Daf 67
1) (you're obligated to give Maasar even on fruits of trees that are not harvested at one time, like the fig tree. [Tosfos adds: most trees are like this, since there is only eight exceptions as enumerated in Mesechta Pe'ah.] Also, you separate Maasar from produce that don't last long, like vegetables. However, you don't need to take Pe'ah if it's not harvested all together or if the produce doesn't last. [Tosfos says: (since the Torah only requires to separate for Pe'ah and Maasar by grain, olives and grapes, and anything else is a rabbinical decree), the reason the rabbis didn't decree Pe'ah on these items like they decreed it by Maasar; since the poor will lose out more than they gain. After all, they'll need to wait during many harvesting sessions for the Pe'ah until the last time that they harvest these trees. Also, they don't gain much on produce that won't last, and they're better off spending their energies someplace else.])
2) Everyone holds; if you forgot about the concept of Shabbos completely, when you find out about the concept, you only need to bring one Chatos for all the Melachos you did all the time you were unaware about it. If you know about the concept of Shabbos, but you forgot many times that it was Shabbos (and you did Melachos), you're Chayiv a Chatos for each Shabbos this happened. [Rashi says: even though he didn't hear between the Shabbosos when the real Shabbos was, we still consider the in between days as if he knew about his sin (which separates the transgressions to obligate an extra Chatos) since we consider it impossible not to hear in the meantime when Shabbos was. Although he's not aware of his sin, we must say he forgot afterwards that he did those Melachos. Tosfos disagrees. After all, the Gemara will say that if someone first mistakenly did Melachos on Shabbos forgetting that it's Shabbos, although he knows what Melachos are forbidden on Shabbos, then he did Melachos on Shabbos forgetting that those Melachos are forbidden, even if he's aware now that it's Shabbos; we drag them together to only obligate one Chatos. We don't say that, just knowing it was Shabbos makes him obligated to bring a separate Chatos, but the very fact that he didn't know yet that he sinned makes it into one 'forgetting.' Also, if it's true that, we assume that he knew about it; then, why did the Gemara need to learn this from a Pasuk?
Rather, Tosfos explains: since there is a Gezeiras Hakasuv that the interim days that you're permitted to do Melochos (i.e., the weekdays) has the Halacha status as if you knew. According to this, the Gemara in Kreisus makes sense when it compares a case of being Chayiv for each relations to a Nida to our case of being Chayiv for each Shabbos. We must say that it refers to a case where the Nida Toivels in between each relations, and we consider the days that she's permitted in between as if she had knowledge of the earlier sin.]
Daf 68
3) Regarding a child that was kidnapped and was raised among non-Jews (and never learned yet about Shabbos), and a convert who converted among non-Jews (and never knew the concept of Shabbos); if he brings a Chatos depends on the following argument. [Tosfos points out that there must have been three Jews to convert him, and when they informed him about some of the Mitzvos, they didn't inform him about Shabbos. However, if he only converted himself without a Beis Din, he's not a real convert.] The Rabanan say that, when he learns about Shabbos, he needs to bring one Chatos. Munbaz held that he's exempt. Rav and Shmuel held like the Rabanan and R' Yochanan and Reish Lakish held like Munbaz. [Rashi says that Munbaz held that, when someone thinks some sin is really permitted, it's an Oness, it's beyond his ability not to do it, and he's exempt. Tosfos disagrees. After all, if it depends on logic, then, why does he need a Drasha to teach us this? Rather, Tosfos says: you're regularly Chayiv for ignorance (since it's still within the range of not actually doing it on purpose). You're only exempt from going into Galus when you kill thinking it was permitted because the Pasuk says many times 'forgetting' by Galus to exempt anything that's not completely 'forgetful.']
4) The Drasha of Munbaz is because there is a Hekish between Shogeg and Mazid (accidentally to purposely), So Shogeg needs to be like Mazid that there was once a knowledge of the situation. [Tosfos asks: if so, we should require him to have the most knowledge as he can, and exclude someone who once knew, but forgot, the whole concept of Shabbos from bringing a Chatos.] Since Munbaz holds that Shogeg includes as much knowledge possible, he holds that you're Chayiv if you're aware that you're transgressing a Lav and is Chayiv Kareis; as long as you're unaware that you're Chayiv a Chatos. However the Rabanan disagree and holds that you must be more unaware. R' Yochanan holds that he only needs to be unaware that he's Chayiv Kareis, but he can be aware that there is a Lav not to work on Shabbos; and Reish Lakish requires him to be unaware of both, the Lav and the Chiyuv Kareis. [Tosfos says that Munbaz would agree that you don't bring a Chatos if you were aware that you're Chayiv to be stoned (even if you're unaware of the Chatos). After all, since, to be Chayiv a Chatos, you need to have remorse for your action when you come aware. However, if he doesn't care that he'll get stoned, he definitely doesn't care that he's Chayiv a Chatos. However, even if he's aware that he's Chayiv Karies doesn't mean he won't have remorse for the Korban, since he might not get Kareis if he eventually repents. Alternatively, he'll have remorse if he needs to bring a Korban along with the Kareis.]
5) According to the Rabanan, the captured child and convert are also Chayiv one Chatos for eating blood, another one for serving idols and another one for eating forbidden fats. [Tosfos explains: this is only a Chidush to R' Yehoshua who holds one is Chayiv for every fat you ate from another dish (i.e., that are prepared differently). Therefore, these people are different since they never heard of these sins, that they're Chayiv once no matter how many dishes he ate it from. However, according to other opinions, there is no Chidush. After all, everyone is only Chayiv one Chatos no matter how much fats they ate as long as they didn't realize their sin in between.]
