Distinction: However, according to the opinion that requires Yedi'ah at the beginning, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this;

According to R. Yochanan, since it is an important Yedi'ah that causes Kaparah, it divides. Even Yedi'os after [all] the Bi'os [divide], and all the more so Yedi'os between Bi'ah and Bi'ah divide;

According to Reish Lakish, who holds that Yedi'os do not divide, here regarding Shifchah Charufah, even Yedi'os between Bi'ah and Bi'ah do not divide.

Implied question: Regarding Chelev, Reish Lakish agrees that Yedi'os between one eating and another divide!

Answer: These are different. There, the Torah said that it depends on Shegagos. However, for Shifchah Charufah, one brings for Mezid like for Shogeg, so Yedi'ah is not important to divide.

Distinction: However, according to the opinion that does not require Yedi'ah at the beginning, even R. Yochanan agrees. Since the Yedi'ah does not cause Kaparah, it is not important to divide even between Bi'ah and Bi'ah, and all the more so after all the actions.

Question: Granted, if there is Asham Taluy for Shifchah Charufah, this is fine for the opinion that does not require Yedi'ah. He is liable only once, since the Yedi'ah does not cause Kaparah, for he can bring an Asham and stipulate, just like for [Safek] Me'ilah;

However, if there is no Asham Taluy [for Shifchah Charufah], for we do not find anywhere Asham Taluy for Shifchah Charufah, why is he is liable only once? He should be liable twice, for he needs at least one Yedi'ah;

If it was not known to him, he could not bring any Korban. That Yedi'ah causes Kaparah!

Answer: Even if there is no Asham Taluy for Shifchah Charufah, he can bring an Asham on condition, and stipulate that [if he is not obligated an Asham,] it is a Shelamim;

Implied question: [It causes Kaparah] according to the opinion that one may not bring Kodshim to be wasted (through offering them in a way that reduces the Heter to eat them from what the Torah normally allows. He forbids stipulating to be a Shelamim), for this reduces its edibility! (Even Yisraelim may eat Shelamim, and it is eaten for two days and a night. Since it is a Safek Asham, only male Kohanim may eat it, and only for one day and a night!)

Answer: This is not called causing Kaparah, since if he transgressed and stipulated, what he did, he did.

Question: Why did Ula discuss Shifchah Charufah, and not Me'ilah? Regarding Me'ilah it was taught that Asham Vadai does not require Yedi'ah!

Answer: Ula comes to teach that even between one act and another, Yedi'ah is not important to divide. However, regarding Me'ilah, it is obvious that it divides, just like for Chatas.

Support: It connotes like this in Kerisus (9a). R. Chiya Tirana'ah asked R. Yochanan, if one had Bi'ah with five Shifchah Charufos in one Helam, what is the law? He answered that he is liable for every one;

[He asked] why is this unlike [Bi'ah with] one Shifchah in five Helamos? [R. Yochanan] answered that there, they are not separate bodies. Here, they are separate bodies.

This is according to the opinion that does not require Yedi'ah. This shows that even Yedi'os between Bi'ah and Bi'ah do not divide.

Alternative text: Some texts say in Ula's teaching "and it became known to him between each one." This is like I explained.

Question: From Ula, we should resolve that R. Yochanan holds that Yedi'os divide!

Answer: Ula means "if you will say that that R. Yochanan holds that Yedi'os divide..."

Question: What was Rav Hamnuna's question?

If he holds that separation [of a Korban] divides between Bi'ah and Bi'ah when he had Bi'ah b'Mezid, also b'Shogeg it should divide. How does he compare it to Yedi'ah, which does not divide b'Mezid?!

If he holds that separation does not divide b'Mezid, likewise b'Shogeg it does not divide!

Answer (Ri): He asks as follows. Since you do not distinguish between Yedi'os between actions and Yedi'os after the actions - if so, also separations should not divide according to Reish Lakish after all the actions, if you will say that they argue about separations;

And even according to R. Yochanan, we can say that here he agrees that separations do not divide. Only regarding Chatas he says that they divide, because together with the separations are important Yedi'os that cause Kaparah;

However, here there is only separation. Even R. Yochanan agrees that it does not divide after all the actions. Likewise, [you should say that] it does not divide between Bi'ah and Bi'ah!

[Rav Hamnuna asks that] surely it is logical that it divides, and one does not atone with a Korban that he already separated for an Aveirah after the separation!

[Ula] responded "I did not discuss an act after separation." I.e. I do not equate between one act and another, to after all the actions.

