Explanation #1: Rashi omits 'Ve'hishtachaveh' from the text, since it is not an Avodah` and it is for the same reason that in the earlier case of R. Zakai he also omits it.

Question: Why did R. Yochanan then tell R. Zakai 'Puk Tani li'Bera!' seeing as even R. Nasan, who holds 'Hav'arah le'Chalek Yatzas' (with regard to the Melachos on Shabbos) will concede here that 'Hishtachava'ah le'La'av Yatzas', since the Torah writes "Lo Sa'avdem", as Abaye explains (and Hishtachava'ah is not an Avodah, as we just explained)?

Answer (Part 1): It may well be however, that R. Yochanan said 'Puk Tani li'Bera !' because he does not Darshen "Lo Sa'avdem".

Answer (Part 2): And according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, who said earlier that 'This is how R. Zakai quoted the Beraisa', we will establish R. Zakai's original statement based on "Lo Sa'avdem", like R. Ami (see Maharam).

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam's text however, does include 'Hishtachava'ah' in the case of R. Zakai, but not in that of R. Ami. This is because R. Ami holds that Hishtachava'ah 'goes out' from the K'lal to separate itself, whereas "Lo Sa'avdem" refers to the other Avodos - seeing as the Torah writes "Lo Sishtachaveh lahem ve'Lo Sa'avdem".

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And the Gemara's Kashya 'Ha Amar Abaye Shalosh Hishtachavayos Lamah-li?', is based on the fact that he (Abaye) clearly does not agree that 'Hishtachava'ah comes to separate itself, since 'Lechalek' implies with regard to each of the cases in R. Ami's list.

Explanation #2 (Part 3): Whereas R. Zakai, who inserts 'Hashtachava'ah', must hold that it comes to reduce it to a La'av (like R. Yossi), seeing as he does not sentence him to two Malkos.

Explanation #2 (Part 4): And by the same token, if one transgressed it (Hishtachava'ah) by itself, one would not be Chayav at all, since it has been reduced to a La'av ...

Explanation #2 (Part 5): And the only reason that the Tana mentioned it together with the others is to teach us this Din (that Hishtachava'ah went out in order to reduced it to a La'av).

Explanation #2 (Part 6): R. Yochanan, on the other hand, told R. Zakai 'Puk Tani Li'Bera', because he held 'Lechalek Yatzas' (like R. Nasan) - even each one separately, seeing as he did not Darshen "Lo Sa'avdem" ...

Explanation #2 (Part 7): Since he holds 'Hishtachava'ah le'La'av Yatzas'.

Implied Question: Why do we not require two Pesukim by Mevuzim, one for the Onesh and one for the Azharah, as we did earlier regarding Hishtachava'ah by she'Lo ke'Darkah of Mechubadim?

Answer: Because once the Torah has revealed that the Azharos of all cases of she'Lo ke'Darkah have the same Din, we know that the same will apply to the Onshin.

Explanation: Rashi explains that by Chatas the Torah writes "ve'Asah Achas".

Refutation: He was not careful however, because the Gemara in Kerisus, citing the Mishnah quotes another Pasuk - "la'Oseh bi'Shegagah", 'to preclude Megadef'.

Clarification (Part 1): He says this according to Resh Lakish.

Clarification (Part 2): Because according to R. Yochanan, who holds later in the Perek that bending one's height and moving one's lips is considered an act, one can establish Rav even like the Rabbanan.

Clarification: This is not comparable with the Pesukim in Shoftim "Cherev la'Hashem u'le'Gid'on", and in Bamidbar "Dibarnu ba'Hashem va'Vach" ...

Reason: Since the prohibition is restricted to matters of G-dliness.

Question #1: Surely one ought to be Patur from Malkos anyway because it is a 'La'av she'Nitan le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din', seeing as it also serves as a La'av for a Ben Sorer u'Moreh?

Question #2 (Part 1): Furthermore, a Ben Sorer u'Moreh himself receives Malkos, as the Mishnah will teach us in 'Ben Sorer u'Moreh', as we will learn there "Veyisru" from "Veyisru".

Source: Clearly the source for this is the Pasuk "Lo Sochlu al ha'Dam".

Question #2 (Part 2): And since the Torah has revealed now that this La'av is subject to Malkos, we ought to say that it is always subject to Malkos, at least there where it cannot come to Misah?

Implied Question: How will we reconcile this with the opinion at the end of 'Kol Sha'ah', which holds that one receives Malkos because of "Tz'li Eish" for eating Na (half-cooked) and cooked, and a Nazir who eats the skin and the pits of grapes receives Malkos because of "Kol asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin"?

Answer: Those cases are more explicit than that of "Lo Sa'avdem", which gives no indication that it is speaking about 'Megafef' and 'Menashek'.

Implied Question: And why does the Gemara in the first Perek of Beitzah sentence the person there who cooks a Gid ha'Nasheh on Yom-Tov to five Malkos, one of them because of cooking on Yom-Tov? Why is "Kol Meleches Avodah Lo Sa'asu" not considered a 'La'av she'bi"Chelalus'?

Answer: Because that too, is more specific than "Lo Sochlu al ha'Dam", since "Meleches Avodah" intrinsically incorporates every kind of Melachah that is an Avodah.

Implied Question (Part 1): Even though we learn them both from "Lo Yishama" ...

Implied Question (Part 2): And the Gemara will shortly add that "Lo Yishama" is also the La'av for Medi'ach ...

Answer: Nevertheless, it is not considered a 'La'av she'bi'Chelalus', since they are all included in the prohibition of giving a name to Avodah-Zarah.

Implied Question: Why do we not then learn them from "Lo Sazkiru"?

Answer #1: Because if there was only one Pasuk, we would establish it Noder and Mekayem.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we need "Lo Sazkiru" to teach us that one is Chayav for Noder and Mekayem even by the Avodah-Zaros that are mentioned in the Torah, which one is permitted to mention.

Question: Why is "Lo Yishama" not considered a 'La'av she'Nitan le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din' (on account of 'Medi'ach)?

Answer (Part 1): That is precisely why the Gemara adds 'Davsar Acher', to establish "Lo Yishama" specifically by 'Mediach'.

Answer (Part 2): In fact initially, the Gemara only divided them into two La'avin in the form of an Asmachta, but the main D'rashah for all of them is "Lo Sazkiru".

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Shmuel explains that it is all the more so forbidden to undertake to accept a Shevu'ah from him.

Explanation #2: Whereas Rabeinu Tam permits it in order to avoid a monetary loss - like the Gemara says in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah, where it permits a person to claim one's debt from them close to their festivals because it is like rescuing it from them, and we are not concerned that they will come to praise their gods.

Implied Question: Even though there it is a Safek (that he will praise his gods), and here it is Vaday.

Ruling: In any event, nowadays they all swear by what is holy to them, even though they do not consider them as gods (see Maharam).

Implied Question: Even though they mention at the same time the name of god, by which they mean Avodah-Zarah (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Answer (Part 1): Nevertheless, this is not the name of an Avodah-Zarah, and besides they are referring to the One who created Heaven and earth.

Answer (Part 2): And even if they combine the Name of Hash-m with an idol (Shituf), we do not find that is forbidden to cause others to do Shituf.

Answer (Part 2): Nor is one Chayav because of 'Lifnei Iver', seeing as Nochrim are not forbidden to do Shituf (See Maharsha).