. We could not have learned one from the others;

Had the Torah taught only about a calf, we would have said that this is because it has larger Nesachim (six Lugim of wine. The Nesech for other Bechoros is only three Lugim);

Had it taught only about a lamb, we would have said that this is because its tail is offered, unlike other Bechoros;

Had it taught only about a goat, we would have said that this is because an individual who transgressed idolatry b'Shogeg must bring a goat for his Chatas.

Suggestion: True, we could not have learned one from any one of the others. Perhaps we could have learned one from the other two!

Rejection - Question: Which could be learned from the other two?

We cannot learn a calf from the others, for they are valid for Korban Pesach;

We cannot learn a lamb from the others, for they are brought to atone for He'elem Davar of idolatry;

We cannot learn a goat from the others, for more is offered on the Mizbe'ach for them (more Nesachim, or the tail) than for a goat.

Conclusion: The Torah must teach all of these.

Question: Chachamim's objection is strong. How can R. Yishmael argue?

Answer - Defense of Suggestion #2: Really, it could have said just "Kol Chelev Lo Sochelu." (Shor v'Chesev va'Ez are extra to be Mechalek);

Question: Shor v'Chesev va'Ez are needed to permit Chelev of Chayos!

Answer: No. Since (Kares for) Chelev was written regarding Kodshim ("Chelev Min ha'Behemah Asher Yakriv Mimenu Isheh la'Shem"), we would know that also the Lav does not apply to Chayos.

Inference: Chachamim (who do not use Shor v'Chesev va'Ez to be Mechalek, rather, to permit Chelev of Chayos) do not learn l'Fi Inyano (according to context)!

Rejection #1: No, all learn l'Fi Inyano;

R. Yishmael learns (l'Fi Inyano,) a Lav from a Lav or even a Lav from Kares;

Chachamim learn only a Lav from a Lav, but not a Lav from Kares.

Rejection #2: Chachamim learn like Rav Zevid;

Question (Rav Mari): (Since Alyah (the tail) of a sheep is called Chelev,) even the tail of Chulin (sheep) should be forbidden!

Answer (Rav Zevid): "Kol Chelev Shor v'Chesev va'Ez" teaches that only Chelev common to all three animals is forbidden.

Conclusion: Shor v'Chesev va'Ez come to permit the tail of Chulin.

R. Yishmael holds that it would have sufficed to write Shor v'Chesev (to teach that only Chelev common to cattle and sheep is forbidden);

"Va'Ez" is extra, to be Mechalek.

(R. Chanina): R. Yishmael (obligates multiple lashes for Chelev of different animals, but he) agrees that only one Korban is brought (for Shogeg).

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The Isurim to eat Chelev are unlike those of Arayos (in which a separate Lav forbids each Ervah).

(Beraisa #1): "V'Asah me'Achas me'Henah" obligates a Chatas for each transgression:

If he ate Chelev twice, one Shem (type of Isur) in two Ha'alamos, or two Shemos in one He'elem, he brings one Chatas for each.

Question (Rami bar Chama): I understand why he is liable twice for one Shem Isur in two Ha'alamos. The Ha'alamos are Mechalek;

Why is he liable twice for two Shemos in one He'elem? There are not two Ha'alamos to be Mechalek!

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): The case is, he ate Chelev of Nosar. He is liable for Chelev and for Nosar.

Objection (Rami bar Chama): If so, he should be liable also for eating Kodesh!

Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes): The case is, he ate Chelev of Hekdesh. The Tana is R. Yehudah:

(Beraisa #2): If one ate Chelev of a Nevelah or Chelev of Hekdesh, he is liable twice;

R. Yehudah obligates three times for Chelev of Hekdesh.

Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael laughed at this.

Objection (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael) Question: Why didn't Rav Sheshes establish Beraisa #1 to be R. Yishmael, who says that one who eats Chelev of Shor v'Chesev va'Ez is lashed for each species?

Answer: He did not, because R. Chanina taught that R. Yishmael agrees that only one Korban is brought.

For the same reason, he should not establish it like R. Yehudah!

(R. Elazar): R. Yehudah agrees that only one Korban is brought.

Answer #3 (Reish Lakish): The case is, he ate from two different pots. Beraisa #1 is like R. Yehoshua, who says that pots are Mechalek (even for Korban).

(Beraisa #2): If one ate Chelev of a Nevelah or Chelev of Hekdesh, he is liable twice;

R. Yehudah obligates three times for Chelev of Hekdesh.

Question (Rav Shizbi): I understand R. Yehudah. The three lashes are for "Chukas Olam," "Kol Chelev Shor... ," and "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh";

Why do Chachamim obligate only twice?

