QUESTIONS: The Gemara asks why the Mishnah at the beginning of this Perek, as well as the Mishnah in the seventh Perek of Shevi'is, introduce their teachings with the words "Klal Gadol." The Gemara says that if it is because each of these Mishnayos precedes another Mishnah relating a less-detailed Klal than the first Mishnah, then the Mishnah in the first Perek of Ma'aseros should also say "Klal Gadol," because it, too, precedes a less-detailed Klal.

The Gemara then suggests that the Mishnayos in Shabbos and Shevi'is say "Klal Gadol" because these two categories of Halachah include the unique concept of Avos and Toldos. The Gemara asks that according this answer, why does Bar Kapara's version of the Mishnah in Ma'aseros say "Klal Gadol"?

The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah says "Klal Gadol" whenever a certain category of Halachah is more inclusive than another category (Shabbos is more inclusive than Shevi'is, as the Gemara explains, and Shevi'is is more inclusive than Ma'aser, and Ma'aser is more inclusive than Pe'ah).

(a) What was the Gemara's initial question on Bar Kapara (why, according to him, does it say "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros)? The Gemara itself suggested that when a less-detailed Mishnah follows a more-detailed Mishnah, it says "Klal Gadol" in the more-detailed Mishnah (as is the case in Ma'aseros)! Although this answer was rejected because of the wording of a Mishnah in Ma'aseros, there is no need to reject it according to Bar Kapara's version of that Mishnah. Why, then, does the Gemara need to find another reason for why it says "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara?

(b) The Gemara says that the Klal of Ma'aser is more inclusive than that of Pe'ah, and that is why the Mishnah says "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara. Why, then, does it not say "Klal Gadol" in our version of the Mishnah in Ma'aseros?

(a) The RASHBA and RAN answer that the Gemara certainly could have remained with its original answer, that the reason it says "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara is because there is another, less-detailed Klal that follows. However, the Gemara preferred to give an explanation that for both Bar Kapara and those who argue with him, who do not have the words "Klal Gadol" in the Mishnah in Ma'aseros.

(b) According to the Gemara's conclusion, the reason why the Mishnah says "Klal Gadol" in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara is because Ma'aser is more inclusive than Pe'ah. Our version of Mishnah there leaves out the word "Gadol" because only the d'Rabanan laws of Ma'aser include more than Pe'ah, but the d'Oraisa laws of Ma'aser are the same as the d'Oraisa laws of Pe'ah: both Ma'aser and Pe'ah include only Dagan, Tirosh, v'Yitzhar (wheat, grapes, and olives). According to the DIKDUKEI SOFRIM's text of the Gemara, the Gemara itself says this answer.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that "the punishment of Shabbos is greater than that of Shevi'is," because the laws of Shabbos apply even to objects that are detached from the ground, while Shevi'is applies only to objects that are attached to the ground.

Why does the Gemara not give a much more basic reason for why Shabbos is more severe than Shevi'is? Shabbos is punishable with Sekilah (stoning) while Shevi'is is only a Lav, punishable with Malkus!

(a) The MAHARAM answers that the Gemara also wants to explain that Ma'aser is greater than Pe'ah, and in that case, the punishment of Ma'aser is not greater than the punishment of Pe'ah. Rather, the category of Ma'aser is broader and applies to more situations than Pe'ah. Therefore, the Gemara gives a similar answer to differentiate between Shabbos and Shevi'is.

(b) The Gemara wants to find a reason why the Klal is Gadol -- why the rule itself is greater. The Gemara therefore explains how the rule of Shabbos is greater (broader) than the rule of Shevi'is, and thus it does not explain how the punishment is greater. (M. KORNFELD)

(c) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) writes that the Mishnah in Shabbos says "Klal Gadol" because, indeed, Shabbos is punishable with Sekilah.

The MAHARSHA explains that the Rambam understands the Gemara here to be making two different statements when it says, "Gadol Onsho Shel Shabbos Yoser m'Shel Shevi'is, d'Ilu Shabbos Isa Bein b'Talush Bein b'Mechubar..." ("The punishment of Shabbos is greater than that of Shevi'is, for Shabbos applies both to detached and to attached objects..."). That is, Shabbos is greater than Shevi'is for two reasons. First, it entails a greater punishment, Sekilah. Second, it is more inclusive, for it applies to both detached and attached objects.

QUESTION: Rav and Shmuel maintain that a Tinok she'Nishbah is Chayav to bring only one Korban Chatas for all of the Shabbosim that he desecrated (case 1), and they interpret the first case in the Mishnah accordingly. As a result, they interpret the second case in the Mishnah to be a case in which one who knew about the concept of Shabbos but forgot it must bring a separate Chatas for every Shabbos that he desecrated (case 2).

The Gemara asks that if the person in the second case in the Mishnah (who forgot the concept of Shabbos) is Chayav to bring a separate Chatas for each Shabbos that he desecrated, then it follows that a person who knew about the concept of Shabbos but forgot that today was Shabbos (case 3) must bring a Chatas for each and every Melachah that he performed on Shabbos.

How does the Gemara make that inference? RASHI (DH Chayav) explains that the Gemara's logic is as follows. If one who knew about Shabbos but forgot that today was Shabbos (case 3) would be Chayav to bring only one Chatas for every Melachah that he committed, then that case should have been written in the Mishnah together with the case of one who forgot about the concept of Shabbos (case 2), who is also Chayav to bring one Chatas for every Shabbos that he desecrated. Since the Mishnah does not include case 3 with case 2, it must be that his Chiyuv is different and he is Chayav to bring a Chatas for every Melachah that he does.

How, though, can the Gemara make such an inference? The Gemara just a few lines earlier says that if the Mishnah would have taught that case 2 (one forgot the concept of Shabbos) is Chayav to bring a Chatas for each Shabbos that he desecrated, then certainly ("Kol she'Ken") we would know that case 3 (one who knew the concept of Shabbos but forgot that today was Shabbos) must bring a Chatas for each Melachah that he committed! That is, the Gemara implies that case 3 is included in case 2 from a Kal v'Chomer. Why, then, does the Gemara now say that case 3 should have been listed explicitly?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Aval Lo) explains that the inference is not as Rashi explains it (that the Mishnah should have mentioned case 3 together with case 2). Rather, the inference is that the Mishnah should have mentioned case 3 separately and said not that "he is Chayav to bring one Chatas for every Shabbos" (as a positive requirement), but rather that "he is not Chayav more than one Korban for each Shabbos" (as a negative statement). Since it does not say that, it implies that he is Chayav more than one Korban for each Shabbos -- he is Chayav one Chatas for each Melachah that he did.

(b) How, though, are we to understand the words of Rashi? Perhaps we may suggest that the when the Gemara initially says that case 3 would have been learned from case 2 through a Kal v'Chomer, it means that there would have been a Kal v'Chomer had the Mishnah used the words "Tinok she'Nishbah" in the first case, and "one who forgot the concept of Shabbos" in the second case. However, now that the Gemara says that the words "Shoche'ach Ikar Shabbos" in the Mishnah also refer to Tinok she'Nishbah, the Gemara assumes that the Mishnah would not rely on a Kal v'Chomer to teach case 3, because it would have been easy to include that case in the category of someone who forgot the concept of Shabbos by merely adding one more word (without having to add a whole new case -- cf. Tosfos to Beitzah 2b, DH v'Niflog). Therefore, the Gemara assumes now that if the Mishnah does not explicitly mention one who forgets that today is Shabbos (case 3), it must be because it has a different Halachah (and not because it is learned from a Kal v'Chomer). (M. KORNFELD)