(Mishnah - R. Akiva): I asked R. Eliezer - one who does many Melachos on many Shabbosos, like one Melachah, in one Helam, what is the law? Is he is liable one [Korban] for all of them, or is he liable for each one?

He told me, he is liable for each one, from a Kal v'Chomer. Nidah does not have many derivatives (the only Isur is Bi'ah) and many Chata'os, and one is liable for each [Bi'ah]. Shabbos has many derivatives (Melachos) and many Chata'os, all the more so one is liable for each one!

R. Akiva: I told him, no - if you will say that Nidah [is liable for each one], for there are two warnings - he is commanded about a Nidah, and she is commanded about him - will you say so about Shabbos, which has only one warning?!

R. Eliezer: One who had Bi'ah with a minor is Yochi'ach (proves that the law does not depend on this)! There is only one warning (she is exempt), and he is liable for each one!

R. Akiva: No - if you will say that who had Bi'ah with a minor [is liable for each one], even though there are two warnings now, there are two later (when she matures) - will you say so about Shabbos, which has only one warnings now, and also later?!

R. Eliezer: One who had Bi'ah with an animal is Yochi'ach.

R. Akiva: [One who had Bi'ah with] an animal is like Shabbos (I say that he is liable only once).

Opinion #1 (R. Ze'ira citing Rav Chisda, and R.Ila citing Reish Lakish): He asked him about one who was Shogeg about Shabbos and Mezid about the Melachos. (Is he liable for every Shabbos, as if they are distinct entities?)

Question: If so, why did the Mishnah teach "many Melachos''? Is his question not about [multiple] Shabbosos? (He could ask about one who did one Melachah! R. Chizkiyah answers this below.)

Opinion #2 (R. Ba citing Rav Chisda): He asked him about one who was Mezid about Shabbos and Shogeg about the Melachos. (Is he liable for every Melachah?)

Question: If so, why did the Mishnah teach "many Shabbosos''? Is his question not about [multiple] Melachos? (R. Chizkiyah answers this below.)

Question: R. Ze'ira citing Rav Chisda, and R.Ila citing Reish Lakish both said that he asked him about one who was Shogeg about Shabbos and Mezid about the Melachos. Did [R. Akiva] agree to him, or did he not agree to him?

Answer: Since R. Shmuel said in the name of R. Avahu citing R. Yosi bei Chanina "this entire Halachah (the first Mishnah of our Perek) is like R. Eliezer, However, according to Rabanan he is liable only once'', this teaches that he did not agree to him.

Question: R. Ba cited Rav Chisda to say that he asked him about one who was Mezid about Shabbos and Shogeg about the Melachos. Did [R. Akiva] agree to him, or did he not agree to him?

Answer (R. Ze'ira, to R. Yosa): A Beraisa teaches that [R. Akiva] did not agree to him;

(Beraisa): I know that it is Shabbos, and I know that this is a Melachah, but I do not know if one is Chayav Kares for this Melachah - if he did [Melachos] from [different] Avos Melachos, he is liable for every Melachah;

If he did [Melachos] from one Av Melachah, he is liable for every Helam, for they are many He'elamos. However, if it was one Helam, he is liable only once.

This shows that he did not agree to him.

(R. Ze'ira citing Rav Chisda, and R.Ila citing Reish Lakish): He asked him about one who was Shogeg about Shabbos and Mezid about the Melachos. (Is he liable for every Shabbos, as if they are distinct entities?)

Question: This implies that if it was Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos, even R. Eliezer would agree to R. Akiva that he is liable only once;

[If so], R. Akiva should have challenged him - if he was Mezid about Shabbos and Shogeg about Melachos, there are many derivatives and many Chata'os, and you agree to me that he is liable only once!

Answer: Since he did not ask this, this shows that they are the same. (R. Eliezer obligates for each one in both cases, unlike the premise of our question - PNEI MEIR.)

(R. Ba citing Rav Chisda): He asked him about one who was Mezid about Shabbos and Shogeg about the Melachos.

Question: This implies that if it was Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos, even R. Akiva would agree to R. Eliezer that he is liable for each one;

[If so], R. Eliezer should have challenged him - if he was Mezid about Melachah and Shogeg about Shabbos, there is only one warning, and you agree to me that he is liable for each one! (We explained this Sugya like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

Answer: Since he did not ask this, this shows that they are the same. (R. Akiva was unsure also about this, unlike the premise of our question - PNEI MEIR.)

Question: R. Ze'ira citing Rav Chisda, and R. Ila citing Reish Lakish both said that he asked him about one who was Shogeg about Shabbos and Mezid about the Melachos. Do you not obligate him for forgetting Shabbos?! (If he is liable for each one, it is because the days in between divide them. We cannot learn this from Nidah!)

Answer (to the questions against both versions of Rav Chisda - R. Chizkiyah citing R. Ba): [R. Akiva] asked two matters. If one was Shogeg about Shabbos and Mezid about the Melachos, is he liable for each [Shabbos, i.e. do the days in between divide Shabbosos]?

[And] if one was Mezid about Shabbos and Shogeg about the Melachos, do we make Toldos like the Ikar? (If he did a Toldah and its Av, is he is liable for both?)

Question: Did [R. Akiva] agree to him, or did he not agree to him (about the latter question, i.e. R. Eliezer obligated for the Av and its Toldah)?

Support (R. Yakov bar Dasai): Rebbi's academy taught so (like our version of the Mishnah in Kerisus, i.e. it is not mistaken);

(Beraisa): If one did many Melachos on many Shabbosos like one Melachah in one Helam, what is the law? Is he is liable once for all of them, or is he liable for each one?

Many Melachos like one Melachah - this is when he was Mezid about Shabbos and Shogeg about Melachos;

Many Shabbosos - this is when he was Shogeg about Shabbos and Mezid about Melachos.

Question: R. Ba citing Rav Chisda said that he asked him about one who was Mezid about Shabbos and Shogeg about the Melachos. Is one Chayav [many times, i.e. Korbanos] for Mezid?! (R. Eliezer answered that he is liable for every Shabbos! We explained this Sugya like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

Answer: You put Shigegas Ma'aseh on Zadon Shabbos (the Korban is for the Shegagah);

And similarly, when he was Shogeg about Shabbos and Mezid about Melachos, you put Shigegas Shabbos on Zadon Melachos to obligate for each [Melachah].

Question: Does R. Eliezer not expound "me'Achas me'Henah'' (sometimes one is liable for each one, and sometimes one is liable only once for all of them)?!

Answer: A Beraisa was found in the name of R. Eliezer that if an adult was captured by Nochrim [and did Melachah on every Shabbos], he is liable for each one. (This implies that if a baby was captured, and never knew Ikar Shabbos, he is liable only once. We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI.)

Question: What is the difference between Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos, and Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos?

Answer (R. Yosah): Why is Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos liable for each one? It is because if you tell him that it is a Melachah, he refrains from it and does other Melachos;

Why is Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos liable only once? It is because if you tell him that it is Shabbos, immediately he refrains.

(Rav Hamnuna): If he was Shogeg about both of them, he is liable only once.

Objection (R. Ze'ira): A Kal v'Chomer [teaches oppositely]! Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos, is he not liable for each one? Because Shigegas Shabbos is added, do you lose [liability for each one due to] Shegagas Melachos?!