1)

(a)The Torah writes "al B'sar Adam Lo Yisach, u've'Maskunto Lo Sa'asu Kamohu" - but only one Kareis between them.

(b)Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya rules however that - since there are two La'avin, there will also be two Chata'os.

(c)The problem this creates with Kareis de'Achoso, from which we learned 'Achoso she'Hi Achos Aviv va'Achos Imo' is - why we need a Pasuk for this, seeing as the Torah inserts an independent La'av for each one.

(d)This is no problem according to Rebbi Yitzchak - because as we already explained, he uses the Pasuk to exempt Chayvei K'risos from Malkos.

2)

(a)We conclude that, based on Ein Onshin min ha'Din, we need the Pasuk to teach us Achoso she'Hi bas Aviv u'Bas Imo, which we learn from the second "Achoso". That being the case, it does not matter if we do not learn anything from the first "Achoso" - since the Torah will repeat a Parshah provided it contains a Chidush.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak sets out to prove - that two La'avin (by Chayvei K'risos) means two Chata'os (Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya's ruling) from the fact that the Tana in our Mishnah places 'ha'Mefatem es ha'Ketores' in between 'ha'Mefatem es ha'Shemen' and 've'ha'Sach be'Shemen ha'Mishchah' (to teach us that someone who transgresses them both be'Shogeg will be obligated to bring two Chata'os).

(c)We reject the suggestion that the Tana placed them in that order merely to juxtapose both cases of Mefatem, but not to teach us anything - on the grounds that the Tana could have achieved that by inverting the first two cases and learning 'ha'Mefaten es ha'Ketores, ha'Mefatem es Shemen ha'Mishchah ve'ha'Sach Shemen ha'Mishchah' (still leaving the two cases of Sach together).

(d)The Tana must therefore have divided the two rulings of Shemen ha'Mishchah - to teach us that even though they share one Kareis, they are Chayav two separate Chata'os (due to the fact that there are two La'avin).

3)

(a)The problem with the fact that our Mishnah lists on the one hand, 'ha'Ishah ha'Mevi'ah ha'Beheimah alehah', and on the other, 'ha'Ba al ha'Zachur ve'al ha'Beheimah' is that - Mah Nafshach, if our Mishnah is talking about a man transgressing, there will be one Chatas missing from the total number of K'risos in our Mishnah, whereas if it is talking about a woman, then there will be two Chata'os missing?

(b)We cannot prove that the Tana must be speaking about a man, from Milah - since Milah does not effect the number of Chata'os anyway, and can therefore be listed independently.

(c)To resolve the problem, Rebbi Yochanan amends the Mishnah to read 'ha'Ba al ha'Zachur ve'Heivi Zachur alav' (instead of 've'Ishah ha'Mevi'ah ha'Beheimah alehah'), and the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yishmael who holds that - ha'Ba al ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Meivi Beheimah alav are Chayav two Chata'os (see Chok Nasan).

(d)In spite of the fact that virtually all the cases are presented in the masculine - it is possible to interpret our Mishnah by a woman, by inverting all the cases (where she had relations with her son [Eim], her husband's son [Eishes Av] and her father-in-law [Kalah]).

4)

(a)The Tana who holds in the Seifa that Megadef is Chayav a Korban is - Rebbi Akiva ...

(b)... posing a Kashya on the previous statement - which established the Reisha like Rebbi Yishmael.

(c)Nor can we establish Rebbi Akiva like Rebbi Yishmael regarding ha'Ba al ha'Zachur ve'ha'Meivi Zachur alav (in the Reisha) - since Rebbi Avahu already taught us that, according to Rebbi Yishmael, one is Chayav to bring two Chata'os, and according to Rebbi Akiva, only one.

5)

(a)Rebbi Avahu extrapolates his previous statement from Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva's sources - since Rebbi Yishmael learns ha'Ba al ha'Zachur and ha'Meivi Zachur alav from two different Pesukim, whereas Rebbi Akiva learns them both from the same Pasuk.

