1)

(a)We initially explain the Mishnah's use of the term 'K'lal Gadol', because later in the Masechta we will learn another Mishnah which also gives a Klal, but which consists only of two levels, as opposed to our Mishnah, which gives three. The problem with this suggestion is - that by Ma'aser too, the Tana lists two sets of K'lalim, the one longer than the other, yet he does not refer to the longer list as K'lal Gadol?

(b)We therefore suggests further - that the Tana uses the term K'lal Gadol because by Shabbos, there are both Avos and Toldos; whereas by Ma'aser, where there are no Toldos, the Tana does not use this term.

(c)The Mishnah does however, mention K'lal Gadol by Shevi'is, because there are also Avos and Toldos by Shevi'is. The four Avos (so-called because they are mentioned specifically in the Torah) by Shevi'is are - sowing, reaping, pruning and harvesting the grapes.

2)

(a)According to Bar Kapara, the Tana does write K'lal Gadol by Ma'aser - and the Tana uses the term 'Gadol', by any subject which is more strict than another equivalent case:

(b)Namely ...

1. Shabbos is 'Gadol' compared to Shevi'is - because there are Melachos which apply even to what was detached before Shabbos, whereas Shevi'is only applies to what is still attached when Shevi'is arrives.

2. Shevi'is is 'Gadol' compared to Ma'aser - because it applies also to animal food, whereas Ma'aser is confined to food eaten by humans.

3. Ma'aser is 'Gadol' compared to Pei'ah - because it applies to both figs (even though they are not harvested simultaneously) and vegetables (which cannot be stored - because they do not keep), whereas Pei'ah does not apply to either of these (for the reason that we mentioned).

(c)Dyes and Hefker - are Patur from Ma'asros, too.

(d)The reason that Chazal differentiated, in the Din of Ma'aser, between the former two and the latter two, is - because mi'd'Oraysa, only corn (the five types of grain), wine and oil need to be Ma'asered. The Rabbanan added fruit and vegetables, and they did not want to differentiate between one species and another; so they included all species in the obligation. They saw fit however, to preclude dyes and Hefker from the Din of Ma'aser (in the same way as they are Patur by Pei'ah), because they are not species of food.

3)

(a)Rav and Shmuel establish the first case in our Mishnah ('ha'Shoche'ach Ikar Shabbos') by a Tinok she'Nishbah or a Ger who converted among the gentiles - but not by someone who knows about Shabbos, but forgot it momentarily, who is Chayav for every Shabbos that he transgresses.

(b)They interpret 'Kol ha'Shochei'ach Ikar Shabbos' to mean that he never knew about Shabbos, as if the Tana had written 'Kol she'Haysa Shechuchah Mimenu Ikar Shabbos'.

(c)According to Rav and Shmuel, why, in the middle case of the Mishnah, does the Tana present the case of 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos' (meaning that he was conversant with Shabbos, but he forgot it for a certain period of time)? Surely, it would have done better to have presented the case of 'Hikir ve'li'be'Sof Shachach' (which we just established has the same Din according to them). Why?Because we would have then said that if by 'Hikir, ve'li'be'Sof Shachach' (where we cannot apply the principle 'Yamim she'Bentayim Havyan Yedi'ah le'Chalek' - since, having later forgotten about Shabbos, from where should he have suddenly remembered that it was Shabbos), he is Chayav for each and every Shabbos, then how much more so by 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos' (where he only forgot temporarily, and where 'Yamim she'Bentayim Havyan Yedi'ah Lechalek' is applicable). But now that the Tana presents the case of 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos', we can infer that, in the case of 'Hikir ve'li'be'Sof Shachach', where he could not have known in the middle, he would only be Chayav one Chatas - for forgetting about Shabbos.

(d)When the Mishnah said 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos, according to Rav and Shmuel, it means 'Mi she'Haya Yodei'a Ikrah shel Shabbos, ve'Shachechah'.