Explanation: Now we are thinking that [Rav Dimi] discusses Yedi'ah, and he said that even according to Reish Lakish, [Yedi'ah] divides, since it causes Kaparah, and even after all the actions;

Therefore, [Abaye] asks that Chatas [requires Yedi'ah, and Reish Lakish holds that Yedi'os are not Mechalek]! We conclude that [Rav Dimi] discusses after separation.

Explanation #1 (Ri): Rav Dimi argues with Ula. Since [Rav Dimi] said "according to the opinion that requires Yedi'ah", this implies that the one who does not require Yedi'ah, no (he does not bring a Korban for each Bi'ah), for he equates [separation between acts] to separation after all the actions.

Implied question: Rav Dimi's reasoning is astounding! (Can anyone hold that a Korban atones for Aveiros after it was separated?)

Answer: (It is not astounding.) Also an Olah atones for [Bitul of] an Aseh after it was separated!

Implied question: This was a question in Zevachim (6a, whether Olah atones for an Aseh after it was separated), and it was not resolved. The Gemara (tried to prove that it does, but) rejected this at the end of the Sugya (7a)!

Answer #1: That is a mere Dichuy. (Really, Olah atones for an Aseh after it was separated.)

Answer #2: There, the question was according to Ula, who said here that a Korban does not atone for an Aveirah after it was separated. Perhaps Olah, which is [primarily not an atonement, rather,] a gift, atones.

Answer #3: The Gemara there did not want to resolve the question from Amora'im, rather, only from a Mishnah or Beraisa, like we find in Nedarim (35b).

Explanation #2 (Rashba): [Rav Dimi] said "according to the opinion that requires Yedi'ah" for a bigger Chidush. According to Reish Lakish, even this opinion obligates for each [Aveirah] only for an action after separation. [Rav Dimi] does not argue with Ula.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): E.g. a knife was lying in a vegetable patch and he intended to lift it, and he cut attached [vegetables].

Consequence: If so, the argument about one who intended to cut detached, and he cut attached, this is when he intended to cut detached [Peros], and he cut other [Peros] that were attached;

Inference: If he intended to cut these attached [Peros], and he cut other attached [Peros], all agree that he is liable.

Question #1 (R. Tam): In Kerisus (19b), Shmuel said that if one was Mis'asek with Chelev (or other forbidden foods) or Arayos (he was engaged in another pursuit, and came to eat or have Bi'ah with them), he is liable, for he benefited. If he was Mis'asek [and did Melachah] on Shabbos, he is exempt, for the Torah forbids only Melachah Machasheves;

It is proven there that even if he intended to pick this fig, and he picked another fig, Shmuel exempts.

Question #2: Below (97b), Rava exempts one who intended to throw four [Amos] and it went eight, unless he said "it may land wherever", and all the more so [he exempts] when he intended to throw in this direction and he threw in a different direction, for his will was not done at all, or if he intended to cut these attached [Peros], and he cut other attached [Peros], he is exempt!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Here, the case is, he intended to cut detached, and it was found to be attached. He cut what he intended to cut, just he did not know that it is attached;

Abaye and Rava argue about the verse "Asher Chata Bah." R. Eliezer establishes it in Kerisus (19b) to exclude Mis'asek;

It says explicitly there about this that according to Rava, we find [that Mis'asek is exempt] when he intended to cut detached, and he cut attached. According to Abaye, we find this when he intended to lift detached [and he lifted attached and thereby detached it];

Shmuel exempts due to Melachah Machasheves, i.e. when he intended to cut this attached, and he cut other attached. His intent was not fulfilled.

Support: Now it is fine below that [the Gemara] explains below (73a) "Shogeg without intent regarding other Mitzvos - what is the case? He thought that it is permitted lard, and he ate it (and it was found to be Chelev)." This truly resembles Shabbos according to R. Tam.

Explanation: This is fine for Abaye regarding this, that we find regarding idolatry Shogeg without intent, but in any case, also according to Abaye we cannot establish the Beraisa properly like this, for also if he desecrated Shabbos due to love or fear, he is liable;

Therefore, below we need to establish it according to Abaye "what is the case of Shogeg without intent? He thought that it is saliva, and he swallowed it (and it was found to be Chelev)."

Question: Why doesn't it bring the Mishnah that one who forgot the essence of Shabbos is liable only once, and he is not totally exempt?

