Contradiction: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish both contradict themselves!

(Beraisa): There are two paths. One is Tamei (somewhere along it, a Mes is underground spanning the width of the path, so anyone who walks on the path becomes Tamei), and one is Tahor;

If a man walked on one path, and later on the other, and then entered the Mikdash, he is liable. (He is surely Tamei);

If he walked on one path, entered the Mikdash, was sprinkled (with Mei Chatas, to become Vadai Tahor), walked on the other path, and entered the Mikdash, he is liable. (One of the times that he entered the Mikdash, he was Tamei);

R. Shimon exempts in this case;

R. Shimon ben Yehudah says, R. Shimon exempts in every case.

Question: Does R. Shimon ben Yehudah exempt even in the first case? No matter which path is Tamei, he was Tamei when he entered the Mikdash!

Answer (Rava): The case is, when he walked on the second path he forgot that he had walked on the first path, so he never knew that he was Vadai Tamei. (The two versions of R. Shimon's opinion argue as follows);

The first Tana (says that R. Shimon) holds that partial Yedi'ah is like Yedi'ah. R. Shimon ben Yehudah (says that R. Shimon) holds that partial Yedi'ah is not like Yedi'ah.

(Beraisa): If he walked on one path, entered the Mikdash, was sprinkled, walked on the other path and entered the Mikdash, he is liable.

Question: Why is he liable? Each time he entered the Mikdash, he only knew (initially and forgot) that he was Safek Tamei!

Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): The Beraisa is R. Yishmael, who does not require Yedi'ah at the beginning. (If Rebbi says that Safek Yedi'ah is Mechalek for Chatas, there is no need to establish the Beraisa like the more extreme opinion of R. Yishmael!)

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): It is even like Chachamim. They consider Safek Yedi'ah to be like Yedi'ah.

We are thinking that R. Yochanan means that Chachamim always consider Safek Yedi'ah like Yedi'ah.

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish both contradict themselves!

Answer - part 1: R. Yochanan does not contradict himself. Here, Chachamim consider Safek Yedi'ah like Yedi'ah, but not elsewhere.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Regarding Tum'ah it says "v'Ne'elam Mimenu v'Hu Tamei" - one is liable for Yedi'ah that also has Safek;

Regarding everything else, it says "Oh Hoda Elav Chataso." He is liable only for (Vadai) Yedi'ah.

We still have not answered why Reish Lakish establishes the Beraisa like R. Yishmael, and not like Rebbi!

Answer - part 2: He establishes it like R. Yishmael to teach that also R. Yishmael does not require Yedi'ah at the beginning.

Question: We already learn this from a Mishnah!

(Mishnah - R. Yishmael): It says twice "v'Ne'elam" to obligate one who (knew that he was Tamei but) forgot (that he was entering) the Mikdash, and one who (remembered the Mikdash but) forgot that he was Tamei. (He does not expound "v'Ne'elam" to require Yedi'ah at the beginning, so surely he does not require it!)

Answer: Indeed, the Mishnah teaches that he does not expound a verse to require Yedi'ah at the beginning, but one might have thought that he has a tradition to require it;

Reish Lakish teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): In the following cases, one brings a Chatas:

Chelev and Nosar were in front of him. (He thought that both were permitted Shuman, and ate one,) and he does not know which he ate;

He thought that his wife was Tehorah and that he had relations with her. He found out that she was Nidah, and his sister was also in the house, he does not know with whom he had relations;

Yom Kipur was the day before or after Shabbos. He does not know on which day he did Melachah.

R. Yehoshua exempts.

R. Yosi says, they did not argue about one who did Melachah Bein ha'Shemashos. All agree that he is exempt, for perhaps half the Melachah was done during the day, and half at night;

They argue about one who did Melachah during the day, but he does not know if it was Yom Kipur or Shabbos.

They also argue about one who did Melachah but does not know which Melachah. R. Eliezer is Mechayev Chatas, and R. Yehoshua exempts.

R. Yehudah says, R. Yehoshua exempts even from Asham Taluy.

R. Shimon and R. Shimon Shezuri say, all agree that if he is unsure about which action he did, but not about which Shem Melachah (e.g. he reaped oranges, but he is unsure from which tree), he brings a Chatas;

They argue about when he is unsure which Shem Melachah he did (e.g. if he diced or reaped; alternatively, if he reaped oranges or dates). R. Eliezer is Mechayev Chatas, and R. Yehoshua exempts.

R. Yehudah says, even if he intended to pick dates and picked grapes, or vice-versa, or even if he intended to pick black (dates) and picked white, or vice-versa, R. Eliezer is Mechayev Chatas, and R. Yehoshua exempts.

Version #1 (our text) R. Shimon: I cannot fathom how R. Yehoshua can exempt (one who does a different Isur than intended)!

Question: If he is liable, what do we learn from "Asher Chata Bah"?

Answer: This exempts Mis'asek. (He intended for Heter, and did an Isur.)

Version #2 (R. Gershom) R. Yehudah: I cannot fathom how R. Yehoshua can exempt!

R. Shimon Shezuri: If he is liable, what do we learn from "Asher Chata Bah"?

R. Yehudah: This exempts Mis'asek (one who did not intend for this action).

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): He is Chayav a Chatas either way, whether he ate Chelev or Nosar, whether he had relations with a Nidah or his sister, and whether he did Melachah on Yom Kipur or Shabbos!

