Clarification: We have to say that it is not entirely like Rebbi ...

Reason: Because if it was, we could have asked that we should establish it like Rebbi without the Kashya from Resh Lakish on Resh Lakish - on account of 'Yedi'as Beis Rabbo'.

Reason (cont.): And that is why he is Chayav, because it is Yedi'as Beis Rabbo, and Rebbi holds Yedi'as Beis Rabbo is considered a Yedi'ah.

Clarification (cont.): The Gemara therefore asks as follows - Rather than establishing it like Rebbi Yishmael, where there was no Yedi'ah at all, why not establish it like Rebbi, where there was a partial Yedi'ah, such as a Safek, which Rebbi holds is called a Yedi'ah?

Question: ha'Rav Rebbi Shmuel from Verdun asks - How is it evident from the Mishnah that it is about to cite that Rebbi Yishmael does not require a Yedi'ah at the beginning? Why can we not say that he requires Yedi'as Beis Rabbo?

Refuted Answer: And if it is because he learns a different D'rashah from "veNe'elam" "ve'Ne'elam" ...

Refutation: We see that Rebbi who holds that 'Yedi'as Beis Rabbo is called a Yedi'ah', and who requires Yedi'as Beis Rabbo - even though he learns from "veNe'elam" "ve'Ne'elam" He'elam Tum'ah and He'elam Mikdash like our Sugya does ...

Refutation (cont.): Yet he requires Yedi'as Beis Rabbo from the word "ve'Ne'elam", which implies that he had a prior knowledge.

Answer #1: That is fine according to Rebbi, who, we find holds in other places Yedi'as Beis Rabbo, so he also requires it n connection with Mikdash and Tum'ah ...

Answer #1 (cont.): But Rebbi Yishmael, whom we not find anywhere else that he requires Yedi'as Beis Rabbo (we cannot say so).

Answer #2: Moreover, he ought then to have specifically stated "ve'Ne'elam", 'implying that he had prior knowledge'.

Clarification: According to what Tosfos explained earlier, we have to explain that he actually severed the Mechubar that he had in mind ...

Reason: Because had he cut a different Mechubar, why does the Tana mention where he had in mind what is detached, seeing as he will be Patur, even if he meant to pick up a Mechubar?

Precedent: Like the case of two lamps, where he intended to extinguish one lamp but he extinguished another one.

Rashi: However, does not explain it like this (See Shitah Mekubetzes).

Question: Shogeg as well - bearing in mind that throughout the Torah, the sinner did not intend to do an Isur?

Answer: Throughout the Torah, when he said that it is permitted, we erred in something that we know is forbidden ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here he has in mind to do something that would be Mutar for everyone if he would carry out what he intended to do ...

Answer (concl.): That is why he is Patur on account of 'Mis'asek'.

Clarification: And you said that Mis'asek on Shabbos is Patur - implying even S'tam and even by the same species.

Implied Question: And although Abaye and Rava only declare Mis'asek Patur by Niskaven le'Heter ...

Answer: Shmuel declares him Patur even by Niskaven le'Isur.

Question: They declare Patur even by Niskaven le'Isur ...

Source: Like in the case of the two burning lamps, as the Gemara explained earlier?

Answer: That explains why the Gemara asks on Shmuel and not on Abaye and Rava earlier ...

Answer (cont.): Because according to Shmuel it is speaking precisely by Niskaven le'Isur and he is Patur on account of 'Meleches Machsheves' ...

Answer (cont.): But it does not ask on Abaye and Rava, according to whom it is not speaking in that case, only by Niskaven le'Heter, where he is Patur on account of "Bah", 'to exclude Mis'asek', like the Sugya above.

Clarification: And it is over this case that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua are arguing, as the Gemara explains.

Clarification (cont.): And the fact that the Gemara does not ask that by one species he is Chayav ...

Reason: Because the case of one species speaks under similar circumstances - where he was Mechaven to pick certain figs and he forgot, thinking that he wanted other figs from the other side, but his hand moved instinctively towards the figs that he first had in mind ...

Reason: And that is why he is Chayav - seeing as he initially had those figs in mind.

Reason (cont.): Whereas the reason that he is Patur on account of 'Meleches Machsheves' when he intends to sever this attached fig and he severed another one speaks where he did not forgot what he initially had in mind - where he never had in mind anything other than the original attached fig.