DID R. YEHOSHUA AGREE WITH R. AKIVA?
Contradiction: The Seifa shows that he did not agree to the challenge!
(Seifa): If he ate from five Korbanos in one He'elem, he brings a Chatas for each.
Resolution #1: Tana'im argue about whether he agreed to it. (The Tana of the Reisha says that he did. The Tana of the Seifa says that he did not.)
Resolution #2: The whole Beraisa is like R. Akiva (regarding Chiluk Chata'os). The Tana holds like R. Akiva that only Ha'alamos are Mechalek Chata'os, but he argues with him about Safek Me'ilah.
Question: In which case is he liable five times for Me'ilah?
Answer #1 (Shmuel): (He ate from five different things offered from or with an Olah,) like a Mishnah teaches:
(Mishnah): Five parts of an Olah join to be liable for Me'ilah -- the meat, Chelev, wine, Soles and oil (of its Nesachim).
Answer #2 (Chizkiyah): (Even if he ate only meat, he is liable five times if) he ate from five different limbs.
Answer #3 (Reish Lakish): (He can be liable even from only one limb, e.g.) he ate from (five different bones that comprise) the shoulder.
Answer #4 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): (He can be liable even from only one bone, e.g.) he ate from five different Tavshilim (e.g. meat with onions, meat with gourds... ).
Answer #5 (R. Yochanan): (He can be liable even for plain meat from one bone, e.g.) he ate meat in five different ways (e.g. cooked in water, roasted... ).
MULTIPLE MELACHOS ON MANY SHABBOSOS
(Mishnah - R. Akiva) Question: If one did many Melachos (i.e. Vlados) derived form one (Av) Melachah on many Shabbosos in one He'elem, what is the law?
Is he liable once, or for each?
Answer (R. Eliezer): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that he is liable for each:
Nidah is just one prohibition (Bi'ah), there is only one Kares, yet one (who has relations with many Nidos) is liable for each. There are many prohibitions (Melachos) of Shabbos, all are Mechayev Misah and Kares, all the more so one is liable for each!
R. Akiva: You cannot learn from Nidah, for it is a two-way Isur. She is forbidden just like he is. Shabbos is a one-way Isur. Only the person is commanded, but not Shabbos!
R. Eliezer: I learn from relations with Nidos who are minors. Only he is forbidden, and he is liable for each.
R. Akiva: Granted, minors are exempt now, but when they mature they will be commanded. Regarding Shabbos, only he is commanded!
R. Eliezer: I learn from relations with animals. Only he is forbidden, and he is liable for each.
R. Akiva: (Relations with) animals are like Shabbos (this will be explained).
(Gemara) Question: What did R. Akiva ask about?
If he asked whether or not different Shabbosos are like Gufim Muchlakim (to obligate for each Shabbos, even though it was all one He'elem), he should have asked about doing one Melachah on many Shabbosos!
Answer #1: He asked whether or not one is liable for different Vlados Melachos (of one Av) like one is liable for different Avos.
Objection: If so, he should have asked about this on one Shabbos. Why did he discuss many Shabbosos?!
Answer #2 (Rabah (text of Shitah)): He asked about both of these:
He asked whether or not different Shabbosos are like Gufim Muchlakim, and whether or not one is liable for different Vlados of one Av.
Question: What case of Melachos on many Shabbosos did he ask about?
Was it clear to him that for Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos (he forgot that it was Shabbos and remembered the Melachos) the days between Shabbosos are considered Yedi'ah Lechalek (as if he realized his mistake in between, i.e. separate Ha'alamos), and he asked only about Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos, whether or not the Shabbosos are like Gufim (Muchlakim, as if he did different Melachos? In this discussion, for brevity, we will mention only which was Shogeg (Shabbos or Melachos), and the other was Mezid.)
Or, was it clear to him that for Shigegas Melachos, the Shabbosos are like Gufim. He asked only about Shigegas Shabbos, whether or not the Shabbosos are like Yedi'ah Lechalek?
Answer #1 (Rabah): (A Mishnah teaches that) he knew about Shigegas Shabbos. He asked about Shigegas Melachos;
R. Eliezer answered that the Shabbosos are like Gufim, and that Vlados of one Av are like different Avos. R. Akiva did not accept either answer. ("Animals are like Shabbos" means, I am unsure whether or not he is liable for each animal, just like I am unsure about Shabbos.)
(Mishnah): A great, general rule of Shabbos -- if one forgot the entire Mitzvah of Shabbos and did many Melachos on many Shabbosos, he is liable only once;
If he knew the Mitzvah of Shabbos, but (on many Shabbosos forgot that it is Shabbos) and did many Melachos on many Shabbosos, he is liable once for each Shabbos;
If he knew that it is Shabbos but forgot many Melachos and did them on many Shabbosos, he is liable once for each Av Melachah.
Observation: It does not say that he is liable for each Av for each Shabbos!
Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
Suggestion: It is R. Eliezer.
Rejection (Seifa): If one did many Vlados derived from one Av, he is liable only once.
R. Eliezer is Mechayev for each!
Answer: Rather, the Mishnah is like R. Akiva.
Conclusion: It is clear to him that for Shigegas Shabbos, the days between Shabbosos are considered Yedi'ah. He asked only about Shigegas Melachos;
R. Eliezer answered that the Shabbosos are like Gufim, and that Vlados are like Avos. R. Akiva did not accept either answer.
Rejection (and Answer #2 - Abaye): Perhaps it was clear to him that for Shigegas Melachos, Shabbosos are not Gufim, and he asked about Shigegas Shabbos!
R. Eliezer answered that the Shabbosos are like Yedi'ah. R. Akiva accepted this. ("Animals are like Shabbos" means 'I agree that just like different animals are Mechalek as if there was Yedi'ah in between. The same applies to Shabbos.')
R. Eliezer also said that Vlados are like Avos. R. Akiva did not accept this.
Answer #3 (Rav Chisda): R. Akiva agrees that for Shigegas Melachos, the Shabbosos are like Gufim - he asked about Shigegas Shabbos, whether or not Shabbosos are like Yedi'os;
R. Eliezer answered that they are. R. Akiva accepted this;
R. Eliezer said that Vlados are like Avos. R. Akiva did not accept this.
Support (Rav Chisda, for himself, and question against Rabah - Beraisa #1): If one wrote two letters in one He'elem, he is liable;
R. Gamliel obligates even if he wrote them in two Ha'alamos;
R. Gamliel agrees that if he wrote them on different Shabbosos, he is exempt.
(Beraisa #2 - R. Gamliel): If one wrote one letter on each of two Shabbosos, he is liable;
We are thinking that R. Gamliel holds like R. Akiva.
This is not difficult for me (Rav Chisda). R. Akiva agrees that for Shigegas Melachos, Shabbosos are like Gufim. This is the case in Beraisa #1 (he is exempt, like one who did a half-Shi'ur of each of two different Melachos);
Beraisa #2 discusses Shigegas Shabbos. R. Gamliel obligates because he holds that Ein Yedi'ah l'Chetzi Shi'ur. (What he eats later joins to complete the Shi'ur.)