(R. Elazar): Whenever the Torah writes separate Lavim for two transgressions but only mentions Kares once, they are separate regarding Korbanos. (If one did them in one He'elem, he brings two Korbanos.)
Question: What is the case?
Answer: Regarding scenting oil (like Shemen ha'Mishchah) and anointing with Shemen ha'Mishchah, it says "Al Basar Adam Lo Yisach uve'Maskunto (Lo Sa'asu Kamohu)";
Only one Kares is written for these - "Asher Yirkach Kamohu va'Asher Yiten Mimenu Al Zar v'Nichras me'Amav."
Question: There are separate Lavim for the Arayos. Why is Achoso needed to be Mechalek?
Answer: R. Yitzchak uses it to exempt Chayavei Kares from lashes. Chachamim use it to teach that Ein Onshin Min ha'Din.
Support (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - Mishnah): One who scents oil, or makes (incense just like the) Ketores, or anoints with the Shemen ha'Mishchah (receives Kares).
Question: Why is making Ketores taught between scenting oil and anointing with Shemen ha'Mishchah?
Answer: This teaches that scenting and anointing are like making Ketores, i.e. each is a separate Lav. One is liable for each by itself.
Question: Perhaps making Ketores was taught in the middle in order to be next to scenting oil, for both of these are called "Pitum"!
Answer: The Tana could have taught them together without separating scenting and anointing, i.e. Pitum Ketores, Pitum oil, anointing;
Rather, he taught Ketores in the middle to teach that one brings separate Chata'os for scenting and anointing.
THE NUMBER OF CHIYUVEI KARES
(Mishnah): A man who has relations with another man.
Question: (The Mishnah said that there are 36 Kerisos to teach that one is liable for all of them in one He'elem.) Does it discuss a man or woman?
If it discusses a man, it should not count bestiality (relations with an animal) for a woman, so there are only 35;
If it discusses a woman, it should not count Mishkav Zachar (homosexual relations) or bestiality for a man, so there are only 34!
Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): It discusses a man (and counts two Kerisos for Mishkav Zachar). It should say 'a man who is Shochev lies (like a man) with a man, and a man who is Nishkav (lies like a woman) with a man;
The Mishnah is like R. Yishmael, who obligates two Chata'os for these (even if one transgressed both in one He'elem).
Question: The Seifa obligates for Megadef, it is like R. Akiva!
Suggestion: The Mishnah is R. Akiva, he agrees with R. Yishmael about Mishkav Zachar.
Rejection (R. Avahu): If Reuven was Shochev with a man and was Nishkav with a man:
According to R. Yishmael, he is liable twice because different verses forbid these - "Lo Sishkav" and "Lo Yihyeh Kadesh";
According to R. Akiva, he is liable once. We learn both from "Lo Siten Shechavtecha," we also read this "Lo Sashkiv" (Shitah Mekubetzes - "Lo Sishakav").
Answer: The Mishnah is R. Yishmael. He agrees with R. Akiva about Megadef.
Question: If so, it should also count bestiality like two, i.e. Shochev and Nishkav!
Answer (Abaye): Even R. Yishmael is Mechayev only once for a man who lies with an animal in both ways (in one He'elem), for both are learned from one verse. The verse of Kadesh applies only to people. (Zenus does not apply to animals.)
Answer #2 (to question (b) - R. Elazar): The Mishnah (discusses a man. It) teaches 33 Chayavei Chata'os, and lists the other three Kerisos to complete the list of Kerisos (even though one does not bring a Korban for them);
Support (Seifa): (There is Kares for) a man who does not fulfill either of the following Mitzvos Aseh -- circumcision or Korban Pesach.
Suggestion: Perhaps this was taught because one brings a Korban for them!
Rejection: There is no Korban for them!
(Beraisa): "Torah Achas Yihyeh Lachem la'Oseh bi'Shegagah; veha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh b'Yad Ramah" equates (all Chayavei Chata'os in) the Torah to idolatry. One brings a Chatas for transgressing a Mitzvah to refrain from something. Pesach and Milah are Mitzvos to do an action.
Conclusion: A man who transgresses all the Kerisos brings 33 Korbanos. The other three are listed just to teach all of the Kerisos.
MULTIPLE KERISOS FOR ONE IKAR TRANSGRESSION
(Mishnah): One who is Mechalel Shabbos (is Chayav Kares).
Question: Why is this counted only like one? There are 39 Melachos! (One brings a Korban for each one, even if all were done in one He'elem.)
Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): The Mishnah discusses Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos. (He forgot that it was Shabbos, but remembered that the Melachos are forbidden on Shabbos.) He brings only one Korban;
(Beraisa - R. Yosi): (It says "v'Asah me'Achas me'Henah." Sometimes) Henah is Achas (one Korban suffices for many transgressions), e.g. Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos.