Daf 69
6) The Mishna says that there are thirty-nine Melachos. We explain why it needs to give the count, (since it anyhow lists all the Melachos), to say; if you forget all of them, you would need to bring thirty nine Chatos, since you're Chayiv for each Av Melacha. (Later, the Gemara says; it depends on what you forget. If you forget Shabbos, you're Chayiv for the amount of Shabbosos you forgot. If you forgot about Melachos, then you're Chayiv for as many Melachos that you forgot.) Anyhow, if he forgot all the Melachos, we must say that he forgot all the prohibitions of Shabbos, and we said that you only bring one Chatos when you forgot all about Shabbos. The Gemara answers: according to R' Yochanan, we can say that he's aware that there is a Lav on Shabbos, but he's unaware that there is a Chiyuv Chatos. However, according to Reish Lakish, he must be unaware of that too; so, we must say that he's still aware of the prohibition of leaving the T'chum, (which is not a Melacha) according to R' Akiva who holds that the Torah prohibits T'chum. [Tosfos asks: why don't we say that he's aware that there is a positive Mitzva (Asei) to keep Shabbos, "you shall guard my Shabbos," and didn't know about the Lav?
However, you can't say that they knew about Issi's Melacha that's not Chayiv (i.e., he wrote that one of the Melachos are not Chayiv), since he only holds that he's not Chayiv stoning, but he's Chayiv a Chatos.]
7) Abaya says that the Rabanan held that you even need to be Shogeg of the Lav when you swear falsely. [Rashi explains that you swore that you won't eat, and you ate; and you didn't remember that you swore when you ate. Tosfos disagrees. After all, you weren't Shogeg on the Lav if you knew when you ate that it's forbidden to transgress what you swore, and you're just unaware that you swore, so you think there is nothing to transgress. Rather, Tosfos explains: when he swore, he knew it was forbidden to transgress what he swears. Therefore, he's considered aware of his swearing when he swore. However, he then forgot that it's forbidden to transgress what you swore when he ate it, so he's Shogeg of the Lav.] We don't say that, since the whole Korban by swearing is a Chiddush since you bring one despite that there is no Kareis, so I might say that there may be another Chiddush, and they'll agree to Munbaz that all you need is to be Shogeg about the Korban, and you can be aware of the Lav; so we're taught otherwise. Although we have a Braisa that says you're Chayiv if you swear on past events if you didn't know it's Chayiv a Korban, we must say that the author is Munbaz.
[There is a second version that the Rabanan do agree with Manbaz by swearing. After all, that Braisa couldn't have been authored by Munbaz, since he holds this by all Chatos with a Karies, of course he'll hold this way by swearing where there's a Chidush that he's Chayiv Chatos without Karies. However, Rashi dismisses this version. After all, we can say that the author is Munbaz, and the Chiddush of the Braisa is that you're only Chayiv if you knew it was forbidden to swear on past events (and you only didn't know if you were Chayiv a Chatos). However, if you didn't know it was forbidden when you swore, then you're exempt anyhow since you need to be aware of your sin when you swore, as the Pasuk says "a man when he swears." (I.e., he needs to be in his right mind, i.e., aware, when he swears.) This is why the Rabanan would hold that he's always exempt swearing on past events, so, they must hold like R' Yishmael who held that way. However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, the Rabanan who argue with Munbaz turns out to be R' Akiva who holds that you're Chayiv Chatos when you swear on past events. Rather, you're only exempt because "you're not aware that you're swearing incorrectly" only refers to thinking that you're swearing correctly, like the case of the two students of Rav who swore that the true version of Rav's statement was the way he quoted Rav. (Mahrsha- or even when you think that it's totally permitted to do so). However, if you mistakenly think that there is no Lav, but only an Asei, you're Chayiv. Also, it seems that the second version is brought in Mesechta Shvuos. Also, we can reject Rashi's Chiddush on face value. After all, the Chiddush can't be that you're exempt when you don't know it to be prohibited. As the Braisa says that "you're Chayiv if you were Shogeg with the Lav" and it doesn't say it the opposite way "you're exempt if you're not aware that your swearing is problematic" seems to imply that the Chidush is not to exempt someone that's not aware.]
8) Abaya says: R' Yochanan will agree that you're only Chayiv adding a fifth to Trumah (that a non-Kohain ate) if he was Shogeg on the Lav, since there is no Kareis by eating the Trumah. Rava disagrees: he holds that R' Yochanan says he's Chayiv the fifth even if he was Shogeg about the Misah Biydei Shamayim. After all, Misah will take the place of Kareis and the fifth takes the place of the Korban.
9) If someone finds himself in the desert, and he doesn't remember when it's Shabbos; the Gemara says that he should count six days, and the seventh one is Shabbos. This is meant to mirror the creation; first comes the six weekdays and then Shabbos. However, R' Chiya b Rav says that you keep the first day as Shabbos, and the next six days are weekdays. This is to mirror Adam Harishon's experience that he first experienced Shabbos before the rest of the weekdays. However, the Braisa says that you first count six days and the seventh is Shabbos.
10) Every day, you can only do Melacha that's needed for your upkeep for that day, because it might end up being Shabbos. Even on the day designated for Shabbos, you do all Melachos needed for that day. You can't do it the day before, since the day before might be Shabbos and you would end up desecrating Shabbos inexcusably. The way the designated Shabbos is noticeably different than the other days is through Kiddush and Havdala. [Tosfos says: but you can travel as much as you can on the other days, or else you'll never get out of the desert. The reason why the Gemara doesn't say that the designated Shabbos is noticeably different because you didn't travel on that day; since it's not noticeable that it's different just because of the lack of traveling. Alternatively, you can travel as much as you can on that day of Shabbos too.]
11) If you remember which day you left, you can do Melacha that day of the week since you for sure didn't leave on Shabbos. However you can't do Melacha on the next day and say that you definitely didn't leave on Friday; since you might have found a caravan leaving then, and you might have joined them.
