1) TOSFOS DH GILUY ARAYOS

תוספות ד"ה גילוי עריות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not establish that the Beraisa is referring to Arayos that are punished with Kares.)

ובהנך דליכא קטלא אלא כרת ליכא לאוקומה.

(a) Implied Question: One cannot establish that the Beraisa is referring to Arayos that are punished with Kares and not death. [Why not?]

דהא איכא למיפרך בר מלקות הוא כדפרישית.

(b) Answer: This is because it would be possible to ask that he should receive lashes (which one can receive instead of Kares), as explained earlier (7b, DH b'Shogeg).

2) TOSFOS DH V'AIMA YOLEDES

תוספות ד"ה ואימא יולדת

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the Sa'ir will atone for someone who is already obligated to bring a Korban.)

פירש הקונטרס יולדת שעבר עליה יום הכפורים תאכל בקדשים ואין צריכה להביא קרבן

(a) Explanation: Rashi explains that a woman who gave birth who had Yom Kippur pass can eat Kodshim, and she does not have to bring a Korban.

ואף על גב דאם כן לא אתי לכלל חטאת

(b) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that if this is so, her sin will never result in the bringing of a "Chatas." [If so, how can this Korban be included in the Pasuk, "l'Chal Chatasam?"]

אין לחוש כיון דבטומאת מקדש וקדשיו אתי לכלל חטאת כדפרישית לעיל

(c) Answer: There is no reason to worry about this, being that accidental Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav is called a "Chatas" (and this is enough to fulfill the Pasuk, without having the "sin" of a Yoledes called a "Chatas").

ולא מקרי נמי פעמים בשנה

(d) Implied Question: It is not called "twice during the year." [It would seem that this is against the Pasuk "once a year," as this can technically happen twice a year.]

הואיל ואין זמנה קבוע אלא פעם אחת בשנה

(e) Answer: This is because it only is set to happen once a year.

אבל קשה דהא בר קרבן הוא ואיך יכפר על בר קרבן

(f) Question: However, this is difficult. She is supposed to bring a Korban. How can we say Yom Kippur should atone for someone who is already obligated to bring a Korban?

וי"ל דהואיל וקרבן יולדת לא אתי לכפרה אלא להכשיר בקדשים אין זה בר קרבן אפילו לר' שמעון דאמר יולדת חוטאת היא מכל מקום עקרו אינו אלא להכשיר בקדשים

(g) Answer: Being that a Korban Yoledes is not to atone but rather to allow her to eat Kodshim, it is not considered an obligation to bring a Korban. Even according to Rebbi Shimon who says that a Yoledes is a sinner, the main part of the Korban is to allow her to eat Kodshim. [Rebbi Shimon is only explaining the sleight sin aspect of the Korban.]

אבל קשה מאי פריך דאי פריך שלא תצטרך להביא קרבן כלל הוה ליה לשנויי כדמשני גבי שעיר המשתלח בפרק בתרא דכריתות (דף כו.) דיולדת כי קמייתי קרבן לאישתרויי בקדשים ואנזיר נמי משני דלא מייתי אלא כדי למיחל עליה נזירות טהרה

(h) Question: However, this is difficult. What is the Gemara's question? If the question is that she should not have to bring a Korban at all, it should give an answer similar to that given regarding the Sa'ir ha'Mishtalei'ach in the end of Kerisus (26a). The Gemara there says that the reason she must still bring a Korban after Yom Kippur passes is in order to permit her to eat Kodshim (nothing to do with needing atonement). The Gemara gives a similar answer regarding Nazir, that his Korban is in order to allow him to start his Nezirus of purity.

לכך נראה לרבינו תם דהכא מספק יולדת פריך כגון ספק אם נפל הפילה אם רוח הפילה ולא הוחזקה עוברה דאי הוחזקה בתר רובא אזלינא כדמוכח בפרק המפלת (נדה דף כט.) או לא הרגישה שהפילה דלאו בת קרבן היא

(i) Answer: It therefore seems according to Rabeinu Tam that here the question is from a doubtful Yoledes. For example, it is unclear if she miscarried a child or "wind" (something other than a partially formed child) at a time when it was not even apparent that she was pregnant. If her pregnancy was apparent, we would assume that she must have miscarried a child, as most woman would at that stage of pregnancy. Alternatively, we would say that she must have not realized that she miscarried, which means she does not have to bring a Korban.