Question: The Tana should have taught Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos (he remembered that it was Shabbos, but forgot that these Melachos are forbidden), for which he brings 39 Korbanos!
(Beraisa): "V'Asah me'Achas me'Henah" teaches that sometimes one brings only one Korban for many transgressions, and sometimes he brings one Korban for each;
Achas that is Henah (many Korbanos for offshoots of one transgression) is Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos.
Answer: The Tana prefers to teach about Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos, that he must bring a Korban. (He is not exempt, even though he was Mezid about the Melachos. The Griz asks why this is a Chidush. He did not intend to transgress!) Alternatively, he is always liable once. The Tana did not want to teach about multiple Korbanos for Shigegas Melachos, for it does not always apply, e.g. if he was also Shogeg about Shabbos.)
The same applies to idolatry;
(He is liable only once for) Shigegas Avodah Zarah (idolatry) and Zadon Avodos (he remembered that the Avodos are forbidden, but forgot that this idolatry is forbidden, and he did different Avodos).
Question: What is the case of idolatry b'Shogeg?
If he thought he was bowing to a Beis ha'Keneses, and it really was idolatry, he intended to serve Hash-m! (Surely, he is exempt.)
Answer #1: Rather, he bowed to a statue.
Rejection: If he accepted it to be his god, he was Mezid. If he did not accept it, he did not serve idolatry!
Answer #2: Rather, he served idolatry due to love or fear.
Question: This is like Abaye, who obligates for serving due to love or fear;
According to Rava, who exempts, how can we answer?
Answer #3: He thought that idolatry is permitted;
Rava asked, if one forgot that it was Shabbos and he forgot Melachos (and did them), does he bring just one Chatas (for forgetting Shabbos), or one for each Melachah?
Rava knew that he is liable at least once. He asked only whether he is liable for each. The same applies to forgetting that idolatry is forbidden.
Version #1 - Be'er Sheva - (Rav Papa): (Normally, no Yisrael would think that idolatry is permitted.) We find such a case regarding a baby captured (and raised) by Nochrim.
Version #2 - Rashi - (Rav Papa): We find Shigegas Avodah Zarah and Zadon Avodos regarding a baby captured by Nochrim (who later returned to the Yisraelim, and learned a bit about idolatry) - he knows the Avodos, but thinks that a certain idolatry is permitted. (end of Version #2)
Alternatively, it could be a (regular) adult who erred about "Lo Sa'asun Iti Elohei Chesef ve'Elohei Zahav" - he thought that the only idolatries forbidden to worship are of gold and silver.
Answer #2 (to Question (j) - Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika citing Rav Bivi): The Tana merely mentioned the Aveiros of Shabbos and idolatry, without discussing how many Korbanos are brought for each.
Question: What is the source to say this?
Answer: It teaches about a man who has relations with a woman and her daughter (and then proceeds to teach the Ervah with the most lenient death penalty), a married woman...
Question: Why does it omit a man's daughter (not from his wife, rather,) from a woman he raped (or enticed)?
Answer #1: The Mishnah lists only Arayos explicit in the Torah.
Question: The daughter and granddaughter of his wife are explicit in the Torah, yet the Mishnah does not list them!
Answer: The Mishnah mentioned just a woman and her daughter. (It did not detail all its offshoots);
Answer: Likewise, it mentions just Shabbos and idolatry.
Question (Rav Acha): Here, Rav Bivi says that it mentions just Shabbos and idolatry. This contradicts what he said elsewhere!
If one was Ma'aleh b'Chutz (offered outside the Mikdash) Ivrei Panim (limbs of Korbanos slaughtered inside) he is liable;
If one offered outside Ivrei Chutz (of Korbanos slaughtered outside), he is liable.
Objection (Rav Bivi - Mishnah): There are 36 Kerisos.
If one is liable for Ha'alas Chutz (offering outside the Mikdash) of Ivrei Panim (limbs of an animal slaughtered in the Mikdash), and also for Ivrei Chutz (limbs of an animal slaughtered outside the Mikdash), he should be liable twice for both of them (in one He'elem. If so), there should be 37 Kerisos!
Why does he ask? He should say the Mishnah mentions just Ha'alas Chutz! (It did not detail all its offshoots.)
Answer: It is reasonable to say that it mentions just Shabbos and idolatry, for a tractate of the Mishnayos is devoted to each, in which the Chata'os brought for them are detailed. They are listed here along with all other Kerisos;
No Mishnah teaches that there are two Chata'os for Ha'alas Chutz. If the law were true, our Mishnah would teach it!
WHAT IS MECHALEK CHATA'OS
Question (R. Yirmeyah): If Kares is written regarding each of two Aveiros, but only one Lav is written for both of them, what is the law (if both were transgressed in one He'elem)?