Daf 70
12) If he forgets both about Shabbos and Melachos; R' Ashi says: if he'll refrain when you inform him about Shabbos, then the main forgetting is about Shabbos and you're Chayiv one Chatos. However, if he'll refrain himself when you inform him about Melachos, he mainly forgot about Melachos, so he's Chayiv for every Av Melacha he did. [Tosfos explains: this is not like forgetting about Shabbos completely that we already said only brings one Chatos no matter how many Melachos he did, or how many Shabbosos he did it on. After all, here, he'll remember after the smallest reminder. When we say he forgot about Shabbos completely, that's when it's completely forgotten, and he now knows the same as the kidnapped child and convert who lived among non-Jews.] Raveina asked on R' Ashi: does anyone refrain when he's told it's Shabbos but because he realizes these are Melachos? Also, does anyone refrain when he's told these are Melachos if he doesn't realize that it's Shabbos? [Rashi explains R' Ashi's position: when you reminded him about Shabbos, he refrained from the Melachos. Tosfos says that this is too obviously flawed, since he might also refrained from Melachos if you would have reminded him about the Melachos. Rather, the Ri explains: if the person who forgot would admit that he forgot Shabbos more, that, if you would have reminded him about Shabbos, he would have refrained, but if you reminded him about Melachos, it wouldn't have dawned on him there was anything wrong until you would tell him that it's Shabbos. However, R' Ashi wasn't dealing with a case if they were evenly forgotten. On that, Raveina says that it's not a way to resolve it. After all, since they're both forgotten, it doesn't make a difference what is more forgotten than the other. Rashba explains R' Ashi that he holds that if the main forgetting is in Shabbos, then he's Chayiv one. However, if they're evenly forgotten, then he's Chayiv for all Melachos. On that, Raveina says that he's always Chayiv for every Melacha.]
13) [Tosfos says: although the Gemara in Shvuos, regarding forgetting both Tumah and that you're in the Mikdash or eating Kodshim (according to those who exempt if you don't know that you're eating Kodshim), and the same by swearings (that regularly, if you forgot that you swore not to eat wheat, and you're not aware that what you're eating is a wheat product, you're not Chayiv for forgetting the status of the item. However, if you forgot both, that you swore and what you're eating is a wheat product), we hold there that it's simple that he's Chayiv; that's because, since everything is even, we should be stringent. However, here, since the main Mitzvah is the generic Shabbos, perhaps we should follow it more.]
Daf 71
14) The Gemara's conclusion is that everyone agrees to the concept of Greira (i.e., dragging, that we drag one sin along with another sin that you're bringing a Chatos on, so that the Chatos atones for both of them.) Therefore, if you ate two Kazaysim of forbidden fats in one forgetting (that they're forbidden) and then you have a realization that you ate one Kazayis, then you forget a second time and ate a third Kazayis; one Chatos will suffice for all three Kazaysim. This is not only if you bring a Chatos on the middle Kazayis that it atones the first and the third, since they both had some time in common that you forgot about them when you forgot about the middle Kazayis. However, it's also when you bring the Chatos on the first Kazayis (or third), since the middle one is included, since you forgot about it at the same time, and the middle one drags the third Kazayis along with it since you forgot about the third at the same time you didn't remember about the second Kazayis.
Therefore, if someone harvests and grinds while forgetting it is Shabbos, and then remembers that it Shabbos, but forgot that these were Melachos, and does these Melachos; if he remembers first when he harvested and ground when he forgot about Shabbos, (that he only needs one Chatos for all Melachos done), and brings a Chatos on it; we drag the harvesting and grinding that they did when they forgot about the Melachos to be atoned with it, and you don't need any more than that one Chatos.
15) However, if he brings a Chatos for the harvesting when he forgot about the Melacha, it definitely drags the harvesting and grinding when he forgot it was Shabbos. However, regarding whether we can have another dragging, that the grinding while forgetting it's Shabbos can now drag the grinding when you forgot it was a Melacha: Rava says that we don't allow a double dragging and he needs to bring a second Chatos. However, Abaya says that we allow a second dragging and the first Chatos will suffice.
16) [Rashi considers the dragging: that the harvesting while forgetting that it's Shabbos drags the grinding that was with it while you forgot that it's Shabbos. However, we don't need to say that the harvesting when you forget it was Shabbos drags the harvesting done when you forgot it's a Melacha, (and that would make it a double dragging), since they're the same Melacha done in one forgetting, i.e., without figuring out you sinned in between. However, the Ri asks: the Gemara says "the harvesting drags the harvesting." Therefore, he explains: we definitely need to come on to dragging from one harvesting to another. This is not similar to bringing one Chatos on eating many Kazaysim of forbidden fats in one forgetting since they're not forgetting the same thing, but one forgets it's Shabbos and the other forgets it to be a Melacha. However, we don't need to drag the grinding of forgetting Shabbos along with the harvesting of forgetting Shabbos, since you can only bring one Chatos for all Melachos done when you forgot it's Shabbos, they're considered as one big Melacha.]
17) [Tosfos asks: however, we can find a case of a double dragging with just harvesting, (so why bring in grinding?) After all, if someone harvests while forgetting it's Shabbos, then he harvests forgetting it to be a Melacha, and then he harvests again forgetting it's Shabbos. This is left as a difficulty.]
18) [Tosfos says: according to Rava, it all depends on chance (if he brings one or two Chatos depends on the situation) when he already separated the Chatos before he realized he did the other sin. (Therefore, it depends on what sin he found out first and separated a Chatos on). However, if he didn't separate a Chatos before he found out about all his sins, he has the choice to separate the Chatos on the sins that he forgot it was Shabbos and cause him to be completely atoned with one Chatos. Or, he may separate on one of the Melachos that he forgot they're Melachos and then he will cause himself to bring two Chatos.]
19) [Tosfos: even though, according to this (that he refers to a case after the Chatos was separated after he realized his first sin), we must say that Rava agrees with Reish Lakish, (that we'll bring his opinion soon), that separating a Chatos doesn't automatically make you bring a new Chatos for any sin that you didn't realized yet when it was separated. Even though we know that Rava only Paskined like Reish Lakish when he argues with R' Yochanan in three places (and this is not one of them); we must say that the right text here that it's really Rabbah, and not Rava, like R' Chananel says that we Paskin like Rabbah since he was Abaya's teacher. Also, we see that he's mentioned before Abaya, and Rava is usually mentioned after Abaya, and only Rabbah is mentioned before him. Alternatively, he only Paskined three times like Reish Lakish regarding Halachos that are applicable nowadays, and Korbanos are not applicable these days.