Answer: It prefers to bring from Rava, who was unsure about one who forgot both (Shabbos and the Melachos). Perhaps he is liable even twice;

We establish here that he says that [idolatry] is permitted, i.e. he temporarily forgot, similar to one who forgot both of them, like I explained above (68b);

If he never knew the Isur of idolatry, he is not a Yisrael at all, since he admits to idolatry. It is difficult to establish it to discuss a baby captured by Nochrim.

Question: [R. Yochanan] said in Sanhedrin (74a) that for idolatry, Arayos and murder, one must submit to be killed rather than transgress. If so, even if he does not accept it [to be his god], he is liable! (Why does Rava exempt one who served due to love or fear of a person?)

Suggestion: Rava holds like he said in Avodah Zarah (54a), that even for idolatry, in private one should live through the Mitzvos and not die due to them!

Implied question: Rava said in Kesuvos (19a) that if witnesses were told "sign a false matter [or be killed]", they should sign, for nothing overrides life except for idolatry, Arayos and murder!

Suggestion: He means that even the stringent opinion is stringent only for idolatry, Arayos and murder.

Rejection: If so, i.e. Rava exempts due to this, why did Abaye bring several Beraisos in Sanhedrin (61b, to prove that one who serves due to love or fear is liable)? Rava can say that it is like the opinion in Sanhedrin (74a) that one must submit to be killed and not transgress [idolatry]. Tana'im argue about this!

Answer #1: Rava holds that even the one who says that one must submit to be killed, if he [transgressed and] did not forfeit his life, he is not Chayav Misah in Beis Din.

Objection (Rashba): Rava said in Avodah Zarah (54a) that everything was included in "Lo Sa'avdem" (do not serve idolatry). When the Torah detailed "va'Chai Bahem" (live through the Mitzvos), this excludes Ones;

Inference: He excludes only mortal Ones. "Lo Sa'avdem" applies to other Onesim. Here he exempts even one who serves due to love, in which there is no mortal Ones!

Answer #2: Some say that one must submit to be killed and not transgress Stam, even though he did not accept it for his god. Here he specifies that he serves due to love or fear.

Alternatively, here [he is exempt] Stam (without saying why he serves it) for an idolatry that people serve only due to love or fear, similar to Haman.

Regarding this, it is brought there (Sanhedrin 61b) "Lahem" (to idolatry) you do not bow, but you may bow to a person like yourself. Perhaps this is even if he is worshipped, like Haman! It says "Lo Sa'avdem";

Rava said that it is like Haman, and not like Haman. There, he was served due to fear, but here, not from fear (therefore one is liable).

Observation: We may derive from that [Beraisa] itself that one is liable, even though he did not accept it for his god. It implies that it forbids one served like Haman, similar to a person like yourself, i.e. without accepting him for his god!

Support: Also, it says in Sanhedrin (60b) that one who is Po'er (excretes, or exposes his anus) to Ba'al Pe'or, this is its service, even though he intends to disgrace it. One who throws a rock at Markulis, this is its service, even though he intends to stone (destroy) it;

Inference: He is liable, even though he did not accept it for his god!

Rejection: We could say that even though he intends to disgrace it, he intends to serve it through disgrace or this stoning.

Implied question: Why didn't [Rava] reject Abaye's proofs that [he is liable when] he serves due to love or fear Stam (but if he says that he serves due to love or fear, he is exempt)!

Answer: Stam is like serving willingly.

Question: Since Rava exempts, [how does he explain] why didn't Mordechai bow to Haman?

Answer #1: We say in the Midrash that there were two [idolatrous] images on his heart.

Answer #2: [He did not bow] due to Kidush Hash-m, like it says in the Yerushalmi in Shevi'is, like Papus and his brother Lulainus. They gave to them water in colored glass (like the Nochri rite), and they did not accept from them (and forfeited their lives for this).

Implied question: In Makos (7b), we expound "bi'Shegagah" to exclude Omer Mutar (he is exempt from Galus)!

Answer: Galus is different. It says "bi'Shegagah" many times. (Therefore, we exclude Omer Mutar.)

Support: This is why it says in Bava Kama (26b) that if a rock was in his lap and he never knew (and he got up, and the rock damaged), regarding Galus (if it killed someone) he is exempt, due to "bi'Shegagah". Regarding Shabbos (if it went to Reshus ha'Rabim) he is exempt, for we require Melachah Machasheves;

Implied question: Also for Shabbos, we should exempt due to "bi'Shegagah"!

Answer: Rather, surely we exempt only regarding Galus, because it says "bi'Shegagah" many times.