1)

(a)When Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah asked Rebbi Eliezer whether someone who performs many Melachos which are like one Melachah on many Shabbasos but in one He'elam, is Chayav one Chatas or many Chata'os - he was referring to someone who transgresses a number of Toldos of the same Av on a number of Shabbasos.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer answered him with a Kal-va'Chomer from Nidah - inasmuch as, if by Nidah (which is only subject to one category of sin [Bi'ah]) one is nevertheless Chayav for each Bi'ah , how much more so Shabbos (which is already subdivided into many Avos and Toldos).

(c)Rebbi Akiva queried the Kal-va'Chomer however - in that, on the other hand, by Nidah, the woman is Chayav just like the man, whereas by Shabbos there is only one Chatas to begin with.

(d)When Rebbi Eliezer tried to prove his point from ...

1. ... where the Nidah is a Ketanah, (where he is Chayav for each Bi'ah, even though she is not, Rebbi Akiva retorted that - when all's said and done, a Ketanah eventually becomes a Gedolah.

2. ... where he commits bestiality, he retorted - that bestiality will indeed have the same Din as Shabbos (and not as Nidah), in which case it too, was included in his She'eilah.

2)

(a)The problem with establishing Rebbi Akiva's She'eilah as being whether ...

1. ... Shabbasos are like bodies (to make him Chayav many Chata'os, even though all transgressions take place in one He'elam is - why he then needs to insert any reference to the Toldos. Why does he not restrict his She'eilah to someone who transgresses the same Av on many Shabbasos?

2. ... the Toldos Melachah are like the Av to render one Chayav an independent Chatas for transgressing the Toldah in the same He'elam as the Av - why he then needs to add 'be'Shabbasos Harbeh'. Why does he does not confine the She'eilah to where one transgresses an Av together with its Toldos on the same Shabbos?

(b)Rabah citing Amri bei Rav, resolves the She'eilah - by establishing Rebbi Akiva as having asked both She'eilos (in one breath, so to speak).

(c)In spite of the fact that Nidah, which forms the basis of his answer, does not have Toldos - Rebbi Eliezer ruled Lechumra (that he is Chayav for each Shabbos and for each Toldah) in both cases.

3)

(a)The two possible ways of learning the She'eilah concerning the Shabbosos are - either Zadon Shabbos and Shig'gas Melachos or Zadon Melachos and Shig'gas Shabbos.

(b)Not both - because we assume that Rebbi Akiva takes one of them for granted.

(c)It might be obvious to Rebbi Akiva that one is Chayav for each Shabbos in the case of ...

1. ... Zadon Melachos and Shig'gas Shabbos - because we assume that, even though he transgressed them all in one He'elam, nevertheless, each Shabbos is considered a Yedi'ah (because at some stage during the week, the sinner is bound to have been aware that a Shabbos had passed ['Yamim she'Bintayim Havyan Yedi'ah Lechalek'], which we cannot say in the reverse case, because if he did not learn the Melachos in between, from where should he have become aware of them).

2. ... Zadon Shabbos and Shig'gas Melachos - in the same way as the Melachos divide themselves into different Chata'os even by one He'elam (which Shig'gas Shabbos does not).

(d)Rabah resolves the She'eilah - by adopting its first side (because the S'vara 'Yamim she'Bintayim Havyan Yedi'ah Lechalek' is already proven, as we will see shortly).

4)

(a)Rabah (whom we just cited) bases his conclusion on the Mishnah in Shabbos, which rules that someone who ...

1. ... forgot all about Shabbos and subsequently performed many Melachos on many Shabbasos (Shig'gas Shabbos ve'Shig'gas Melachos) - brings one Chatas.

2. ... remembers the institution of Shabbos and performed many Melachos on many Shabbasos (Shig'gas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos) - is Chayav one Chatas for each Shabbos.

3. ... remembered that it was Shabbos but who nevertheless transgressed many Melachos on many Shabbasos (Zadon Shabbos, ve'Shig'gas Melachos) - is Chayav a Chatas for each Melachah.