4)

(a)Now that, according to Rav and Shmuel, 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos' means that he forgot completely that Shabbos exists, what prompts us to deduce that, had he not forgotten, he would be Chayav for each Melachah, and not only for each Shabbos is - the fact that had the Tana thought that, someone who did not completely forget about Shabbos brings one Chatas for each Melachah, then he should have incorporated it in the second case of the Mishnah - together with 'Mi she'Yada Ikar Shabbos ve'Shachechah'. Now that he did not, it is clear that, in his opinion, someone who did not forget Shabbos, must bring a Chatas for each and every Melachah.

(b)The problem with the Seifa of the Mishnah ('ha'Yodei'a she'Hu Shabbos, ve'Asa Melachos Harbeh be'Shabbasos Harbeh, Chayav Al Kol Melachah u'Melachah') is - that in that case, why does the Seifa (where he is Chayav for each Melachah that he transgresses) present the case of 'ha'Yodei'a she'Hu Shabbos ... ' (Shigegas Melachos)? The Tana should have presented the case of 'ha'Yodei'a Ikar Shabbos', which is Chayav for each Melachah even though he only transgressed one Shogeg, and it would go without saying that by Shigegas Shabbos, where he transgressed many Shegagos, he will be Chayav many Chata'os.

(c)We therefore conclude - that Rav and Shmuel do not differentiate between a 'Tinok she'Nishbah' and 'Hikir ve'li'be'Sof Shachach'. In both cases, he is Chayav to bring one Chatas. And the Reisha of our Mishnah ('Kol ha'Shochei'ach Ikar Shabbos ... ') also speaks in the case of 'Hikir ... '

(d)The Tana could just have well presented the case of 'Tinok she'Nishbah'. However, it preferred to present the case of 'Hikir ve'li'be'Sof Shachach' - to teach us that even 'Hikir ... ' is only Chayav one Chatas (and not for each Shabbos [like we thought at first, according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish]).

5)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, the Mishnah mentions the case of 'Hikir ve'li'be'Sof Shachach' exclusively - whereas a Tinok she'Nishbah will be Patur from a Korban (because they hold that 'Omer Mutar' is considered an O'nes and not a Shogeg).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - concede that Rebbi Akiva supports Rav and Shmuel, who hold that 'Omer Mutar' is considered a Shogeg and not an Ones. They however, follow the opinion of Munbaz, who argues in the Beraisa with Rebbi Akiva.

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Akiva, a Tinok she'Nishba will have to bring one Korban for each Chiyuv Kares that he transgressed (e.g. one for drinking blood, one for eating Chelev, one for worshipping idols); according to Munbaz - he is Patur from bringing any Chata'os at all.

(b)A Ger she'Nisgayer le'Bein ha'Nochrim, will have the same Din as a Tinok she'Nishbah - (though it is not so clear how to define such a Ger - Who converted him, and what sort of Geyrus did he undergo).

7)

(a)Munbaz learns Shogeg (who is called 'a Chotei') from the Meizid of Shevu'as ha'Eidus (whom the Torah also calls 'a Chotei'). From there he derives that a Shogeg is Chayav a Chatas only when he had a Yedi'ah - at some stage - of his sin (to preclude a Tinok she'Nishbah from a Chatas).

(b)Rebbi Akiva queries him: if we are can learn Shogeg from Meizid, he asks, then why should we not also say that just like a Meizid has knowledge of his sin even whilst he is sinning, so too, must a Shogeg? 'But how can you call that a Shogeg', he asked Munbaz, when he replied that indeed it was?

(c)Ultimately, Munbaz learns his Din from a Hekesh (which is really a Semuchin, since it involves two Pesukim - in Bamidbar) of "Torah Achas Yihye Lachem, la'Oseh bi'Shegagah" and "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh be'Yad Ramah (Meizid).

(d)The Chachamim learns from the Hekesh that, in order to be Chayav a Chatas, a La'av must be similar to Avodah Zarah (the subject-matter of the second Pasuk: i.e. it must be a La'av for which one is Chayav Kares be'Meizid.