(b)Rebbi Yishmael learns Ba al ha'Zachur from "ve'es Zachar Lo Sishkav ... ", and Meivi Zachur alav from "ve'Lo Yih'yeh Kadeish" (in Ki Seitzei).

(c)Whereas Rebbi Akiva learns Meivi Zachur alav - from "Lo Sishkav", which he also Darshens to read "Lo Sishachev".

6)

(a)Even though we cannot establish the Reisha like Rebbi Akiva, as we just explained, we nevertheless reconcile the Seifa with the Reisha - by establishing the Seifa like Rebbi Yishmael, who agrees with Rebbi Akiva regarding Megadef.

(b)When we ask, if that is so, why the Tana does not also insert ha'Ba al ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Meivi Beheimah alav - we mean that by the same token, there ought to be two Chata'os for ha'Ba al ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Meivi Beheimah alav, making thirty-seven K'risos ...

(c)... to which Abaye replies that - the D'rashah obligating two Chata'os for ha'Ba al ha'Zachur ve'ha'Meivi Zachur alav is confined to Zachur and does extend to Beheimah (which is not subject to the La'av of "Lo Yiy'heh Kadesh").

(d)We require a Pasuk for the Nishkav (Meivi Zachur Alav), despite the fact that a woman who is Nishkav is Chayav in all cases of Arayos, just like the man (based on the Pasuk [in Kedoshim] "ha'Nefashos ha'Osos") - because a woman derives physical pleasure from a natural Bi'ah, which a man (or a woman) does not do from an unnatural one.

7)

(a)Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rav leaves our Mishnah 've'ha'Ishah ha'Mevi'ah Beheimah alehah' intact. And he resolves our original problem (that this will detract from the number of Chata'os) - by explaining that the Tana lists thirty-three Chata'os by a man, adding three K'risos (Pesach, Milah, and Meivi Beheimah alehah by Ishah, to complete the list of K'risos).

(b)We learn from the Pasuk "Torah Achas Yih'yeh lachem la'Oseh bi'Shegagah. ve'ha'Nefesh asher Ta'aseh be'Yad Ramah" that - a Chatas is confined to Chayvei K'risos of a Lo Sa'aseh, precluding Pesach and Milah which are Mitzvos Asei.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan explains the fact that our Mishnah lists Shabbos as one, when it incorporates thirty-nine Chata'os (making a total of seventy-eight) - by establishing it by Shig'gas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos, which is only Chayav one Chatas.

(b)And he cites the Beraisa which, commenting on the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with a Korban Chatas) "me'Achas me'Heinah", Darshens (from the extra 'Mem' in "me'Achas") "Heinah" 'she'Hi Achas' (many which is only counted as one). And when the Tana Darshens "Achas" 'she'Hi Heinah' (from the extra 'Mem' in "me'Heinah"), he means that - it is also possible to transgress one that is many (by Zadon Shabbos ve'Shig'gas Melachos).

(c)Even though in the latter case, the sinner forgot all the Melachos, he knew that it was Shabbos - with regard to the prohibition of leaving the T'chum (which is not subject to a Chatas).

(d)The Tana chose to present Shabbos in the form of Shig'gas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos, and not Zadon Shabbos ve'Shig'gas Melachos (counting it as thirty-nine Chata'os) - to teach us that, even though the sinner was Meizid in all the Melachos, he is nevertheless obligated to bring at least one Chatas.

9)

(a)Alternatively, it is more logical to establish our Mishnah by 'Shig'gas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos' than the other way round, because it is fixed (Pesika leih) - seeing as even if it would be Shig'gas Melachos too, he would still be Chayav one Chatas. Whereas if the Mishnah would be talking about Zadon Shabbos ve'Shig'gas Melachos (counting it as thirty-nine Chata'os), it would not be fixed, since, as we just explained, if he was also a Shig'gas Shabbos, he would be Chayav to bring only one Chatas and not two.

(b)The Tana also prefers to establish Shabbos by Shig'gas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos - because that is the case with regard to Avodah-Zarah (as we will now establish).

