Siman - Shabbos Daf 70

• חילוק מלאכות

The Gemara presents three different sources for the concept of חילוק מלאכות ,that one is liable a separate chatas for transgressing each melacha, even if all the melachos that he had done occurred during "one forgetting". This means that in a case where one forgot that it was Shabbos, and had then transgressed more than one melacha, and then remembered that it was Shabbos, he will be liable for a chatas for each melacha.

One of the sources is Rebbe Nassan who learns it from the passuk, לא תבערו אש בכל משבותיכם ביום השבת – You shall not kindle a fire in all your dwellings on Shabbos. The reason kindling a fire was singled out, even though it is included in the general prohibition against performing melacha, is to teach that just as kindling is an av melacha and one is liable for violating it, so too one is liable separately for violating each av melacha.

• ללאו יצאת

Shmuel disagrees with Rebbe Nassan that the passuk of לא תבערו אש – You shall not kindle a fire, was singling out the melacha of kindling, to teach חילוק מלאכות. Instead, he holds like Rebbe Yose in a Baraisa, that says it is ללאו יצאת, kindling was singled out to be a mere prohibition, meaning, it was singled out to teach that for transgressing the melacha of kindling, one is only subject to malkos, (lashes), not skila (stoning).

• The two mems

Rebbe Yose b’Rebbe Chanina expounds on the two mems in the passuk that introduces the various chatas offerings, ועשה מאחת מהנה –  - And he will do from one of them.

- The word אחת alone would have taught that one is only liable for the melacha of koseiv (writing) if one writes the complete word that he intended to write. מאחת teaches that one is liable for carrying out just part of one's intention, such as writing שם from שמעון.

- The word הנה would have implied that one is only liable for transgressing an av melacha. מהנה teaches that one is also liable for transgressing a toldah as well.