However, it doesn't fit well according to the version that everyone agrees that separating a Korban makes you bring a new Chatos for what you realize afterwards. If so, we must explain Rava that he's not referring to a chance happening, that you didn't realize one sin and separated the Chatos before realizing the second sin. The Gemara was not exact when it says "he separated after it was known to him the Melachos that he did when he forgot it was Shabbos," but he meant that he eventually separated on those Melachos after he realized he did all the Melachos. Therefore, since he realized it all before he separated any Chatos, he has a choice to separate the Chatos for which sin, and that choice will cause him to either bring one or two Chatos.]
20) This argues with R' Zeira who says that you can't bring one Chatos to cover Melachos done when forgetting it Shabbos and those done when forgetting that they're Melachos. Therefore, if you do both of them, each done with less than an amount to be Chayiv, they don't combine to a full amount for a Korban since they would regularly require a separate Korban. Similarly, according to R' Yehoshua who holds that you bring two Korbonos for eating two Kazaysim of fats from two dishes (prepared differently); if you eat a half of Kazayis from one dish and another half from another dish, they don't combine to bring a Korban. However, they combine if you ate both halves off the same dish, even if you realized that you ate the first half Kazayis before you ate the second according to R' Gamliel who holds that we don't count a realization after a half of a Shiur.
21) If someone ate two Kazaysim of fats in one forgetting; R' Yochanan says that he's Chayiv two Chatos and Reish Lakish says he's Chayiv one. There's an inquiry if they're arguing whether separating a Chatos for the first Kazayis before realizing that he ate a second Kazayis makes him Chayiv another Chatos or not. However, if he just realized the first one before the second one, everyone agrees that he doesn't need to bring two Chatos. Or, do they argue when he realizes the first Kazayis before the second Kazayis, but everyone agrees that separating a Chatos on the first Kazayis before realizing that you ate a second Kazayis requires a separate Korban for the second one. Or, perhaps they argue in both cases.
However, everyone agrees that, if he first ate a Kazayis and a half of fats, and then realizes the first Kazayis, and then he ate another half of Kazayis, he doesn't need to bring a second Chatos. After all, when he realizes the first Kazayis, it drags the half of Kazayis with it and it's as if he realized it too, since you can't bring a Chatos on that half of Kazayis by itself.
22) (There is an argument whether you need to realize that you definitely sinned to bring an Asham Vadai {that is brought on definitely transgressing certain sins, which is opposed to an Asham Toloy which is brought if you're in doubt whether you're Chayiv a Chatos} like you need to realize to bring a Chatos; or if Asham is different and you don't. [Rashi says that the opinion that doesn't need him to realize is R' Tarfon who says that if you have a Safeik if you did Meila, you should pay the Meila and bring an Asham on condition. If he really did Meila, this is an Asham Vadai. if not, it's an Asham Toloy. So, it would count as an Asham Vadai without knowing for sure if you sinned. However, Tosfos says that it could be even like R' Akiva who argues on R' Tarfon. After all, the Gemara says that R' Akiva only argues when the worth of the Meila is a lot, and it would be better pushing off bringing the Asham Vadai until he knows for sure that he did Meila and may end up bringing two Korbanos, than to have to give all the money up front (since you need to pay back the Meila before you bring the Asham) and bring one Korban with a condition. However, he admits to R' Tarfon when the Safeik Meila is a small amount of money. However, R' Tarfon holds that your obligation is to bring the Asham Vadai right away once you're able to bring it through the condition.])
Ullah says: according to the opinion that you don't need to realize that you definitely sinned to bring an Asham Vadai, if you have relations with a Shifcha Charufa (a non-Jewish maid who was set aside for a Jewish slave) five times, you're only Chayiv one Asham. [Tosfos explains: even if realizing a sin makes you need to bring another Chatos like R' Yochanan; still, it doesn't by an Asham, since realizing the sin is not a factor by Asham. Even if you hold that you can't bring an Asham Toloy on sins that you bring an Asham Vadai on, (and you can't bring an Asham and make the above condition, so you would think you would be forced to have knowledge of the sin before you can bring an Asham Vadai); still, you can bring a Korban and make a condition that, if you're not Chayiv an Asham, the Korban would be a Shlomim. Although it's forbidden to do this since you might make the Korban Pasul early (since you can't eat it after the first day since it could be an Asham, and, if it would truly be a Shlomim, you're preventing its eating on the second day and causing unnecessary Nosar); still, since you would be Yoitza B'dieved, (so it's possible to bring without knowledge of the sin).
Tosfos asks: why did we need to move the case to Shifcha Charufa and not keep it by Meila (which we learn that you don't need the realization)? Tosfos answers: you can bring one Korbon on having five relations with one Shifcha even if you had a realization on one relations before you had the second relations. After all, your Chayiv a Korban on a Shifcha even if you purposely transgressed, so, according to the opinion that the realization doesn't cause the Korban, then the realization is nothing since your Chayiv if you're aware the whole time that you're sinning.]
Daf 72
23) However, Ullah concludes: if you already separated the Asham, everyone holds that you need to bring another Korban for what you realize afterwards. R' Dimi says: according to the opinion that you need to realize the sin to bring an Asham Vadai, after you separated the Asham, you need to bring another Korban for what you realize afterwards. [Tosfos says: he seems to argue with Ullah, and he holds; according to the opinion that you don't need to realize the sin, even separating a Korban doesn't make you bring another Korban. We find something similar by an Olah, that it atones for any Asei that was transgressed after it was separated. However, the Rashba says that he doesn't argue with R' Ullah, and only used the opinion that you need to realize the sin as a Chidush that (according to Reish Lakish) that only separating a Korban makes you bring another Korban, and not only when you have knowledge of the sin.]