ואע"ג דמייתא חטאת העוף על הספק כדאמרינן בסוף נדה (דף עב.)

(j) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that a Chatas ha'Of is brought for a doubtful situation, as stated in Nidah (72a). [Why, then, should it make a difference if it is a doubtful situation? She should still have to bring it?]

לא חשיב בר קרבן מידי דהוה אחייבי אשמות תלויין דלא חשיבי בני קרבן בפרק בתרא דכריתות (דף כה:) כיון דאין באין אלא על הספק

(k) Answer#1: She is not considered as having to bring a Korban in this case, being that she is like someone who is supposed to bring an Asham Taluy. They are not considered as having to bring a Korban (after Yom Kippur has passed) as stated in Kerisus (25b), being that their Korban is only brought due to a doubt.

ועוד דהא איכא עולת העוף שאין מביאין על הספק

(l) Answer#2: Additionally, an Olas ha'Of (which a Yoledes also must bring) is not brought due to a doubt.

והשתא פריך הכא דיתלה לה השעיר עד לאחר יוה"כ שתביא חטאת העוף וכן כל הני דבסמוך

1. Now the Gemara is asking that the Sa'ir should hold her off her Korban until she can bring a Chatas ha'Of after Yom Kippur. The following questions of the Gemara are in a similar vein.

אבל בפרק בתרא דכריתות (דף כו.) פריך דלא תביא כלל דהשתא אתי שפיר דלא משני הכא כדמשני התם.

2. However, in Kerisus (26a) the Gemara is asking that she should not have to bring a Korban at all. This is why it is understandable that the Gemara does not give the same answer here as it gives there.

3) TOSFOS DH AMAR KRA

תוספות ד"ה אמר קרא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's answer.)

וא"ת קרבן יולדת נמי איקרי חטאת

(a) Question: A Korban Yoledes is also called a Chatas! [Accordingly, how can we give this answer?]

וי"ל דבעי שבא על חטאת דומיא דפשעים

(b) Answer: We require that it is brought for a Chatas which is similar to Pesha'im. [In other words, it is for a sin (not just to make one clean and ready to eat Kodshim).]

ולא מצי לשנויי אמר קרא וכפר

(c) Implied Question: The Gemara cannot answer that the Pasuk says, "And he will atone (which implies sin)." [Why not?]

דביולדת נמי כתיב וכפר והיינו שמכפרה ומטהרה לאכול בקדשים.

(d) Answer: This is because regarding a Yoledes the Pasuk also says, "And he will atone" meaning that she is ready (not the usual meaning of "atone") and clean to eat Kodshim.

4) TOSFOS DH V'AIMA METZORA

תוספות ד"ה ואימא מצורע

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the lenient difference of a Metzora.)

[ומאי חלק וכו'] ואם תאמר והא מייתי נמי אשם

(a) Question: [What would be the difference etc.] You might ask that he is also bringing an Asham. [This therefore would not be a lenient difference, which is a requirement of the Gemara's teaching.]

וי"ל בחטאת שלו מיהא חלק להקל.

(b) Answer: There is at least a leniency regarding his Korban Chatas.

5) TOSFOS DH AL ZAYIN DEVARIM

תוספות ד"ה על ז' דברים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara can think that the Korban is brought for one of these sins.)

תימה והא לא מייתי בעלמא קרבן אהנך עבירות אלא כשהוא מצורע והיכי תיסק אדעתין דאחטאה קמיית

(a) Question: This is difficult. There is no Korban brought for these seven sins unless he becomes a Metzora. How can we think that a Metzora's Korban is for these sins?

ונראה לריב"ן דס"ד דאתרוייהו מייתי לכפרה ולאשתרויי בקהל [בקדשים] ומשני דלאו לכפרה מייתי אלא לאשתרויי בקהל [בקדשים].

(b) Answer: The Rivan understands that the Gemara originally thought that he is bringing the Korban for atonement and to permit him to eat Kodshim (see the side of the Gemara that it seems the word "b'Kehal" in Tosfos should be replaced with the word "b'Kodshim").

