Version #1 (R. Zakai): If one did Zevichah, Haktarah, Nisuch and Hishtachava'ah in one He'elem (he did not remember in between that these are forbidden), he brings only one Korban.

R. Yochanan: Leave the Beis Medrash (that is wrong)!

(R. Aba): Tana'im argue about R. Zakai's law.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): The Torah forbids all Melachos. It specifically forbids burning to teach that it is only a Lav, one is not Chayav Misah for it;

R. Nasan says, it is taught by itself to separate the Melachos (it teaches that one is liable for a single Melachah, and obligates one to bring a Korban for every Melachah done b'Shogeg).

R. Zakai's law is like the opinion that burning was taught by itself to teach that it is only a Lav. The same applies to Hishtachava'ah (and we have no source to obligate a separate Chatas for each Avodah in one He'elem).

According to the opinion that burning teaches that one brings a separate Chatas for each Melachah in one He'elem, Hishtachava'ah teaches similarly about Avodos.

Objection (Rav Yosef): Perhaps R. Yosi said that burning was taught by itself to teach that it is only a Lav only because "me'Achas me'Henah" separates Melachos;

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): "V'Osah me'Achas me'Henah" - sometimes one is liable one Chatas for many Melachos, and sometimes he brings one Chatas for each transgression.

(R. Yonason): He learns from "v'Osah me'Achas me'Henah." It could have said 'v'Osah Achas', therefore we expound the extra 'Mem', 'Henah' and 'me'Henah':

Achas refers to a full Melachah, e.g. writing the name 'Shimon'. "Me'Achas" obligates even for part of a Melachah, e.g. he wanted to write 'Shimon', but he only wrote the first two letters 'Shem' (Rashi - for this is also a name or word; Me'iri - he would be liable even if it were not a word);

'Henah' teaches Avos (important Melachos used to build the Mishkan). 'Me'Henah' teaches Toldos (secondary Melachos derived from and similar to the Avos);

Achas (transgression of one Mitzvah, do not do Melachah on Shabbos) is sometimes Henah (he must bring many Chata'os), e.g. he remembered that it was Shabbos, but he forgot (and did) different Melachos;

Henah (many transgressions) is sometimes Achas (he brings only one Chatas), e.g. he forgot that it was Shabbos, but he remembered that he was doing Melachos.

Summation of objection: Regarding idolatry, R. Yosi has no other source to separate Avodos. He would agree that Hishtachava'ah separates Avodos!

Counter-question: The same verse (me'Achas me'Henah) can be used to divide Avodos!

Achas refers to a full Avodah, e.g. Shechitah. "Me'Achas" teaches that he is liable even for part of an Avodah, he slaughtered one of the two Simanim (Kaneh and Vesht, i.e. the windpipe and foodpipe);

'Henah' teaches Avos, i.e. Shechitah, burning, Nisuch and bowing. 'Me'Henah' teaches Toldos, e.g. breaking a stick in front of it (if the idolatry is served with a stick), which resembles slaughter;

Achas (transgression of one Mitzvah, idolatry) can be Henah (multiple Chata'os), e.g. he remembered that idolatry is forbidden, but he forgot the Avodos (and did different Avodos);

Henah (many transgressions) can be Achas (one Chatas), e.g. he was Shogeg about idolatry, but he remembered the Avodos.

Question: What is the case of idolatry b'Shogeg?

If he thought he was bowing to a synagogue, and it really was idolatry, he intended to serve Hash-m! (Surely, he is exempt.)

Answer #1: Rather, he bowed to a statue.

Rejection: If he accepted it to be his god, he was Mezid. If he did not accept it, he did not serve idolatry!

Answer #2: Rather, he served idolatry due to love or fear.

Question: This is like Abaye, who obligates for serving due to love or fear;

According to Rava, who exempts, how can we answer?

Answer #3: He thought that idolatry is permitted.

Question: If so, we can settle a question of Rava!