R. Zeira: Seemingly, you ask about Shochet (slaughtering) and Ma'aleh (offering) b'Chutz. (Kares is written regarding each, but there is an explicit Lav only for the latter.) Really, there is a Lav for each!
One opinion learns from a Gezeirah Shavah. It says "Hava'ah" regarding each;
The Torah does not punish (Kares) for Ma'aleh b'Chutz without warning (with a Lav). The same applies to Shochet b'Chutz (since there is Kares, there is a Lav).
The other opinion learns from a Hekesh. It says "Sham Ta'aleh... v'Sham Ta'aseh";
The Torah does not punish for Ma'aleh b'Chutz without warning. The same applies to Shochet b'Chutz.
R. Zeira: Perhaps you ask about when Misah is written regarding each of two Aveiros but only one Kares is written for both!
Question: What Aveiros does he refer to?
Answer: He refers to Ov and Yid'oni.
R. Yirmeyah: Yes, that is my question! (text of Shitah Mekubetzes)
R. Zeira: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this (whether or not Misah is Mechalek. Rashi - all agree that if one transgressed Ov and Yid'oni in one He'elem, he brings only one Chatas.)
Question: Why are Ov and Yid'oni both listed in the Mishnah of those who are stoned, but Yid'oni is omitted from the Mishnah of Kerisos?
Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): Only one is listed regarding Kerisos because there is only one Lav (and Kares) for both of them (so they are like one Aveirah regarding Chatas);
Question: Why did the Tana list Ov and not Yid'oni?
Answer: He did so because the Torah always writes Ov before Yid'oni.
Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): Yid'oni is omitted from the Mishnah of Kerisos because Ein Bo Ma'aseh (no action is involved. He just puts a bone in his mouth. Our Tana exempts such Aveiros from Chatas.)
Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish answer like R. Yochanan?
Answer (Rav Papa): He holds that since they are separate regarding Misah (Misah is written regarding each, if each were Chayav a Korban by itself), they would be separate regarding Chatas.
R. Yochanan holds that separate Lavim are Mechalek (for Chata'os), but Misah is not Mechalek (R. Gershom - since one cannot be killed more than once).
Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan answer like Reish Lakish?
Answer: He holds that our Tana is R. Akiva, who obligates a Korban even for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh.
Reish Lakish holds that even though R. Akiva does not require a major action, he requires a small action.
Question: What action does Ba'al Ov do?
Answer: He knocks his arms.
LIABILITY FOR MEGADEF
Question: (R. Akiva is Mechayev Megadef (a blasphemer).) What action does Megadef do?
Answer #1: He bends his lips.
Assumption: Reish Lakish holds that even Chachamim consider knocking arms to be a (small) action.
Question (Beraisa): One is liable (to bring a Korban) for idolatry only for an action, such as slaughtering, burning, pouring libations, or bowing.
Question: Bowing is not an act!
Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): The Tana is R. Akiva, who obligates a Korban even for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh.
Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): It is even like Rabanan. Bending one's posture is an act.
Conclusion of question: Reish Lakish holds that Rabanan do not consider bending one's posture like an act. Surely, knocking arms is not an action!
Retraction: Rather, Reish Lakish holds that only R. Akiva considers knocking arms to be an action.
Question: In the Mishnah, Chachamim exempt Megadef because Ein Bo Ma'aseh. They should exempt also Ba'al Ov for this reason!
Answer: Indeed, they do. They taught about Megadef, and the same applies to Ba'al Ov.
Question: Why didn't they teach that Ba'al Ov is exempt, instead of teaching about Megadef?
Answer: The Mishnah must teach about Megadef. Since its Kares is written right after the Parshah of Chatas, one might have thought that Chachamim agree that one brings a Korban for it (even though Ein Bo Ma'aseh). The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
Answer #2 (to question (a) - Ula): The Ba'al Ov of the Mishnah is one who offers a Korban to a Shed.
Objection (Rava): If so, that is Avodah Zarah!
Answer #3 (Rava): The Ba'al Ov of the Mishnah is one who offers to the (head) Shed, in order to gather (Shedim to perform Ov. He does not worship it like a god.)
Objection (Abaye): If so, that is Chover Chaver (it is only a Lav. There is no Misah or Kares for it!)
Answer (Rava): This kind of Chover Chaver is Chayav Sekilah (and Kares).
Question (Abaye): If so, what kind of Chover Chaver is only a Lav?
Answer (Rava - Beraisa): If a Chover Chaver (whispered charms) and gathered large or small animals, even snakes and scorpions, he is liable.
(Abaye): One may not gather (through Kishuf) wasps and scorpions (to a deserted place; alternatively, incite them to kill each other, even though he intends to stop them from damaging others);
If they were chasing him, it is permitted.