6) TOSFOS DH AIMA NAZIR TAMEI

תוספות ד"ה אימא נזיר טמא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the case, and its lenient difference.)

פירוש ולא ידע שנטמא ומאי חלק דמייתי תורין

(a) Explanation: The Gemara is referring to a case where he did not know that he became impure. The difference in his Korban is that he brings doves.

אע"ג דמייתי נמי אשם

(b) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that he also brings a Korban Asham. [This therefore would not be a lenient difference, which is a requirement of the Gemara's teaching.]

מכל מקום הקרבן שחייבו הכתוב לבד מאשם חלק להקל.

(c) Answer: Even so, the Korban that the Torah requires that he bring besides for that Asham is leniently different than other Korbanos (in that it is a bird).

7) TOSFOS DH U'LI'REBBI ELIEZER HA'KAPAR

תוספות ד"ה ולרבי אלעזר הקפר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the connection between the sin of the Nazir and the Sa'ir.)

ואם תאמר והא לא איקרי חוטא אלא לפי שציער עצמו מן היין והשעיר אינו בא לכפר אלא על הטומאה

(a) Question: He is only called a sinner because he pained himself by refraining from drinking wine. The Sa'ir is only brought to atone for impurity!

ויש לומר כיון שעל ידי הטומאה בא לו שציער עצמו מן היין פעם שניה כדאמר בנזיר (דף ג. ע"ש) ששנה בחטא קרינן ביה וכפר מטומאתו

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that being that through his becoming impure he is paining himself to abstain further from drinking wine, as stated in Nazir (3a) that he is called someone who is repeating his sin, it is fitting to say about him, "And he will atone from his impurity."

ודוקא לרבי אלעזר הקפר אבל לרבנן אפילו נטמא במזיד הקרבן אינו בא על החטא דהא אפילו נטמא באונס דלאו חוטא הוי לרבנן מביא קרבן

1. This is specifically according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar. However, according to the Rabbanan, even if he becomes impure on purpose, the Korban is not brought because of a sin. Even if he would become impure due to forced circumstances, which would mean he is not a sinner according to the Rabbanan, he would still have to bring a Korban.

ומאשר חטא על הנפש הוי לרבנן לשון חסרון

2. The Pasuk, "And from that which "Chata" -- "he sinned" on the soul" means that "he was lacking" according to the Rabbanan.

כמו (מלכים א א) והייתי אני ובני שלמה חטאים וכמו (שופטים כ) אל השערה ולא יחטיא

i. This is like, "And I and my son Shelomo were "Chata'im" -- "lacking." This is also like, "To the gate "v'Lo Ya'chati" -- "and he will not be lacking."

ולכל חטאתם ליכא לפרושי הכא לשון חסרון הוה

(c) Implied Question: One cannot explain "u'le'Chal Chatasam" as meaning "and to all of their lackings."

דהא דומיא דפשעים כתיב.

(d) Answer: The Gemara has stated that the Torah implies "Chata'im" are like "Pesha'im" -- "sins" (as stated on 7b).

8) TOSFOS DH D'ISYADA

תוספות ד"ה דאתידע

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is not derived from the Sa'ir l'Azazel.)

ואם תאמר הא נמי נילף משעיר המשתלח דבדידיה נמי דרשינן חטאים דומיא דפשעים

(a) Question: We should also derive this from the Sa'ir l'Azazel (that it cannot atone for a Korban that is obligated to be brought before Yom Kippur), as regarding this we also derive that "Chata'im" must be like "Pesha'im."

ויש לומר דלא דרשינן ביה דומיא דפשעים אלא לענין אם נודע לו מבעוד יום שראוי להביא קרבן אבל סמוך לשקיעת החמה לא חשיב בר קרבן

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that we only derive that "Chata'im" must be like "Pesha'im" if he knows during the day that he is obligated to bring a Korban. However, if he only finds out close to sunset of Yom Kippur, he is not considered as having to bring a Korban.

להכי אייתר בשעיר הפנימי חטאים דומיא דפשעים דאפי' אתיידע ליה סמוך לשקיעה לא תלי.

1. This is why the word "Chata'im" stated by the Sa'ir ha'Pnimi is extra. It is in order to teach that it is like "Pesha'im," and that even if he only found out close to sunset the Sa'ir does not push aside (afflictions he deserves due to this sin).