24) According to the opinion that you need to realize the sin to bring an Asham Vadai, if realizing the sin causes him to bring a new Korbon is dependant on the argument between R' Yochanan and Reish Lakish [Tosfos: if they would be arguing if the realization causes him to need a new Korban.]
25) If you intended to lift something that's not attached to the ground, and it came out that you cut something attached to the ground, everyone agrees that you're exempt from a Chatos since it's Misaseik (i.e., unthinking). (The same if you thought you're swallowing your spit on Yom Kippur, and it came out to be a drink, you're exempt.) However, if you thought that you were cutting a detached vegetable, and it turned out that you cut something attached to the ground; Abaya holds that you're Chayiv since you intend to cut, and Rava holds that you're exempt since you didn't intend to do a prohibited cutting. [Rashi holds the first case is that you intended to lift a knife in a vegetable garden and it ended up cutting one of the vegetables. Tosfos points out: therefore, the second case where he wanted to cut a detached item and then cut an attached item must also refer to wanting to cut an item that was detached and then you ended up cutting a different item that happened to be attached, since the Melacha must be done with an item you never intended to do anything to, like the first case that you never intended to do anything to the vegetable. Another implication is, if the vegetable that you wanted to cut was attached, but you end up cutting a second vegetable that's also attached, you're Chayiv.
However, Tosfos asks: first we see that Shmuel holds that, if you intended to cut one attached item but mistakenly cut a second attached item, you're exempt. After all, you need a "Meleches Machsheves" (a thought out Melacha) to be Chayiv, and here, your intent didn't happen. Also, we see that Rava holds that, if you intend to throw an item four Amos in a Reshus Harabim, and it went eight Amos instead, or, if you intended to throw in one direction, but it ended up going in the second direction, he's exempt. (So, even though his original intent and end result was a Melacha, still he's exempt as long as it didn't work out the way he intended.)
Therefore, Tosfos explains: we refer to a case where you wanted to lift a certain vegetable that you thought was detached, and it came out that it was attached and you uprooted the vegetable when you lift it. In this case, everyone holds he's exempt because of Misaseik. However, if you want to cut this vegetable that you thought was detached and it came out to be that you cut an attached vegetable, then Abaya holds he's Chayiv and Rava exempts him. However, this is only when he intends to the the action to the object that he ended up doing the Melacha with. However, if he ended up doing the Melacha with a different object, even if his original intent was to do a Melacha, he's exempt since it's not a Meleches Machsheves.]
26) If someone worships idols out of love or fear of someone; Abaya holds he's Chayiv, and Rava exempts him. [Tosfos says: although you need to give up your life before you transgress worshiping idols, that's only L'chatchila, but, if B'dieved, you didn't, you're exempt. However, Tosfos asks: you're only exempt if you were forced to worship it with the threat of death, not because you love or fear someone. Tosfos answers: that's only when you worship idols without explaining why you're doing it, so you're Chayiv even if you didn't except the idol as a god. However, if you explicitly say that you're only worshipping it in order to make you're friend happy who you love or fear, then you can be exempt. Alternatively, you're only exempt when you bow down to an idol that everyone worships out of love or fear, like Haman. The reason why Mordichai didn't bow to him was because he had actual idols hanging on him. Alternatively, he wanted to give up his life through a Kiddush Hashem (even if it wasn't necessary).]
Daf 73
27) If someone wanted to throw two Amos in a Reshus Harabim, and it ended up going four Amos, or, you thought you were throwing in a Reshus Hayachid, but it ended up being a Reshus Harabim; Abaya holds you're Chayiv since you intended to throw the item, but Rava exempts since he didn't intend to throw it in a prohibited way.
28) You're Chayiv for plowing on Shabbos even for plowing after the planting, like in Eretz Yisrael, where the land is hard, and you need to plow the land to soften the dirt to cover over the seeds.
29) Sowing, pruning, planting, running (the tops of plants into the ground) or grafting are one Melacha, and you're Chayiv only one Chatos for doing all of them in one forgetting. The Av is either sowing or planting. [Tosfos says that you can't say that this is a proof that you need to warn the one who's doing a Tolda by the name of the Av (and that's why we need to explain what's the Av). After all, we can say you can warn him with the name of the Tolda, but if he was warned with the name of the Av, you need to make sure it's the right Av. As we see; when the Gemara asks on R' Eliezer who says that one is Chayiv a separate Chatos for a Tolda done with the Av; what's the difference between an Av and Tolda, and it doesn't answer: you have to warn for the Tolda with the name of the Av.]
30) If you prune a tree on Shabbos, and you also need the wood, you're Chayiv twice, one for planting and one for harvesting. [Tosfos says: even though the Gemara in Sanhedrin says that you're allowed to take branches off a tree on Shvious if you need it to make a vessel to keep the olives in (while they're being pressed to make sure that they don't scatter) and we don't say that you're doing a sort of planting on Shvious by pruning, like we say here on Shabbos; we must say that it was cut in a way that's detrimental to the tree, and it's not helping it grow. You must need the wood in order to be Chayiv for harvesting, even according to R' Yehuda that holds you're Chayiv for a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gofo, even if you don't need the purpose of the Melacha; still, needing the material that you're detaching is a condition to the Melacha of harvesting just like you need to rip only for the purpose to sew it up to be Chayiv, and you need to erase only for the purpose to be able to write other words in its place to be Chayiv. Also, we see that R' Yochanan says: if you squeeze the juice out of a pickled vegetable; if it's because you need the juice, you're Chayiv. If you only need to dry out the waterlogged vegetable, then it's permitted. However, how can it be permitted if it's a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gofo which is rabbinically forbidden? We need to say that it's not the Melacha of threshing at all if it's not for the purpose of keeping what you squeezed out.]
31) Plowing, digging and making a trench are all one Melacha.