R. Yehoshua: "Asher Chata Bah" teaches that he must know which Aveirah he did.

Question: What does R. Eliezer exclude from "Asher Chata Bah"?

Answer: It excludes Mis'asek.

Question: What kind of Mis'asek does "Asher Chata Bah" exclude?

We cannot say that he was Mis'asek in Chalavim or Arayos, for if so, he is liable!

(Rav Nachman): One who was Mis'asek in Chalavim (or other food) or Arayos is liable, for he got pleasure.

Version #1 (our text, Tosfos): We cannot say that he was Mis'asek (and did Melachah) on Shabbos, for a different source exempts this. The Torah forbids only "Meleches Machsheves" (one who accomplished his intention - Shemos 35:33)!

Answer #1: According to Rava, we can say that he intended to cut something detached (from the ground, and cut it), but really, it was attached.

Answer #2: According to Abaye, we can say that he mistakenly thought that it is detached, and he intended to lift it, and detached it.

Version #2 (Rashi) Answer: He was Mis'asek (and did Melachah) on Shabbos.

Question: Why is he exempt?

Answer: The Torah forbids only Meleches Machsheves.

Rava exempts if he intended to cut something detached, and mistakenly cut something else that was attached;

Abaye exempts if he intended to lift something detached, and he mistakenly lifted something attached. (end of Version #2)

If one intended to lift something detached and mistakenly detached (it; Rashi - something else), he is exempt;

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: He did not intend to cut at all.

(Abaye): If he intended to cut something detached and accidentally detached, he is liable, for he intended to cut;

(Rava): He is exempt, for he did not intend to cut something that is forbidden to cut.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): They did not argue...

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): You were meticulous to disprove me.

Question: In response to what did he say this?

Answer: They said 'you exempt any Melachah Bein ha'Shemashos. If he (was in Reshus ha'Rabim, and) picked up an object (from Reshus ha'Yachid) Bein ha'Shemashos, he should be liable!' (The Melachah happens in a moment. We cannot say that half was during the day, and half at night. R. Gershom - they hold that Akirah is not part of the Melachah, only Hanachah. Alternatively, they discuss Makeh b'Patish, the final hammer blow.)

R. Yosi said, you were meticulous to disprove me.

Question: Perhaps he began during the day, and finished after nightfall! (Akirah is part of the Melachah. Really, he is exempt)!

Answer: R. Yosi means 'you were meticulous to disprove me. You failed.'

Question: R. Yosi says that R. Eliezer exempts for the end of a Melachah (if the beginning was not on Shabbos). This is wrong!

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If one weaves three stitches at the beginning, or adds one onto a (partially woven) garment, he is liable. (One is not liable for only one stitch. R. Eliezer is Mechayav because the last stitch complete the Shi'ur of what he began before Shabbos!)

Answer (Rav Yosef): R. Yosi's text of the Mishnah says that R. Eliezer obligates one who weaves three stitches at the beginning, or adds two onto a garment. (The Shi'ur to be liable is two stitches. R. Eliezer exempts for two at the beginning because they will not last, i.e. they will become undone.)

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): R. Yehoshua exempts even from Asham Taluy.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): R. Yehoshua exempts even from Asham Taluy. "Ki Secheta... v'Lo Yada" excludes one who knows that he sinned.

R. Shimon: The verse explicitly obligates Asham Taluy for this! "V'Asah v'Lo Yada" means that he did (sin), but he does not know which sin he did!

If he is unsure whether he sinned at all, it is not clear whether he brings an Asham Taluy!

Question: What did he conclude?

Answer (Beraisa): If someone sinned, but does not know which sin he did; or, if he is unsure whether or not he sinned, he brings an Asham Taluy.

Question: Who is the Tana, who obligates one who does not know which sin he did?

Answer: It is R. Shimon, and he obligates also one who is unsure whether or not he sinned.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon and R. Shimon Shezuri): All agree... ("Asher Chata Bah" exempts Mis'asek).

(Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): One who was Mis'asek in Chalavim and Arayos is liable, for he got pleasure;

One who was Mis'asek on Shabbos is exempt, for this is not Meleches Machsheves.

Question (Rava): The case of circumcision is like Mis'asek (and one is liable)!

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If Reuven had two babies to circumcise, one on Shabbos and one the next day, and he mistakenly circumcised the latter on Shabbos, he brings a Chatas;

R. Yehoshua exempts.

R. Yehoshua exempts only because he erred when trying to do a Mitzvah, even though he did not do a Mitzvah. (Milah before eight days is not a Mitzvah.) He obligates one who is Mis'asek in Reshus (not a Mitzvah)!

Answer (Rav Nachman): Milah is different. Since Mekalkel (ruining) b'Chaburah (through wounding) is liable, also Mis'asek b'Chaburah is liable.

Question (Rav Yehudah - Mishnah - R. Yehudah): Even if he intended to pick figs and (mistakenly) picked grapes, or to pick black and he picked white, or vice-versa, R. Eliezer is Mechayev Chatas, and R. Yehoshua exempts.

Even though he is Mis'asek, R. Yehoshua exempts only because they are different Minim. If he picked the same kind that he intended, he would be Mechayev!

Answer (Shmuel): The case is, Ibed Melaket mi'Libo (he forgot what he originally intended to pick). He originally intended to pick grapes, then forgot and thought that he wanted to pick figs, and when he tried to pick figs, he accidentally picked grapes;

R. Eliezer is Mechayev, for this was his original intent;

R. Yehoshua exempts. His original intent was fulfilled, but not what he tried to do (at the time).