8b----------------------------------------8b

9) TOSFOS DH U'MAI NINHU

תוספות ד"ה ומאי נינהו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not entertain sins where there is no knowledge at all.)

ולא בעי למימר אין בה ואין בה

(a) Explanation: The Gemara did not want to say a case where there is no knowledge before and after.

ואי משום דהא שעירי הרגלים ושעירי ראשי חדשים מכפרים ס"ד נפיך מיפך

(b) Implied Question: One might think that being that the Si'eerei Regalim and Roshei Chadashim atone for such sins, we should possibly switch the types of sins for which each Korban atones (and have the Si'eerei Regalim atone for sins where one first did know and then did not know). [Why doesn't the Gemara entertain this possibility?]

כתיב התם לה' חטאת שאין מכיר בו אלא ה'

(c) Answer: The Pasuk says there (regarding the Si'eer Rosh Chodesh), "la'Hashem Chatas" (more accurately "l'Chatas la'Hashem" see 9a) meaning that only Hash-m knows about this sin. [It is therefore clear that the Si'eerei Regalim atone for sins where one did not know originally or later.]

ואפי' לר' שמעון דלא דריש לה' לא ה"מ למינקט מאי נינהו אין בה ואין בה

(d) Implied Question: Even according to Rebbi Shimon who does not derive this from "la'Hashem," the Gemara could not have entertained that this Korban is for sins where there never was any knowledge before and after. [Why not?]

משום היקשא דמתניתין על מה שזה מכפר זה מכפר.

(e) Answer: This is because of the comparison of the Mishnah, that whatever this atones for, the other also atones. [The Mishnah (2a) stated that both the Sa'ir ha'Chitzon and Pnimi atone for a sin where there is knowledge at some stage, ruling out where there never is any knowledge.]

10) TOSFOS DH V'NECHAPER

תוספות ד"ה ונכפר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara can suggest there is complete atonement.)

וא"ת ומי עדיף משעיר המשתלח דאינו אלא תולה כדאמר בפרק בתרא דכריתות (דף כה.) דחייבי חטאות ואשמות ודאין חייבים להביא אחר יוה"כ

(a) Question: How can it be better than the Sa'ir l'Azazel that only pushes aside suffering? This is as stated in Kerisus (25a) that people who are obligated to bring Chata'os and definite Ashamos (as opposed to an Asham Taluy) are still liable to bring them after Yom Kippur!

וי"ל דהכא ממשמעות דקרא קא פריך דוכפר לכל חטאתם משמע שמכפר לגמרי כל החטא אבל גבי שעיר המשתלח לא כתיב לכל חטאתם אלא גבי וידוי ולא גבי כפרה.

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that here the question is from the implication of the Pasuk. "And it will atone for all of their sins" implies that it atones fully for the sin. However, regarding the Sa'ir la'Azazel it only says, "for all of their sins" regarding "Viduy" -- "confession (done before bringing the Korban" not regarding the actual atonement. [The implication of the Pasuk for complete atonement is indeed stronger than the Sa'ir la'Azazel, and is why the Gemara suggests this.]

11) TOSFOS DH MAI L'CHOL CHATASAM

תוספות ד"ה מאי לכל חטאתם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the meaning of the Pasuk "for all of their sins" regarding the Sa'ir la'Azazel.)

תימה דפריך בפרק בתרא דכריתות (דף כו.) גבי שעיר המשתלח אימא כי מתיידע אחר יוה"כ נמי לא מייתי חטאת ואמאי הא בדידיה נמי כתיב לכל חטאתם

(a) Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Kerisus (26a) asks regarding the Sa'ir la'Azazel, perhaps when he finds out that he was obligated to bring a Korban after Yom Kippur he does not have to bring a Chatas? Why should this question be correct? Regarding the Sa'ir la'Azazel the Pasuk also says, "for all of their sins!" [This should mean the Korban pushes aside affliction for the sin until he eventually brings a Chatas! Why would we think he should not bring a Chatas?]

