Question (R. Ba bar Mamal, to R. Ze'ira): He should be liable for each one, just like we say about Shabbos!

"Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah'' is a Klal (general term). "Lo Seva'aru Esh b'Chol Moshvoseichem'' is a Prat (specific term);

Burning was in the Klal, and it left (was taught by itself) to teach - just like burning is a lone act, and one is liable for it by itself, also every action (Melachah), we obligate for it by itself.

Also here (idolatry) - "Lo Sa'avdem'' is a Klal. "Lo Sishtachaveh Lahem'' is a Prat. Bowing was in the Klal. Why did it leave? It is to teach that just like bowing is a lone act, and one is liable for it by itself, also every action (service of idolatry), we obligate for it by itself.

Answer #1 (R. Ze'ira): Regarding Shabbos, the Klal is in one place, and the Prat is elsewhere. Regarding idolatry, the Klal is next to the Prat [so it is not called something that was in the Klal, and left, to teach about the Klal].

Question (R. Ba bar Mamal, to R. Ze'ira): It says "Lo Sishtachaveh l'El Acher'' - the Klal ("Lo Sa'avdem'') is in one place, and a Prat is elsewhere!

Answer (R. Ze'ira): Since you do not learn from [the Prat] next to [the Klal], even [from a Prat] elsewhere, you do not learn.

Answer #2 (Talmidim): It makes no difference whether the Klal is in one place and the Prat is elsewhere, or the Klal and Prat are in one place - it is a Klal u'Ferat (i.e. something that was in the Klal, and left);

Regarding Shabbos, it is a Klal and afterwards a Prat. Regarding idolatry, it is a Prat and afterwards a Klal (it is not called something that was in a Klal, and left).

Answer #3 (R. Yosi): It makes no difference whether it is a Klal and afterwards a Prat, or a Prat and afterwards a Klal, or a Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal - it is a Klal u'Ferat (i.e. something that was in the Klal, and left);

Regarding Shabbos, the Klal refers to its Melachos, and the Prat refers to its Melachos. Regarding idolatry, Klal refers to its Avodos, and the Prat refers to Avodos of Hash-m.

Answer #4 (R. Mana): [Regarding Shabbos] burning [is called something that was in the Klal, and left] because it was written without need (we already knew it from "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah''. Regarding idolatry,) bowing needed to be written to teach about itself, for it is not an action (it is a Chidush that one is liable for it).

Support: This is like Chizkiyah taught "Zove'ach la'Elohim Yacharam'' - Shechitah left [the Klal] to teach about the Klal (any way we serve Hash-m in the Mikdash, one is liable for doing so to idolatry, even if the idolatry is not normally served in this way). Bowing left the Klal to teach about itself, for it is not an action.

Question: Perhaps we should say oppositely (Shechitah teaches about itself, and bowing teaches about the Klal)!

Answer: Something that is an action teaches. Something that is not an action does not teach.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): Burning was taught separately for a need, to teach about Beis Din, that it does not judge [capital cases] on Shabbos! (It should not teach about the Klal.)

What is the source? It says here "b'Chol Moshvoseichem'', and it says there "v'Hayu Eleh Lachem l'Chukas Mishpat l'Doroseichem b'Chol Moshvoseichem.'' Just like Moshvoseichem there refers to Beis Din, also Moshvoseichem here refers to Beis Din.

Answer (R. Shmuel bar Avdima): Even if you will say that it left the Klal for a need, [since it could have said b'Chol Moshvoseichem regarding Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah, rather, it said it regarding "Lo Seva'aru Esh...'',] it is as if it left not for a need, and something written without a need teaches [about the Klal].

Question: This teaches that one matter that left [the Klal] for a need does not divide, but if it left not for a need, it divides. If two matters left, do they divide? (Perhaps they are like Shnei Kesuvim (two verses, one of which teaches something that we could have learned from the other verse), which do not teach to elsewhere.)

Answer: We learn from the following;

(Beraisa) Question: What is the source for one who is Maktir meat of Chatas, Asham, Kodshei Kodoshim, Kodshim Kalim, Mosar (what remains after Kemitzah) of the Omer, Shtei ha'Lechem, Lechem ha'Panim, or Shirayim of Menachos, that he transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh?

Answer: "Ki Chol Se'or v'Chol Devash Lo Saktiru Mimenu Isheh la'Shem'' teaches that anything that is partially burned [on the Mizbe'ach], Bal Saktiru (there is an Isur to burn the remains on the Mizbe'ach. For two of these we are not Maktir part of them, rather, something that accompanies them, i.e. Chelev of Kivsei Atzeres brought with Shtei ha'Lechem, and spoons of Levonah brought with Lechem ha'Panim.)

Version #1 - Question (R. Elazar, to R. Yochanan): Shtei ha'Lechem [and Bikurim] should leave [the Klal] and teach [an Isur to bring] Kodshim to the ramp [of the Mizbe'ach], like a Beraisa teaches!

Note: Vayikra 2:11 forbids Haktarah of Se'or or Devash. The next verse permits offering them for Korban Reishis (Shtei ha'Lechem and Bikurim), but forbids on the Mizbe'ach...

(Beraisa): "Ha'Mizbe'ach'' teaches only [that they may not go on] the Mizbe'ach. What is the source to include the ramp? It says "v'El ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Ya'alu'';

Perhaps this is for the sake of Avodah and not for the sake of Avodah! It says "l'Re'ach Nicho'ach'' - it is only for the sake of Avodah.

Answer (R. Yochanan): "Osam'' is an exclusion. For these (Shtei ha'Lechem and Bikurim), one is liable for [putting them on] the ramp, but one is not liable for all [other] Kodshim for the ramp.

Culmination of Answer - Inference: This is because it is written "Osam''. Had the Torah not written "Osam'', they would teach. This shows that two matters that left a Klal divide.

Rebuttal (Chananyah brei d'R. Hillel): Two matters that left a Klal do not divide. However, [you properly infer that] they teach. (We explained this like HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA.)

Version #2 (R. Yosi bei R. Bun) Question (R. Elazar, to R. Yochanan): Shtei ha'Lechem should leave [the Klal] and teach [an Isur to bring] all Kodshim to the ramp!

Answer (R. Yochanan): "Osam'' is an exclusion. For this (Shtei ha'Lechem), one is liable for] the ramp, but one is not liable for all [other] Kodshim for the ramp.

Inference: One matter that left a Klal for a need does not divide. If it left not for a need, it divides.

Two matters that left a Klal do not divide. According to R. Yishmael, they divide;

(R. Bun bar Chiya): R. Yishmael says that two matters that left a Klal divide;

(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "Lo Senachashu v'Lo Se'onenu'' - Nichush and Inun were in the Klal [of witchcraft]. They left the Klal to divide [to obligate for any one by itself. One Lav forbids several kinds of witchcraft - Devarim 18:10-11.]

If Kares was written about a Klal, and Kares was written about a Prat, R. Yochanan's teaching shows that it is a Klal u'Ferat (i.e. a Prat that left the Klal to divide);

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): "Ki Kol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'evos ha'Elu v'Nichresu'' - one's sister was in the Klal [of Arayos] and left the Klal to divide the Klal (to obligate for each Ervah by itself).

Question (R. Elazar): It says "Ervas Achos Imcha v'Achos Avicha Lo Segaleh Ki Es She'eiro He'erah''!

Note: The Torah writes a Lav for each Ervah in Parshas Kedoshim, and "Ki Kol...'' teaches Kares for all of them. The Arayos are repeated in Parshas Acharei Mos. For most of them, it teaches a Chiyuv Misah. He asks why the Torah repeated Arayos such as aunts, which have no Misah.

Answer (R. Yochanan): It left for a need, to teach about Ha'arah (one is liable for the initial stage of Bi'ah).

Question (R. Elazar): It says "v'Ish Asher Yishkav Es Ishah Davah Es Mekorah He'erah''!

