Culmination of Question: However, according to Rabah, R. Akiva holds that for Shigegas Melachos, Shabbosos are like one. We understand (R. Gamliel in) Beraisa #2, whether it discusses Shigegas Shabbos (he is Mechayev because Ein Yedi'ah l'Chatzi Shi'ur) or Shigegas Melachos (he is Mechayev because it is like one Guf);

How can he explain Beraisa #1? In any case, R. Gamliel should exempt!

Answer (on behalf of Rabah): R. Gamliel holds like R. Eliezer, who says that Shabbosos are like Gufim.

Question (Beraisa #1): R. Gamliel agrees (that if he wrote them on different Shabbosos, he is exempt).

This implies that he and Chachamim (agree about many Melachos on many Shabbosos, but) argue about something else.

Granted, if R. Gamliel holds like R. Akiva, they argue about Shigegas Shabbos. (He did one Melachah done in two Shabbosos, half a Shi'ur in each,);

R. Gamliel holds that Ein Yedi'ah l'Chatzi Shi'ur, and Chachamim hold that Yesh Yedi'ah l'Chatzi Shi'ur;

R. Gamliel agrees that one is exempt for Shigegas Melachos;

Summation of question: However, if he holds like R. Eliezer, what do they argue about?! Also R. Eliezer holds that Ein Yedi'ah l'Chatzi Shi'ur!

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If one wrote one letter on Shabbos, and another letter on another Shabbos, he is liable.

Answer #1: They argue about adding one more stitch onto a partially woven garment:

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If one weaves three stitches at the beginning, or adds one onto a partially woven garment, he is liable.

Answer #2 (Rava): They argue about the following:

(Beraisa): If Reuven was Motzi (took from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim) half a fig and put it down, and then was Motzi another half fig:

If it was in one He'elem, he is liable. If it was in two Ha'alamos, he is exempt.

R. Yosi says, if (it was in one He'elem, and) he was Motzi both halves to the same Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable. If he was Motzi the latter to a different Reshus ha'Rabim, he is exempt.

R. Gamliel holds like the first Tana, and R. Eliezer holds like R. Yosi.

Question (against Rabah - Mishnah - R. Eliezer): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that he is liable for each. Nidah is just one prohibition...

According to Rav Chisda, who says that R. Akiva asked about Shigegas Shabbos, whether or not the days between Shabbosos are like Yedi'os Lechalek we understand R. Eliezer's proof from Nidah;

However, according to Rabah, he asked about Shigegas Melachos, whether or not Shabbosos are like Gufim Lechalek. R. Eliezer should have brought a proof from relations with Nidos!

Answer (on behalf of Rabah): The text should say that he brought a proof from Nidos.

The texts (of the Mishnah) of Shmuel and Rav Ada bar Ahavah say "Nidah". that of Rav Noson bar Hoshaya says "Nidos."

Question: According to Rav Chisda, R. Akiva asked about Shigegas Shabbos, whether or not the days between Shabbosos are like Yedi'os Lechalek (and R. Eliezer brought a proof from Nidah). How does this apply to Nidah?!

Answer (Rabah): The case is, she immersed and became Teme'ah again between relations. Immersions are like days between Shabbosos.

Question (against Rav Chisda - Mishnah - R. Eliezer): I learn from relations with Nidos who are minors...

According to Rabah, we understand why he learns from minors (plural). However, according to Rav Chisda, he should learn from (relations with) one minor!

Answer: Indeed, he does. He means 'I learn from relations with (a minor out of the population of) minors.'

Our Mishnah is unlike the following Tana;

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): R. Akiva did not ask about Shabbos, rather, about Nidah;

Question (R. Akiva): If a man had multiple relations with his wife when she was Nidah, in one He'elem, is he is liable for each, or he is liable only once?

Answer (R. Eliezer): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that he is liable for each!

Shabbos is a one-way prohibition, yet he is liable for each (Melachah). Nidah is a two-way prohibition, all the more so he is liable for each (Bi'ah)!

R. Akiva: You cannot learn from Shabbos, for it has many Chiyuvim (39 Melachos), but Nidah has only one (Bi'ah)!

R. Eliezer: We learn from a man who had relations with many minor Nidos. He is liable for each, even though it is a one-way prohibition with only one Chiyuv!

R. Akiva: You cannot learn from Ketanos, they are Gufim Muchlakim!

R. Eliezer: I can learn from many acts of bestiality with one animal. It is not Gufim Muchlakim!

R. Akiva: I am unsure about an animal, just like I am unsure about Nidah!

(Mishnah): In the following cases, one brings an Asham Taluy:

He is unsure whether or not he ate Chelev;

He ate Chelev, but he is unsure whether or not it was a k'Zayis;

Shuman (permitted fat) and Chelev were in front of him, and he does not know which of them he ate;

His wife and sister were in the house with him, and he does not know with which of them he had relations;

He did a Melachah, and he does not know if it was on Shabbos or on a weekday;

Just like one who ate Chelev twice in one He'elem brings only one Chatas, one who doubtfully ate Chelev twice in one He'elem brings only one Asham Taluy;

If he found out in between, just like Yedi'os are Mechalek to bring a Chatas for each, Yedi'os (that he ate Safek Chelev) are Mechalek, so he brings an Asham Taluy for each.