32) If you removed a mound, or filled up a hole; if you do it in a house, you're Chayiv for building. If you do it in the field, you're Chayiv for plowing.
33) If you dig a hole, not because you need the hole, but you just need the dirt, you're exempt. This is even according to R' Yehuda who holds you're Chayiv for a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gofo, since the hole ruins the area, and you're not Chayiv for a Melacha that ruins things.
34) Harvesting wheat, grapes, dates, olives and figs are all one Melacha.
35) R' Pappa says: if you throw a clump of dirt at a palm tree and you release dates, you're Chayiv for detaching fruit and 'releasing' on Shabbos. [Rashi says that you release the palm tree from its load. Tosfos disagrees. Rather the dates grow together in an outer peel; and you're releasing them out of this peel, and it's just like releasing grains from their husks.] R' Ashi says he's exempt since it's not the normal way to detach and to release.
36) [R' Tam says that 'releasing' is a Tolda of smoothing, as we see that you're Chayiv for 'releasing' when you milk a cow, and by that, you smooth out its udders. However, Tosfos disagrees since we see that you're not Chayiv if you milk into food, and that shouldn't help not making the udders smooth. Rather, like Rashi, it's a Tolda of threshing (since you're releasing the milk from the udders). However, since it's considered as food when it's in the udder, and it's also considered food when it's milked into food, so, it's like cutting a food in half. You're only Chayiv when you release liquid from the cow, i.e., from the food. Although the reason R' Tam didn't want to say that since milking is not from an item that grows from the ground (which is a requirement to this Melacha according to the Rabanan); we can answer that it's according to R' Yehuda who holds that you're even Chayiv for threshing on items that don't grow from the ground. Therefore, we must say that we Paskin like R' Yehuda. This fits well to what we Paskin that if a person has a certain heart problem, he may suckle from a cow since it's milking in a strange way (which is only a rabbinical prohibition), which we allow because of his pain. (However, according to the Rabanan that the whole milking is rabbinic since they hold you can only be Chayiv for items that grow from the ground, it's logical to say they wouldn't require you to milk it in a strange way to alleviate the pain.)]
37) Rabbah says: if you gather salt from the salt-pit, (where you filled up with sea water and allowed it to evaporate), you're Chayiv for gathering. Abaya says he's exempt since you're only Chayiv for gathering items that grow from the ground.
38) Threshing, beating flax (to remove it from its stem), and removing seed from cotton are all one Melacha.
39) Although winnowing, separating and sifting are all similar Melachos, still, they're separate Avos since we count everything done in the Mishkon separately. [Tosfos says: even though we don't include straightening the weft threads on the loom, since they're exactly part of setting up the threads on the loom. We don't include hitting the woof thread so it shouldn't be too stretched out in order to help the weaving, since it's included in weaving. The same by beating flax, since it's just like threshing. However, the winnowing, separating and sifting has more nuanced differences that makes them more apt to be considered different Melachos.]
Daf 74
40) The reason why we don't consider cracking the husks of the grain, since the poor eat their bread without cracking the husk off the grain. [Tosfos says: we say the same by the Melacha done in the Mishkon, which was making dye, that the poor don't crack the husk off the herbs in order to make the dye. Even though we say the poor eat their bread without sifting, and that's why we're Chayiv to separate Challah for dough that they didn't sift; still, most poor do sift their flour. However, you're Chayiv in Challah if it wasn't sifted because there is a minority of the poor who eat their bread that way, so it's called "from the bread of the land."]
41) You can separate food from impurities to eat by using your hands, or to leave [Tosfos: for others to eat], but you can't separate them with a funnel and large plate, but you're exempt if you do. However, you're Chayiv if you use a sieve or sifter [Tosfos: even if you'll eat it immediately.]
42) You're only allowed to separate with your hands if you separate the food from the impurities. However, if you separate the impurities from the food, you're Chayiv. [Tosfos explains: this is only when you have more food than impurities, so removing the food is not the way to separate and is permitted. However, if there is more impurities, then you're Chayiv by removing the food. As we see by the Gemara about straining wine that it's like separating since you're removing the food from the impurities. However, Tosfos is left with a question: we see in Beitza that Beis Shammai holds that you can't separate regularly on Yom Tov, yet, they admit that, if you have more impurities than food, you separate the food. if so, even when you have more impurities, taking the food is considered as the regular way to separate.]
43) One may separate to eat immediately, but if you leave it for later, it's like you want to store it and you're Chayiv.
44) [Tosfos says: when you're separating two foods, you should separate the one you want to eat now, since that's considered the 'food' in this aspect, and the second type of food is considered the impurity.]
45) Regarding the bean 'Turmasin,' you're forbidden to remove the food from the impurities. Since you need to cook it seven times, it's very soft and it will rot if you don't remove it from its impurities [Rashi says: therefore, the rabbis considered it while being mixed with its impurities, as an impurity by itself. Alternatively, before it's cooked seven times, since its impurities won't rot like the Turmasin will, the Turmasin is considered the impurity at this point. Alternatively, the right text is: when you remove the bean, it dissolves between your fingers, and is no longer edible, and it comes out to be an impurity.]
46) If you chop up beets into very fine pieces, it's considered like grinding. [Tosfos says that it's only a problem by beets, but other foods are permitted.] The same applies when you cut wood into small chips to start fires, it's like grinding. If you care for them to be a certain size, you're also Chayiv for 'cutting' (to size).
47) If you put a wooden peg into the oven, you're Chayiv for cooking it. Although you might say that it's not cooking since you want to dry it out and harden it, but since, before it hardens, it first softens as its moisture is released, you're Chayiv. [However, Tosfos concludes that you definitely don't intend to cook it, but it's just an unintended consequence. Therefore, we say regarding Bishul Akum; if you hide a gourd in an oven, and a non-Jew comes and turns it on to harden a wooden peg, it's not a problem of Bishul Akum since the non-Jew doesn't intend to cook, but just to harden the peg.]
48) If you cook pitch, you're Chayiv, even though it hardens afterwards.
49) R' Yochanan held that; if you spin the hair on the back of the goats, you're Chayiv for three Melachos, spinning, carding, and sheering. However, R' Kahana says that he's exempt since this is a strange way to do these Melachos. They only did this in the Mishkon since they were extra skilled, [Rashi, but it's not normal for regular people to do it this way. Tosfos explains: and anyone that does it this way, his intentions for this to be normal is nul against the opinion of the rest of the world, just like we say that it's not normal to carry a jug on your head just because the people of Hutzel did it.]
50) If you pluck a feather, you're Chayiv for 'sheering.' If you cut it to size, you're Chayiv for 'cutting.' If you take off the fuzz, you're Chayiv for 'smoothing.'
51) [Rashi says that you're not Chayiv for 'building' when you make a barrel since there's no concept of building by utensils. However, Tosfos disagrees since there is a concept of building when you're making the whole utensil, like we say that you're Chayiv when you stick the peg into a shovel (to connect the handle to the shovel piece). However, it's still difficult since we'll say later that, when you blow up a glass utensil, you're Chayiv for "fixing a utensil,' and it doesn't say you're Chayiv for building although you're making the whole utensil.]
52) [Tosfos has a question whether you can be Chayiv for untying if it's not on condition to retie. He says that it's dependent on the argument between Rashi and R' Chananel in the Gemara's original thought that they untied in the Mishkon if there were two consecutive knots in the Mishkon's roof. Rashi just says that they untied one of them and left the other one tied. Therefore, you don't need the condition to retie it. However, R' Chananel says that you untie two knots, throw away the middle thread, and take the two side threads to tie together, thus, you're only Chayiv if it gets retied.]
53) You're Chayiv if you sew two stitches. (We must say that you tied the end of the thread, or else the stitching won't stay in place.)
Daf 75
54) If you stretch stitches (to tighten them) you're Chayiv. If you learn one thing from someone attached to idolatry, you deserve death. However, you may learn from a witch, since the Torah says that you may not learn witchcraft to practice it, but you may learn it to understand it and to give P'sak. It's a Mitzvah for people to calculate the seasons and the Mazalos.
55) If you trap a Chalazon and puncture it to remove its blood (for Techeiles); the Tanna Kama says that you're Chayiv only one Chatos for trapping [Tosfos points out: the Yerushalmi is difficult since it says that you're not even Chayiv for trapping]. R' Yehuda says that you're Chayiv also on the puncturing because of 'threshing.' However, the Chachumim held that you're only Chayiv for threshing on items that grow from the ground.
The Gemara asks: why aren't you also Chayiv for killing the Chalazon? [Tosfos explains: we can't say you're exempt because you ruin the Chalazon, since it seems to be an advantage to having it dead since it's not jumping around.] R' Yochanan answers: we refer to a case where he punctured a dead Chalazon. [Tosfos says: that, which you're not Chayiv for removing the Chalazon from the water that caused it to die just like you're Chayiv for removing all fish; perhaps the Chalazon jumps around after you bring it up to the surface and causes its own demise.] Rava answers:when you puncture a live Chalazon, it's Misaseik (unthinking) for killing it. [Tosfos explains: it's not really because of Misaseik. After all, R' Shimon holds you're Chayiv for Misaseik by wounding, or if it ruins it, since we don't care by wounding to be a Meleches Machsheves. Rather, it's exempt since it's an unintended Melacha.] The reason it's that way since you want it to be alive longer since the dye will come out clearer. [Tosfos explains: therefore, it's a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo (since it will definitely happen, but it's not what you want. Rashi says that it's only exempt since it ruins it and you don't want it at all. Tosfos disagrees. Since we see the Gemara by uprooting an herb is not Chayiv for weeding when you do it in someone else's field where you don't care whether it improves, and you don't need anything to be ruined by it, as long as you're not enjoying it.
However, Tosfos asks: since a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo is exempt for Shabbos because it's not a Meleches Machsheves, if so, why doesn't R' Shimon hold he's Chayiv here? After all, he doesn't hold you need it to be a Melaches Machsheves by wounding.]
56) [Tosfos says: the reason why you're not Chayiv for making the Chalazon bleed by puncturing, and you want to remove its blood; that's because that blood is held in a compartment and is not absorbed in the bloodstream. Any blood that finally comes out of the bloodstream is not wanted since you want to keep the blood clear (and the absorbed blood will dirty it).]
57) [Tosfos says: a wound is Chayiv because it's killing, since the blood is life, and you're harvesting 'the life.' However, you can't say that it's considered killing because you're partially killing something by weakening it, since you're potentially Chayiv by having relations with a virgin that you'll make her bleed and by doing a Mila, and in both cases, you don't intend on weakening the person.]
58) For Shechting an animal on Shabbos; Shmuel holds that he's Chayiv for killing, and Rav says that he's also Chayiv for dying. After all, he's happy to have the blood color the neck area to show how fresh it is so people will buy it faster.
59) Rabbah b. R' Huna holds that you're Chayiv if you salt meat because it's like tanning. However, that's only if you salt it so much to preserve it to take it on a journey, but not for just salting in the house, since they don't salt the meat that much to make it so dry like a piece of wood. However, Rava held that he's exempt in all cases since there is no concept of tanning by food. [However, Tosfos points out that there is still a rabbinical prohibition to do so even on Yom Tov, like the Gemara says in Beitza.]
60) If you level between the beams, you're Chayiv for 'smoothing.' [Rashi explains that you level the floor between beams. Tosfos disagrees, but it means that you sandpaper the beams itself to smooth it. this is also implied by the Yerushalmi.] If you sandpaper the tops of poles, you're Chayiv for "cutting to size." If you smooth the dressing of a bandage, you're Chayiv for smoothing. If you carve out a stone, you're Chayiv for the "finishing touches." [Tosfos says: he's not Chayiv for smoothing or cutting to size, since we refer to a case where this was already done to the stone. He only needs to carve some designs to beautify the stone,]
61) If someone draws figures on a utensil, or blows up a glass utensil, he's Chayiv for "putting on the finishing touches." Also, you're Chayiv for this if you remove hanging threads from a curtain, and only if you really care that they're there (and wouldn't use it otherwise). [Rashi says: the same applies to woodchips and hay that was woven into the fabric.]