Question (Rava): If one forgot that it was Shabbos and he forgot Melachos (and did them), does he bring just one Chatas (for forgetting Shabbos), or one for each Melachah?

Just like here, he forgot that idolatry is forbidden (and we must say that he also forgot that Avodos are forbidden), he brings only one Korban, also regarding Shabbos! (We retract from the previous explanation of Henah that is Achas. We now say that he was Shogeg about idolatry and the Avodos.)

Answer: Indeed, Rava will answer as we said, and we resolve his question.

Answer: We cannot establish "me'Achas me'Henah" to refer to idolatry. This verse is in the Parshah of Chata'os in Vayikra, where it says that an anointed Kohen brings a bull, a Nasi brings a male goat, and a commoner brings a female lamb or goat;

(Mishnah): For idolatry, an anointed Kohen or Nasi brings a female goat, like a commoner.

Conclusion: Rav Yosef's objection is affirmed. (R. Zakai must learn from "v'Lo So'ovdem" that all Avodos are considered one.)

Version #2 (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah): R. Zakai taught in front of R. Yochanan as follows:

There is a stringency of Shabbos over other Mitzvos, and there is a stringency of other Mitzvos over Shabbos:

The stringency of Shabbos is that if two Melachos were done in one He'elem, he is liable for each one. This does not apply to other Mitzvos.

The stringency of other Mitzvos is that if someone transgressed b'Shogeg without intention he is liable. This does not apply to Shabbos (one is liable only if he intended to do the Melachah).

Question: He said that regarding Shabbos, if two Melachos were done in one He'elem, he is liable for each one. What is the case?

Suggestion: He reaped and grinded.

Rejection: The corresponding case of other Mitzvos is eating Chelev and blood. Also there he is liable for each!

Answer #1: Regarding other Mitzvos, we must say that he ate Chelev twice (in one He'elem).

Rejection: Also regarding Shabbos, if he reaped twice he is liable only once!

This is why R. Yochanan told him to leave the Beis Medrash.

Question (and Answer #2): Perhaps indeed, he reaped and grinded. The corresponding case of other Mitzvos is idolatry, like R. Ami taught!

(R. Ami): If someone did Zevichah, Haktarah and Nisuch in one He'elem, he is liable only one Korban.

Answer: We cannot establish it regarding idolatry due to the Seifa:. the stringency of other Mitzvos is that one who transgressed b'Shogeg without intent is liable, unlike Shabbos.

Question: How could we establish this regarding idolatry?

If he thought he was bowing to a synagogue, and really it was idolatry, he intended to serve Hash-m!

Answer #1: Rather, he bowed to a statue.

Rejection: If he accepted it to be his god, he was Mezid. If not, he did not serve idolatry!

Answer #2: Rather, he served idolatry due to love or fear.

Question: This is like Abaye, who obligates for serving due to love or fear;

According to Rava, who exempts, how can we answer?

Answer #3: He thought that idolatry is permitted.

Question: R. Zakai taught that regarding Shabbos, he is totally exempt;

Rava asked only whether one who forgot that it was Shabbos and forgot Melachos brings one Chatas, or for each Melachah. He never suggested that he is totally exempt!

Question: Perhaps the Reisha refers to idolatry, and the Seifa refers to a different Mitzvah!

Transgressing b'Shogeg without intention. He thought that saliva was on his tongue and he swallowed it (and it was really Chelev);

The corresponding case regarding Shabbos is, he intended to pick up something detached, and cut something attached to the ground. He is exempt.

(Rav Nachman): Mis'asek (doing an action without intention) regarding Arayos or forbidden foods is liable, for he received pleasure;

Misasek regarding Shabbos is exempt. The Torah forbids only Melachah Machsheves (one who accomplished his intention).

Answer: R. Yochanan rejected this possibility because (also elsewhere) he demands that the Reisha of a Mishnah or Beraisa resemble the Seifa.

(R. Yochanan): If someone can explain the Mishnah of a barrel (that a watchman moved without permission) according to one Tana, I will carry his clothes to the bathhouse.