Answer (R. Yochanan): It left for a need, to teach that one who does Ha'arah is like one who finishes (does a full Bi'ah);

You should not say that since he is liable for [a Nidah] only due to Tum'ah (she is not Ervah), we do not make Ha'arah like full Bi'ah. Therefore it needs to teach that he is liable [for Ha'arah].

Question (R. Elazar): It says "v'Ish Asher Yishkav Es Dodaso Ervas Dodo Gilah''!

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): It left for a need, to punish with Ariri (they will be childless).

Question (R. Elazar): It says "v'Ish Asher Yikach Es Eshes Achiv Nidah Hi''!

Answer (R. Yochanan): It left for a need, to punish with Ariri;

(R. Yudan): Whenever it says "Aririm Yihyu'', they will be without children. Whenever it says "Aririm Yamusu'', they will bury their children (that they already had).

Answer #2 (R. Yosah): Dodaso left for a need, to exclude the wife of one's maternal brother [like we will explain];

It says here Dodaso, and it says there "Oh Dodo Oh Ben Dodo Yig'alenu.'' Just like Dodo there is his father's paternal brother (maternal relatives are not called "Mishpachah''), also Dodaso here (regarding Arayos, is the wife of) his father's paternal brother;

Also Eshes Ach is learned from Dodaso. Just like Dodaso said there refers to the wife of his father's paternal brother, also Eshes Ach said here is the wife of his paternal brother.

Until here is like R. Akiva [who expounds a Gezeirah Shavah even if it is not Mufnah (superfluous)]. Like R. Yishmael [is as follows];

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): It says here Eshes Achiv, and it says below "v'Ish Asher Yikach Es Eshes Achiv Nidah Hi.'' Just like Nidah has a Heter after her Isur, also the wife of his paternal brother has a Heter [through Yibum] after her Isur. This excludes the wife of his maternal brother, who has no Heter after her Isur.

Question: R. Elazar challenged (these Limudim). What is his source [that there is Kares for each Ervah by herself]?

Answer (R. Avahu citing R. Lazar citing R. Hoshayah): Two Lavim and one Kares - the Lavim divide the Kerisos (there is Kares for each Lav).

What is the source? "Al Besar Adam Lo Yisach uv'Maskunto Lo Sa'asu Kamohu'', and it says "Ish Asher Yirkach Kamohu va'Asher Yiten Mimenu Al Zar v'Nichras me'Amav'' - these are two Lavim and one Kares. The Lavim divide the Kerisos.

Question #1: [Surely R. Yochanan agrees to this. If so,] what does R. Yochanan learn from [Kares written about Achoso? Since it has its own Lav, and there is Kares for all the Arayos, we already know that there is a separate Kares for Achoso!]

Answer: [The verses] discuss men. Achoso comes to teach about all women (the plural v'Nichresu teaches that also they are punished).

Question: Does R. Elazar not agree?! (What is his source to obligate women?)

Answer: He learns from "Lo Sikrevu'' - the same [Isur] applies to a man and a woman.

Question: What does R. Yochanan learn from this?

Remark: He still [requires Achoso to obligate women], for it is not clear (perhaps "Lo Sikrevu'' refers to all men. We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

Question #2 (Shmuel bar Aba, to R. Ze'ira): (Above (45b), we said that if Kares was written about a Klal, and Kares was written about a Prat, one is liable for each by itself.) Shelamim should divide, and obligate a separate Lav for each kind of Kodshim for Tum'ah! (Vayikra 22:3 obligates Kares for a Tamei who ate any Kodshim, and Vayikra 7:21 obligates specifically for Shelamim.)

Answer (R. Ze'ira): It left for a need, to exclude Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. One is not liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.

Question: A Mishnah teaches this! Kodshei Mizbe'ach join with each other for Me'ilah, and to be liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.

Since they join, they do not divide! (Why did Shmuel bar Aba ask?)

Answer (R. Chanina): He asks that they should divide and not join! (We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI, SEFER NIR.)