(b)We can extrapolate from the last case that - one is Chayav for each Melachah, but not for each Shabbos (because Shabbos is not considered a Yedi'ah [by Shig'gas Melachos]).

(c)Based on the Seifa 'ha'Oseh Melachos Harbeh Me'ein Melachah Achas (Toldos) Ein Chayav Ela Achas', the author of the Mishnah must be - Rebbi Akiva (because according to Rebbi Eliezer, he would be Chayav for each Toldah as well).

5)

(a)Bearing in mind that by Shig'ges Melachos, the Mishnah obligates a Chatas for each Shabbos, Rabah is trying to prove that - Rebbi Akiva holds of the S'vara Yamim she'Bintayim Havyan Yedi'ah Lechalek by Shig'gas Shabbos, and that he must have therefore asked Rebbi Eliezer about whether we say it by Shig'gas Melachos.

(b)And it is clear from the current case and from the Seifa (Melachah Achas) that - Rebbi Akiva accepted neither of Rebbi Eliezer's two rulings.

6)

(a)Abaye refutes Rabah's proof however. According to him, Rebbi Akiva takes for granted that by Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos, Shabbos is not considered a Yedi'ah, and he must have therefore asked Rebbi Eliezer about Shig'gas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos. And he rules in the case of Shig'gas Shabbos 'Chayav al Kol Shabbos ve'Shabbos' - because he accepted that particular ruling of Rebbi Eliezer, and in the case of Toldos 'Ein Chayav Ela Achas' - because that ruling of his he did not accept.

(b)Rabah and Abaye argue as to whether ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer - holds by Zadon Shabbos ve'Shig'gas Melachos, one brings two Chata'os (Rabah) or only one (Abaye).

2. ... Rebbi Akiva - initially knew that by Shig'gas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos one brings many Chata'os (Abaye), or whether that was what he asked Rebbi Eliezer.

(c)Rav Chisda agrees with Abaye in that Rebbi Akiva's She'eilah was about Shig'gas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos, and that he accepted Rebbi Eliezer's reply (that the days in between divide and that he is Chayav many Chata'os). Only he maintains that according to Rebbi Akiva, by Zadon Shabbos ve'Shig'gas Melachos - even Rebbi Akiva concedes that the days in between divide, and he is therefore Chayav a separate Chatas for every Shabbos.

(d)And although the Mishnah in Shabbos, which rules 'Chayav al Kol Av Melachah u'Melachah', fails to add 'shel Kol Shabbos ve'Shabbos' (Abaye's source for extrapolating the opposite) - that is really what it means (as it in fact hints by adding 'be'Shabbasos Harbeh').

7)

(a)Rav Chisda cites as his source, the Beraisa which discusses someone who writes two letters on Shabbos in two Ha'alamos. The Chachamim rule that he is Patur. Rabban Gamliel ...

1. ... holds that he is Chayav (because of the principle 'Ein Yedi'ah la'Chatzi Shi'ur (a Yedi'ah in the middle of the Shi'ur is ineffective).

2. ... in a case where he writes one letter on one Shabbos, and the second letter, on another Shabbos - concedes that he is Patur.

(b)According to another Beraisa, the Chachamim hold that he is Patur - Rabban Gamliel, that he is Chayav.

(c)Assuming that Rabban Gamliel holds like Rebbi Akiva - Rav Chisda establishes the first Beraisa by Zadon Shabbos and Shig'gas Melachos, and the second one by Shig'gas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos ...

(d)... where he is Chayav - because of the principle Ein Yedi'ah le'Chatzi Shi'ur.

8)

(a)The problem according to Rabah now is - on what grounds Rabban Gamliel in the first Beraisa holds Patur (as will now become clear).

(b)He will have no problem however, in explaining the Beraisa which holds that even on two Shabbasos he is Chayav - by Shig'gas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos because of Ein Yedi'ah le'Chatzi Shi'ur, and by Zadon Shabbos and Shig'gas Melachos, because he holds that Shabbos is not considered a Yedi'ah in the first place.