Just like one who ate Chelev, blood, Pigul, and Nosar in one He'elem brings a Chatas for each, one who is unsure about all of these brings an Asham Taluy for each. (For brevity, whenever we mention "one piece," it is Safek Shuman, Safek Chelev. "Two pieces" are Shuman and Chelev, and we are unsure which is which.)

(Gemara - Rav Asi): In the Reisha there was one piece;

(Chiya bar Rav): Two pieces were in front of him.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: Rav Asi holds that Yesh Em la'Masores (we expound primarily based on the way words are written in the Torah). Asham Taluy is for one who transgressed "(Achas mi'Kol) Mitzvos." "Mitzvos" is written Chaser (without a "Vav"), which suggests "Mitzvas" (singular);

Chiya bar Rav holds that Yesh Em l'Mikra (we expound primarily based on how we pronounce the word). We read it "Mitzvos" (plural).

Question (against Rav Asi - Mishnah): Shuman and Chelev were in front of him, and he ate one of them.

Suggestion: Since the Seifa discusses two pieces, also the Reisha!

Answer (Rav): No. The Seifa discusses two pieces, but the Reisha discusses one piece.

Question: If the Reisha teaches that Asham Taluy is brought when there was one piece, it would not need to teach the case of two pieces!

Answer: Indeed, our Mishnah teaches a big Chidush, and then a smaller Chidush that is really unnecessary.

Question: According to Chiya bar Rav, once the Reisha teaches about two pieces, why must the Seifa teach this also?

Answer: The Seifa explains the Reisha. The case is, Shuman and Chelev were in front of him...

(Rav Yehudah citing Rav): If Shuman and Chelev were in front of him, and he does not know which he ate, he is liable;

If there was one piece and he ate it, he is exempt.

Question: What is his reason?

Answer #1 (Rava): He learns from "v'Asesah Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m" (Vayikra 5:17, the verse cited in the Parshah of Asham Taluy. Presumably, this is the intended verse.) He must be Shogeg regarding two Mitzvos (matters forbidden due to Safek. Shitah changes "Rava" to "Rabah" in this entire discussion, presumably because the Gemara would not put Rava's opinion before that of his Rebbi (Rav Nachman, 18a). Tosfos Yom Tov - the Rambam rules like Rav Nachman (even though normally, when Amora'im from Rava and onwards argue, the Halachah follows the latest opinion) because the Gemara put his opinion last, after his Talmid's.)

Question: It is written "Mitzvas" (singular)!

Answer: It is read "Mitzvos."

Question (Abaye - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): One who eats Chelev of a Koy (Chachamim are unsure whether it is a Behemah or Chayah) must bring an Asham Taluy (even though there is only one piece)!

Answer (Rabah): R. Eliezer holds that Yesh Em la'Masores. It is written "Mitzvas."

Question (Mishnah): (If a Yevamah did Yibum less than three months after her husband died, and gave birth within nine months of his death) we are unsure whether it is a nine month baby from the deceased, or a seven month baby from the Yavam;

The Yavam divorces her, the child is Kosher (in any case he is not a Mamzer), and they must bring an Asham Taluy.

Answer: That Mishnah is like R. Eliezer.

Question (Mishnah): If blood is found on his cloth, they are both Teme'im and each must bring a Korban (surely he was Bo'el Nidah). If a woman found blood on a cloth (she used to check herself a short time) after (relations, she is surely Teme'ah), he is Safek Tamei, they are exempt from a Korban;

(Beraisa): They must bring an Asham Taluy.

Answer: That Beraisa is like R. Eliezer.

(R. Zeira citing Rav): One is liable only if there were two pieces.

Repetition of Question (b): What is Rav's reason?

Answer #2 (R. Zeira): When there were two pieces, it is possible to resolve the doubt (now. An expert can tell what the remaining piece is). If there was only one piece, we cannot resolve the doubt.

Question: What is the difference between Rava's answer and R. Zeira's?

Answer: They argue about when one piece was a k'Zayis and the other was a half k'Zayis (and he ate the former):

We can resolve the doubt, but there were not two pieces (we ignore the piece less than a k'Zayis, for even if it was Isur, one is exempt for it. Alternatively, we cannot resolve the doubt (the remaining piece is too small, so we cannot recognize if it is Chelev or Shuman), but there were two pieces - R. Gershom.)

Question (R. Yirmeyah, against R. Zeira - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): One who eats Chelev of a Koy must bring an Asham Taluy (even though we cannot resolve the doubt)!

Answer (R. Zeira): R. Eliezer does not require that one can resolve the doubt.