What is the "Chatas ha'Kipurim"?
Rashi: It is the goat whose blood is brought inside the Kodesh 1 that is mentioned in Acharei-Mos. 2
Hadar Zekenim: It refers to the [inner] bull and goat - the bull of Aharon, and the goat of the Tzibur.
What are the implications of "Se'ir Izim ... mi'Levad Chatas ha'Kipurim"?
Yoma, 70b: It implies that, although the goat is part of the Musaf, it is only brought after the Avodas ha'Yom has been completed. 1
Shevu'os, 20a: It implies that the Sair ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz, like the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh bi'Fenim, atones for sins of which one was aware - at the end but not at the beginning. 2
See Torah Torah Temimah, note 14.
Whereas the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh biu'Fenim works in the revers - it atones for sins of which one was aware at the beginning but at the end. See Torah Temimah in Achrei-Mos Vayikra, 16:6, citing Shevu'os, 8b.
Why does the Torah say that this is not the Chatas ha'Kipurim mentioned in Vayikra (16:9), but does not say the same about the Olah?
Ramban (in Pasuk 6): Because, whereas the Olah mentioned here is clearly not the same as the one mentioned in Vayikra 16:5, 1 one might have thought that the Chatas mentioned here is synonymous with the Chatas Penimi. 2
Rebbi (in Yoma 70b): Because the ram of the Olas ha'Am mentioned in Vayikra 16:5 is, in fact, the ram mentioned here.
Meshech Chachmah: According to R. Shimon ben Elazar (Yoma 70b), who holds that Olas ha'Am is not from the Musaf, the Torah could not write 'mi'Levad, because it woud imply that it had Nesachim even in the Midbar, like the Olos here, whereas really, it was like a Korban Yachid, and did not require Nesachim until after conquest and division of Eretz Yisrael. It wrote mi'Levad about the Chatas, which has no Nesachim.
Ramban: They are different inasmuch as there, it mentions only a ram for an Olah. Therefore, it is not necessary to say 'mi'Levad? "(The Meshech Chachmah questions this.
Ramban: The Torah therefore wrote ?mi'Levad ? ?, to teach us that the Chatas here is not synonymous with the Chatas Penimi mentioned there.
Why does the Torah not add the word "Lechaper" with regard to the Chatas?
Ba'al ha'Turim: Because the day of Yom Kipur itself atones.
Why does the Torah write ?Mil?vad Chatas ha?Kipurim? immediately after the Sa?ir of the Musaf?
Yoma, 70b: To teach us that, although the Sa?ir is part of the Musaf, the rest of which was brought earlier, it is brought after the Avodas ha?Yom. 1
Shevu?os, 2a: To teach us that, the Sa?ir of the Musaf - whose blood is sprinkled outside on the Mizbe?ach ha?Chitzon, like the Chatas ha?Kipurim - whose blood was sprinkled inside on the Mizbe?ach ha?Ketores, comes to atone for Tum?as Mikdash ve?Kodashav of which the owner was not initially aware, 2 but was aware at the end - of the Tum?ah and that it was Yom Kipur. 3
What is "u?Minchasah ve'Niskeihem" referrng to?
Rashi: It refers to the Olos of the Musaf (in Pasuk 8), and regarding "Ta'asu" 1 , it is a command to offer the Musaf of Yom Kipur and its Nesachim, in addition to the Tamid and its Nesech. 2
See Sifsei Chachamim. Refer also to 29:11:152:1
Rashi: As is the case with every "ve'Niskeihem" mentioned in the Parshah, with the exception of Sukos, where every mention of "ve'Niskah", "ve'Niskeihem" and "u'Nesachehah" refers only to the Tamid, since the Nesachim of the Musaf are written explicitly, and it is not a command. Gur Aryeh ? Here, it is as if it says Ta'asu? ve'Niskeihem. On Sukos, ve'Niskeihem refers to "mi'Levad".
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "Chatas ha'Kipurim" is the goat whose blood is brought inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, Why did he omit the bull, which is also a Chatas, and whose blood is also brought inside?
Chizkuni: Here we are discussing Korbanos that the Tzibur buy, as opposed to the bull, which Kohen Gadol buys and which the Pasuk does therefore not discuss.
Rashi writes that "ve'Niskeihem" refers to Olos of the Musaf and "Ta'asu". What forced him to say this? Moreover, "Ta'asu" is not written in this Parshah?
Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh: "ve'Niskeihem" cannot refer to the Chatas, which has no Nesachim, nor to the Tamid, which is singular. It must refer to the Olos of the Musaf, It is as if it is written 'mi'Levad Olas ha'Tamid Ta'asu Olos Eilu.'