וי"ל דהתם נמי כיון שנודע לו קודם יוה"כ שהיה בספק והיה לו להביא אשם תלוי אלא ששעיר המשתלח מכפר אפי' כשנודע לו אחר יוה"כ ידיעה ודאית לא יצטרך להביא חטאת דשפיר מיקרי אתי לכלל חטאת הואיל ואתא לכלל אשם

(b) Answer#1: It is possible to answer that there this ("for all of their sins") indeed applies. He knew before Yom Kippur that he might have sinned and therefore had to bring an Asham Taluy, and that therefore the Sa'ir la'Azazel would atone for him (as is the law). Even if he finds out after Yom Kippur that he had definitely sinned (accidentally), he will not have to bring a Chatas. The sin is something which will eventually obligate him to bring a Chatas, being that he already is liable to bring an Asham Taluy (before Yom Kippur, as this is brought on a possible obligation to bring a Chatas).

אבל פשיטא היכא דלא נודע לו כלל אפי' ידיעת ספק קודם יוה"כ שיביא חטאת כשיודע לו מדרשה דכל חטאתם כדדריש הכא

1. However, it is obvious that where he has no idea at all or even a doubt before Yom Kippur that he will have to bring a Chatas when he finds out. This is derived from the Pasuk "for all of their sins" as stated here in our Gemara.

אי נמי גבי שעיר המשתלח לית לן למידרש דוקא הנך דאתו לכלל חטאת שהרי מכפר על כמה עבירות שאינן כלל בני קרבן על עשה ועל לא תעשה ושאר עבירות

(c) Answer#2: Alternatively, regarding the Sa'ir la'Azazel we have no teaching that it atones specifically for sins which will eventually obligate one to bring a Chatas. This is evident from the fact that it atones for many sins that never mandate one to bring a Korban, such as basic positive or negative commandments and other sins.

אי נמי שעיר המשתלח עדיף שתולה כי אתיידע ליה סמוך לשקיעת החמה כדפרישית.

(d) Answer#3: Alternatively, the Sa'ir la'Azazel is better in that pushes aside suffering for sins that a person finds out about close to sunset (on Erev Yom Kippur) as I have explained.

12) TOSFOS DH MAH PNIMI

תוספות ד"ה מה פנימי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Yehudah requires this Hekesh.)

ואם תאמר התינח לר' שמעון דלא דריש חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא ה' דאיצטריך היקשא דלא מכפר חיצון ארגלים

(a) Question: This is understandable according to Rebbi Shimon who does not hold of the derivation, "A sin that only Hash-m knows about." The Hekesh is therefore needed to teach that the Sa'ir ha'Chitzon does not atone for that which the Si'eerei Regalim atone for (namely when the person never has any knowledge of his sin).

אלא לר' יהודה אמאי איצטריך היקשא הא ע"כ חיצון מכפר אאין בה ויש בה דבמאי מוקמת ליה דליכא למיפרך דנפיך מיפך חיצון ארגלים דהא כתיב לה' חטאת שאין מכיר בה אלא ה'

1. However, according to Rebbi Yehudah, why is this Hekesh necessary? It must be that the Chitzon atones for a sin where one had no prior knowledge but found out afterwards they had sinned! What else can it atone for? There is no reason to ask that the sins atoned by the Chitzon and Regalim may be the opposite (i.e. that the Si'eerei Regalim atone for sins where one did know afterwards that he had sinned, and that the Chitzon atones when he never knew). This is because Rebbi Yehudah holds of the teaching "la'Hashem Chatas" that the Si'eerei Rosh Chodesh (and Regalim) atone for sins that only Hash-m knows about!

ואין לומר דאיצטריך היקשא דלא מכפר אשאר עבירות אלא בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו

2. One cannot say that the Hekesh is required to teach that the Chitzon only atones for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav and not other sins. [Why not?]

דמלשון מתניתין משמע דאיצטריך אאין בה ויש בה

3. The wording of the Mishnah (i.e. the Hekesh) implies that it is needed to teach that it atones for a sin where he originally did not know and afterwards found out he had sinned.

וי"ל דאי לאו היקשא הוה מוקמינן כפרת חיצון באין בה ואין בה דטומאת מקדש וקדשיו וכפרת ר"ח ודרגלים באין בה ואין בה בשאר עבירות

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that without this Hekesh we would establish that the Chitzon atones for sins of Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav where there was never any knowledge, and the Si'eerei Regalim and Rosh Chodesh atone for other types of sins where there was never any knowledge.