Answer (Rava): They holds that "Chukas Olam" applies only to Kodshim, and "Kol Chelev Shor... " applies only to Chulin. Both of them are needed:

Had the Torah taught only about Kodshim, we would have thought that the severity of Kodesh forbids Chelev Kodshim, but Chelev Chulin is permitted;

Had the Torah taught only about Chulin, we would have thought that Chelev Chulin is forbidden because it is not Hutar mi'Chlalo (there is no Heter to its Isur);

Version #1 (our text - Aruch la'Ner): In Kodshim, the meat is Hutar mi'Chlalo (it is forbidden before Zerikah, and Zerikah permits it), so also Chelev is permitted (after Zerikah)!

Version #2 (Rashi): Chelev Kodshim is Hutar mi'Chlalo (Alyah of sheep is considered Chelev, but Alyah of cattle and goats is permitted); so all Chelev Kodshim is permitted!

Version #3 (Shitah Mekubetzes #12, 13): Chelev Kodshim is Hutar mi'Chlalo (it is permitted to the Mizbe'ach, even though it is not "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael"), so it is permitted (even to people)!

Therefore, we need verses to forbid both.

R. Yehudah learns l'Fi Inyano that "Kol Chelev Shor" (also) applies to Kodshim, for it is written regarding Kodshim.

Inference: Chachamim (who hold that that it applies only to Chulin) do not learn l'Fi Inyano!

Rejection #1: No, all learn l'Fi Inyano;

R. Yehudah learns a Lav from a Lav, or even a Lav from Kares;

Chachamim learn only a Lav from a Lav, but not a Lav from Kares.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Kol Chelev v'Chol Dam Lo Sochelu" teaches that just like one is lashed twice for Chelev, also for blood.

Chachamim say, there is only one Lav for it.

Question: R. Yehudah did not need a Hekesh to teach that one is lashed twice for Chelev, for two verses forbid it -- "Kol Chelev v'Chol Dam Lo Sochelu" and "Kol Chelev Shor... ";

There are also two verses for blood, "Kol Chelev v'Chol Dam Lo Sochelu" and "v'Chol Dam Lo Sochlu." He should not need a Hekesh to teach that one is lashed twice for blood!

Correction: Rather, R. Yehudah learns from the Hekesh that just like one is lashed three times for Chelev, also for blood.

Question: He obligates three (sets of) lashes for Chelev without a Hekesh, for the above two verses and for Zarus (even a Kohen is a Zar regarding Chelev);

Likewise, he should not need a Hekesh to teach that one is lashed three times for blood! (Similarly, all are Zarim regarding blood.)

Answer: The Hekesh is needed;

Since blood is excluded from Tum'ah (Rashi's text - Me'ilah), one might have thought that one is not liable for Zarus. The Hekesh teaches that this is not so.

Question: What do Chachamim learn from the Hekesh?

Answer (Beraisa): "Kol Chelev v'Chol Dam Lo Sochelu" - just like Chelev is (forbidden) unlike meat (of Tahor animals), and does not join (with meat, to be liable for eating a Shi'ur), also blood;

This excludes blood of Sheratzim, for the same Isur forbids their blood and flesh, therefore they join.

Question: We learn this from a different source!

"V'Zeh Lachem ha'Tamei" teaches that blood of Sheratzim joins with Sheratzim.

Answer: One might have thought that they join only for Tum'ah. The Hekesh teaches that they join even for Isur.

(Ravina): Therefore, blood of snakes joins with snakes.

Question: What is the Chidush? We learn this from the Hekesh!

Answer: One might have thought that since blood of Sheratzim is Tamei like Sheratzim, it joins with the flesh, but snakes and their blood are not Teme'im, so the blood would not join;

Ravina teaches that this is not so. The Hekesh applies whenever the blood and flesh are not different.

Question (Rava): What do we learn from the three Kerisos written regarding blood?

Answer #1: One is for Dam Chulin, one is for Dam Kodshim, and one is for Dam Tamtzis (blood that exudes before or after Dam ha'Nefesh, i.e. what exudes while the animal is dying).

Objection: This answers only for R. Yehudah. How do Chachamim explain the third Kares?

(Beraisa): A Lav forbids Dam Tamtzis;

R. Yehudah says, Kares forbids it.

Strengthening of objection: This does not answer even for R. Yehudah. He learns all three bloods from "Kol Dam"!

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah) Question: What do we learn from "Kol Dam"?

Answer: "Dam" teaches only about Dam ha'Nefesh, which is Mechaper (it is valid for Zerikah). "Kol Dam" includes Dam Chulin and Dam Tamtzis.

Answer #2: Rather, one is for Dam Chulin, one is for Dam Kodshim, and one is for Dam Kisuy (blood of a slaughtered bird or Chayah. One might have thought that it is Batel to the earth it is buried in, even if it became exposed later. Rashi - this is like Chachamim. Shitah - it is even like R. Yehudah, for he includes only Dam Tamtzis from "Kol Dam". The Beraisa said that he includes also Dam Chulin. It was not precise.)

(Rava): There are five Lavim regarding blood (that are not expounded for other laws). They forbid Dam Chulin, Dam Kodshim, Dam Kisuy, Dam Evarim (what is normally absorbed in the limbs, but later separated), and Dam Tamtzis.