62) If you write a big letter that covers a space that you could write two letters, you're exempt (since you're only Chayiv when you write two letters). However, if you erase such a letter, you're Chayiv (since you now prepared a space to write two letters). In this aspect, erasing is more stringent than writing.
63) Any finishing touch is Chayiv for "putting on the finishing touches."
64) R' Yehuda believes that straightening out the weft threads on the loom, and hitting the woof thread after weaving to help settle the weaving are separate Av Melachos. However, the Chachumim say that straightening the loom is part of setting up the loom, and hitting to help settle the weaving is part of weaving.
65) The Mishna says that you're only Chayiv for carrying out items that are usually stored. R' Pappa says that it excludes menstrual blood, and of course, he holds it excludes wood from a tree worshipped as an idol. Mar Ukva says that it excludes the worshipped wood, but people may store menstrual blood to feed to a cat. However, R' Pappa says that people won't do it since it would temporarily weaken the cat.
66) [Tosfos says that this is not like R' Yehuda's opinion who holds that people are Chayiv for carrying out idols since people store them to do the Mitzvah to burn them. Therefore, it's difficult why does the Gemara assume that, if R' Pappa holds you're exempt for menstrual blood, he definitely holds you're exempt for the worshipped wood, since he might agree to R' Yehuda.]
67) This is not like R' Shimon who says: these amounts were only said to those people who would store it. [Rashi explains: that a rich person who wouldn't save such a small amount is exempt if he carries it out. Tosfos adds: but we must say, like we'll point out later, that if the rich person happened to store it, he's Chayiv if he takes it out.]
Daf 76
68) However, whatever is not normal to store, (and someone does store it), the only person that's Chayiv for carrying out is the one who stored it. This is not like R' Shimon b. Elazar who holds that another person is Chayiv with the first person's intent (to give the item importance by storing it).
69) The amount that you're Chayiv for carrying out hay is the amount that will fill up a cow's mouth. However, beanstalks (that cows usually don't eat), you're only Chayiv for the amount that will fill up a camel's mouth. If you carry the amount of hay that would fill up a cow's mouth, but you brought it to feed a camel, you're still Chayiv. After all, you carried out an important amount since it's fit to feed a cow. However, if you carry a cow's mouth of beanstalks to feed to a cow, R' Yochanan holds he's exempt since we don't consider something that's only eaten through difficulty as eating. [Tosfos points out: this is only regarding Shabbos, but we say in Bava Kama that it's considered enough of a eating to not consider it abnormal (and you would only pay half damage), but, rather, the owner is Chayiv to pay for the full damage.] However, Reish Lakish holds he's Chayiv since he considers difficult eating enough of an eating.
70) You're Chayiv if you carry enough ears of corn to fill a lamb's mouth, which is the size of a Grogeros (dried fig). [Tosfos says that the reason the Mishna picks the amount to be "to fill a lamb's mouth" instead of a Grogeros, is to teach us why that's the amount.]
71) You're Chayiv for carrying out the amount of a Grogeros of fresh onion leaves like all other human foods. However, if they're dry, you need it to fill the mouth of a young goat. If you carry out a mixture of these foods, you can't say that they combine to be Chayiv for the more stringent amount, but they combine to the more lenient amount.
72) We usually say that items that have separate amounts don't combine at all. As we say that the amount for cloth to be susceptible to Tumah is three Tefachim squared, for sack is four Tefachim squared, for leather is five Tefachim squared and for a mattress material is six Tefachim squared [Tosfos: this is regarding Tumas Medris, since they're fit to sit on]. One material can combine to the other [Tosfos: only those that are listed next to each other, but clothes don't combine with leather etc. since it's not normal to combine those materials. Therefore, anybody that does, his intentions are nul against the opinion of the rest of the world. Also, we only refer to combine them to be susceptible to regular Tumah of a corpse (where the Shiur for clothes is three fingers' width squared). After all, if it's fit to sit, then it's Tamai Medris even if it's a lump of sourdough.]] However, the only reason we combine the different materials is because they have the same amount regarding being susceptible for being fit to sit on (that you can make a patch for a donkey blanket, which is Tamai Medris if a Zav sits on it).
Therefore, we can ask; why are you Chayiv for carrying out different items with different Shiurim and combine them to one Shiur? The Gemara answers: these items also have the same Shiur regarding using them as samples.
73) [Rashi explains that they have one Shiur for all of them to sit on (i.e., to make a patch for the donkey blanket), which is a Tefach squared. Therefore, you can combine from many materials to make a Tefach squared sitting item that would be susceptible. The same by the sample, since you can have a sample consisting of many materials. However, Tosfos disagrees, since we know this from the original Mishna that you may combine materials to make some cloth item. Rather, since they all have the same Shiur regarding a sitting item, that they all become susceptible to sitting Tumah with a Tefach square, so you may combine them for clothes items even when their Shiurim are different. The same with samples, that their Shiur is the same that you're Chayiv for carrying out the smallest amount, so too they combine when you carry out non-samples even when their Shiurim are not the same.]
74) All food combine to the Shiur of Grogeros, except that you don't include their peels, seeds, stems, bran or husks. Although bran and husks combine regarding the amount needed in a dough to be Chayiv in Challa, that's because the poor eat their bread with them mixed in. (However, they're not considered as important regarding carrying on Shabbos.)
75) R' Yehuda holds that the exceptions are peels of lentils and fresh beans, since they're cooked with them. however, the peels of dried beans are not counted, since they're not cooked together since the look like black dots and give the appearance that there are flies on it.