ולא הוי דרשינן הואיל וזה בא בזמן קבוע מה זה אין מכפר אלא על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו כו' כדדריש תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אלא הוי דרשינן מה זה מכפר אאין בה ואין בה אף זה כו'

1. We would not derive that since this comes at set times, just as this only atones on Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav etc, as Tana Dvei Rebbi Yishmael derives (9a). We would derive that just as this atones when there is no knowledge at all, so too this atones when there is no knowledge at all.

אבל השתא דאיכא היקשא דחיצון מפנימי על כרחך דרשינן כדדריש תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל.

2. However, now that there is the Hekesh of the Chitzon to the Pnimi, we must derive as does Tana Dvei Rebbi Yishmael (above).

13) TOSFOS DH NECHAPER

תוספות ד"ה ניכפר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that the fact a Chatas will never be brought is not problematic.)

אע"ג דלא אתי לכלל חטאת אין לחוש כדפרישית לעיל.

(a) Clarification: Despite the fact that this sin will never result in a "Chatas" there is no problem, as I have explained earlier (8a, DH AIMA YOLEDES).

14) TOSFOS DH V'NAFKA MINAH

תוספות ד"ה ונפקא מינה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Chitzon would be brought if the Pnimi atoned for itself and for the Chitzon.)

ואם תאמר א"כ חיצון למה בא כלל

(a) Question: If so, why is the Chitzon brought at all?

וי"ל משום טומאה שאירעה בין זה לזה.

(b) Answer: It is possible to answer that this is because of the impurity that happens between the two Korbanos.

15) TOSFOS DH KAPARAH

תוספות ד"ה כפרה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains whether or not the Chitzon atones only "once a year.")

ואם תאמר אמאי לא משני דאי מכפר נמי אדחיצון אם כן תהיה כפרה זו פעמים בשנה

(a) Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that if the Pnimi would also atone for the Chitzon, than the atonement of the Pnimi would be twice (for two different things) a year (not once, as implied by the Pasuk)?

וי"ל דאין לחוש כיון דעיקר כפרתו הכתובה בו דהיינו יש בה ואין בה לא תהא אלא פעם אחת בשנה

(b) Answer: This is not a problem, being that the main atonement regarding the Pnimi, where the person knew beforehand and did not know afterwards, will only be once a year.

ואם תאמר תיפוק ליה מדאיתקש חיצון לפנימי דבעינן שלא תהא כפרת חיצון אלא פעם אחת בשנה

(c) Question: Being that the Chitzon is compared to the Pnimi, we should derive that the atonement of the Chitzon should only be once a year (just as that of the Pnimi is only once a year)!

תדע מדקאמר בסמוך גבי חיצון האי שעירי רגלים ושעירי ר"ח מכפרין פירוש ואם כן הויא פעמים בשנה

1. This is apparent from the Gemara's question later regarding the Chitzon that the Si'eerei Regalim and Rosh Chodesh already atone (for where there is no knowledge at all). The Gemara means that the Chitzon must not atone for this as well, as this would be twice a year.

וכן לקמן פריך והא כי כתיב אחת בשעיר הפנימי כתיב ומשני מדאתקש חיצון לפנימי

i. Additionally, later the Gemara asks, "When the Pasuk says, "one," it does so regarding the Sa'ir ha'Pnimi. The Gemara answers that being that the Chitzon is compared to the Pnimi, it also only atones once.

ובסמוך נמי דפריך וניכפר חיצון אדידיה ואדפנימי לישני דאין חיצון מכפר ב' כפרות מדאיתקש

2. Later, when the Gemara asks that the Chitzon should atone for itself and for the Pnimi, it should answer that the Chitzon cannot atone twice, being that it was compared to the Pnimi.

וי"ל דכיון דלא כתיב אחת בגופיה דחיצון אלא דיליף בהיקשא לית לן למעוטי שלא יכפר פנימי אדחיצון וחיצון אדפנימי

(d) Answer: It is possible to answer that because the Pasuk does not say, "once" by the Chitzon itself, but rather derives that this applies to the Chitzon based on a Hekesh from the Pnimi, we have no reason to exclude the Pnimi from atoning for the Chitzon and visa versa.