(c)In a case of Shig'gas Avodos ve'Zadon Avodah-Zarah one would be Chayav - four Chata'os (for the four major Avodos (Shechitah, Ha'ala'ah, Nisuch and Hishtachavayah).

10)

(a)Shig'gas Avodas-Kochavim cannot be speaking where the sinner prostrated himself ...

1. ... in a Beis Avodah-Zarah, thinking that he was in a Shul - because then, having effectively bowed down to Hash-m, he has done nothing wrong.

2. ... before a statue that was not made to be worshipped - because then Mah Nafshach, if he accepts the statue as a god, he is Chayav Sekilah, and if he does not, then what has he done wrong?

(b)We therefore establish the case where he prostrated himself to an image out of love or fear of a person, according to Abaye. Rava maintains - that - one is not Chayav in such a case.

(c)Rava therefore establishes the case of Shig'gas Avodas-Kochavim - where he thought that serving Avodah-Zarah was permitted (in which case it is considered both Shig'gas Avodah-Zarah and Shig'gas Avodos), and he will be Chayav at least one Chatas.

(d)And when he asked Rav Nachman what the Din will be if he forgot both that Avodah-Zarah and the Avodos are forbidden - he merely meant to ask whether the sinner is Chayav one Chatas or two (but not that he might be Patur altogether).

11)

(a)Rav Papa establishes Shig'gas Avodas-Kochavim by a child who was captured among the Nochrim - who knew that Avodah-Zarah was forbidden, and even the four basic Avodos that it comprised, but who did not know that the local Avodah-Zarah was forbidden.

(b)And the alternative case of the grown-up who erred in the Pasuk in Yisro "Lo Sa'asun Iti Elohei Chesef v'Elohei Zahav" fits into that category too - in that he thought that the Isur is confined to metal idols, but that wooden ones are permitted.

(c)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika in the name of Rav Bibi bar Abaye explains that the Tana only mentions the name Shabbos and the name Avodah-Zarah - each of which incorporates several K'risos, as we explained.

(d)And he proves this from the Mishnah's insertion of Ishah u'Bitah, omitting ...

1. ... Bas Anusaso, which is not written specifically (but is learned from a series of Gezeirah-Shavahs).

2. ... Ishah u'Bas Bito u'Bas B'nah, even though they are explicitly written.

12)

(a)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika actually queries Rav Bibi bar Abaye's previous statement from a Kashya that he himself asked on a ruling regarding Ma'aleh Evrei P'nim - limbs of a Korban that was Shechted in the Azarah, and Ma'aleh Evrei Chutz - limbs of one that was Shechted outside.

(b)Both cases are - Chayav Kareis.

(c)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika's problem with Rav Bibi bar Abaye, who asked that if that is so, the thirty-six K'risus in our Mishnah ought to be listed as thirty-seven is - why he does not answer that the Tana only mentioned the name Ha'ala'ah (like he answered with regard to Shabbos and Avodah-Zarah).

(d)And we answer by pointing out a basic difference between Shabbos and Avodah-Zarah on the one hand, and Shechutei Chutz on the other - in that the former are elaborated upon in their respective Masechtos, thereby justifying omitting the details here (where the individual K'risos are only mentioned en passant), whereas the latter, which are not explained anywhere else, ought to have been mentioned here (thereby justifying Rav Bibi bar Abaye's query).

13)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira what the Din will be regarding a case where the Torah states one La'av and two K'risos - with reference to Shochet ve'He'elah ba'Chutz.

(b)Rebbi Zeira refuted the She'eilah - on the grounds that there are in fact, two La'avin there as well as two K'risos.

(c)The Pasuk in Re'ei "Hishamer l'cha Pen Ta'aleh Olosecha be'Chol Makom ... " teaches us - that Ha'ala'as Chutz is subject to two La'avin (since both "Hishamer" and "Pen" constitute La'avin).

(d)And we then learn from ...

1. ... the Gezeirah-Shavah of 'Hava'ah' "ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o") 'Hava'ah' ("ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Yevi'enu") that - Shechutei Chutz is subject to a La'av, too.

2. ... the Pasuk "Sham Ta'aleh ve'Sham Ta'aseh Olosecha" that - we compare Shechutei Chutz ("ve'Sham Ta'aseh ... ") to Ha'ala'as Chutz, renderring the former subject to a La'av as well.

14)

(a)Rebbi Zeira therefore switched the She'eilah to a case of Ov ve'Yid'oni, and the She'eilah is - whether one La'av and two S'kilos bring one Chatas or two.

(b)And he cited a Machlokes Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish in this point. Rebbi Yochanan ascribes the listing of both Ov and Yid'oni among the Niskalin in Sanhedrin, but not in our Mishnah, which only mentions Ba'al Ov - to the fact that there is only one La'av between them (even though there are two S'kilos).

(c)And the reason that our Mishnah chooses to mention Ba'al Ov rather than Yid'oni is - because the Torah mentions it first.

(d)Whereas Resh Lakish ascribes the omission of Yid'oni in our Mishnah to the fact that - it does not entail an act.

15)

(a)The reason that Rav Papa gives for Resh Lakish declining to learn like Rebbi Yochanan is - because it is not the La'avin that determine the Chata'os, but the Misos.

(b)Despite the fact that the author of K'risos is Rebbi Akiva (who does not require an act, as we shall see), Resh Lakish nevertheless requires an act - because even Rebbi Akiva requires at least a minor act (a Ma'aseh Kol-D'hu), which a Yid'oni, does not perform.

(c)A Ba'al Ov then, does constitute an act. In fact ...

1. ... Ov - is banging one's arms and speaking from under one's arm-pit.

2. ... Yid'oni - constitutes placing the bone of a Yado'a in one's mouth, which then begins to speak.

16)

(a)The Beraisa lists the four key Avodos of Avodah-Zarah (including Hishtachavayah), describing them as Avodos she'Yesh Bahen Ma'aseh, which Resh Lakish establishes like Rebbi Akiva, according to whom a Ma'aseh Kol-D'hu will suffice. According to Rebbi Yochanan - even the Rabbanan will agree that Hishtachavayah is an act, because bending the body is considered a proper Ma'aseh.

(b)Assuming that we equate the act of banging one's arms (by Ba'al Ov) with bending one's body (by Hishtachavayah), Resh Lakish considers banging one's arms an act - according to Rebbi Akiva.

(c)Resh Lakish explains that the Chachamim in our Mishnah specifically preclude Megadef from the K'risos, but not Ba'al Ov - because once we know one, we automatically know the other.

(d)And the reason that they picked specifically Megadef - is because its Kareis is written (in Korach) in the same Parshah that talks about the Korban of Avodah-Zarah, which would otherwise lead us to believe that Megadef is included in the Korban.

17)

(a)Ula interprets Ba'al Ov as sacrificing to a Sheid (a demon). Rabah's problem with this is that - it is synonymous with Avodah-Zarah.

(b)He therefore qualifies Ula's interpretation - confining it to where he sacrifices to it in order to utilize its powers (and not to worship it).

(c)Abaye queries this on the grounds that that is synonymous with Chover Chaver - which is merely a La'av punishable by Malkos.

(d)Rabah replied that - the Torah chose to punish this branch of Chover Chaver with Sekilah.

18)

(a)The Beraisa defines a regular Chover Chaver as - someone who, using witchcraft, gathers large animals, small animals or even snakes and scorpions to one place.

(b)Abaye permits gathering hornets and scorpions to one place using witchcraft - if they are threatening him.

(c)According to Rebbi Yochanan in the Rabbanan, who considers bending one's body an act, the latter do not also consider bending one's lips an act with regard to Megadef (which constitutes cursing Hash-m) - because the main Isur of Megadef is in the heart.

(d)And we preclude Eidim Zomemin (by whom the Torah writes "al-Pi ... ") from a Chatas, because it is not considered an act. We do not say there as well 'Akimas Sefasav Havi Ma'aseh' - because the basic Isur of all witnesses depends on the eyes, since they testify on what they saw.