ואדרבה מכח היקשא אית לן לומר על מה שזה מכפר זה מכפר ומכח דאיתקוש להדדי הוא דפריך אבל חיצון ור"ח ודרגלים דלא איתקוש להדדי פריך בסמוך שפיר הא שעירי רגלים ושעירי ר"ח מכפרים

1. On the contrary, based on the Hekesh we can say that whatever this one atones for, the other should also atone! The questions mentioned above are asked because they are compared to each other. However, regarding the Chitzon, Rosh Chodesh, and Regalim that are not compared to each other, the Gemara understandably asks that the Si'eerei Reglaim and Rosh Chodesh already atone for this (and therefore the Chitzon must not atone for it).

דלענין כפרת אחרים הוי כאילו כתיב אחת בשנה בגוף דחיצון.

2. This is because regarding other atonements (besides the Pnimi) it is as if the Pasuk says, "once a year" in respect to the Chitzon.

16) TOSFOS DH V'NICHAPER

תוספות ד"ה וניכפר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the questioner did not solely ask that both should atone for the Pnimi.)

ואם תאמר המקשה דלא ידע הך דרשה אחת בשנה אמאי לא פריך דליכפרו או ליתלו תרוייהו אפנימי ותו לא

(a) Question: If the one asking the question did not know the derivation, "once a year" why didn't he solely ask that both should atone, or at least push aside the suffering, for the sins for which the Pnimi atones?

וי"ל דאהך קושיא ודאי ידע שיתרץ לו אחת בשנה הואיל וחיצון אינו מכפר כפרה אחרת אלא זו

(b) Answer#1: Regarding this question, the questioner definitely knew that he would be given the answer, "once a year." This is because the Chitzon only has this one atonement.

אבל אפירכא דפריך וניכפר חיצון אדידיה ואדפנימי לא מיסתבר ליה למקשה דנימעוט מאחת בשנה כיון דעיקר כפרתו לא הוי דפנימי

1. However, regarding the question that the Chitzon should atone for itself and the Pnimi, the questioner does not think it is logical that we should exclude from, "once a year" being that the main atonement is not that of the Pnimi.

אי נמי י"ל דסברא הוא שלא יבאו שניהם על דבר אחד ולא יועיל זה בלא זה וזה אין סברא לומר שיועיל ולא בא חיצון אלא משום טומאה שאירעה בין זה לזה

(c) Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that it is logical that they are not brought for the same thing, in a way that one cannot atone without the other. It is illogical to say that the Pnimi should atone for both, and that the actual Chitzon is only brought due to (a sin of) impurity that happens between the bringing of the Pnimi and Chitzon.

והשתא אתי שפיר דקאמר לעיל ונפקא מינה היכא דלא עביד חיצון ולא קאמר נפקא מינה להגן ביני וביני

1. It is now understandable why the Gemara said earlier that the difference is where the Chitzon was not brought, and it did not say that the difference is to protect for what happens between the bringing of the Pnimi and the Chitzon.

דהיכא דעביד חיצון אח"כ לא יכפר פנימי אדחיצון כדי שלא יבא חיצון אטומאה שאירעה בין זה לזה בלבד

2. Where the Chitzon was done afterwards the Pnimi would not atone on the Chitzon, in order that the Chitzon should not be brought just for impurity that happens between the Pnimi and the Chitzon.

וא"ת ונימא דלעולם אתו תרוייהו אדפנימי לחוד והוי פנימי לתלות וחיצון לכפרה

(d) Question: Why don't we say that both Korbanos are brought for the reason that the Chitzon is brought, and that the Pnimi holds off the suffering and the Chitzon completes total atonement?

וי"ל דאי חיצון מכפר לגמרי אם כן לא אתי לכלל חטאת והיאך יתלה על זה פנימי.

(e) Answer: If the Chitzon totally atones, this would mean that the sin would never result in the bringing of a Chatas. Accordingly, the Pnimi would not be able to hold off suffering for these sins (as the Pasuk says, "l'Chol Chatasam," see beginning of Tosfos 8a DH V'AIMA YOLEDES).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF