YOM KIPUR EXEMPTS UNKNOWN SINS
(Rav Tachlifa): Yom Kipur does not exempt a Chiyuv to be lashed.
Objection: This is obvious. It is just like a Chiyuv to bring a Chatas or Asham Vadai!
Answer: One might have thought that Yom Kipur does not exempt,Korbanos, which are like monetary obligations, but it exempts lashes, which are a bodily punishment. Rav Tachlifa teaches that this is not so.
Question (Mishnah): Yom Kipur atones whether or not the sin is known, for an Aseh or Lav...
Answer: It atones for a Lav if he was not warned, but not if he was warned.
Question: A Safek Yoledes should be exempt after Yom Kipur. Since only Hash-m knows, Yom Kipur is Mechaper!
Answer (R. Hoshaya): Yom Kipur atones "l'Chol Chatosam," but not for Tum'ah.
Question: R. Shimon says that a Yoledes sins. (Amidst the pain, she swears that she will not have children again.) He should say that Yom Kipur atones for a Safek Yoledes!
Answer: (He agrees that) Korban Yoledes is to permit her to eat Kodshim, and not for Kaparah. (Rather, the pain of birth (Rashi; R. Gershom - guarding Yemei Tum'ah and Yemei Tohar) atones for her.)
Support (Rav Ashi - Mishnah): If a woman was doubtfully obligated to bring a Chatas ha'Of, and Yom Kipur passed, she must bring it afterwards, for it permits her to eat Kodshim;
Question: A Safek Metzora should be exempt after Yom Kipur, since only Hash-m knows!
Answer (R. Oshaya): Yom Kipur atones "l'Chol Chatosam," but not for Tum'ah.
Question: R. Shmuel bar Nachmani taught that Tzara'as comes for seven Aveiros!
Answer: Korbanos Metzora are to permit him to eat Kodshim, but not for Kaparah. (The Tzara'as atoned for him.)
Question: A doubtfully Tamei Nazir should be exempt after Yom Kipur!
Answer (R. Oshaya): Yom Kipur atones "l'Chol Chatosam," but not for Tum'ah.
Question: According to R. Eliezer ben Hakapar, who says that a Nazir sins (he pains himself), how can we answer?
Answer: Korbanos Nazir Tamei are to enable him to begin Nezirus Taharah, but not for Kaparah. (The disgrace of having to let his hair grow (Rashi; R. Gershom - of having to shave it) atones for him.)
Question: A Safek Sotah should be exempt (from bringing a Minchah) after Yom Kipur!
Answer #1 (R. Oshaya): Yom Kipur atones "l'Chol Chatosam," but not for Tum'ah.
Answer #2 (Abaye): (She and) the man with whom she was secluded know(s) whether or not she sinned.
Answer #3 (Rava): Minchas Sotah is to enable the water to test her, and not for Kaparah.
Question: Yom Kipur should exempt from bringing Eglah Arufah! (We do not know who killed the victim.)
Answer #1 (Abaye): The murderer knows that he sinned.
Answer #2 (Rava): "Vela'Aretz Lo Yechupar (... Ki Im b'Dam Shofcho" teaches that when the murderer is known there is no substitute for killing him. Rashi - likewise, when he is not known, there is no substitute for Eglah Arufah. Rashash - Eglah Arufah helps to find the murderer so we can kill him. Rambam (cited in Ramban on Devarim 21:4) - people will discuss the murder. Targum Yonason ben Uzi'el (21:8) - worms will go from the calf to the murderer and come upon him.)
Answer #3 (Rav Papa): "Kaper l'Amcha Yisrael Asher Padisa Hash-m" teaches that Eglah Arufah is worthy to atone for those who left Mitzrayim (many years ago. This shows that Yom Kipur did not atone for this.)
ONE IS LIABLE AFTER YOM KIPUR
Question: If Yom Kipur atones for Chet known only to Hash-m, one should be exempt from a Chatas after Yom Kipur, even if he finds out that he definitely sinned!
Answer #1 (R. Ze'ira): It says "Oh Hoda" three times, regarding the Chata'os of a Yachid (commoner), a Nasi and the Tzibur. The repetition(s) obligate whenever one finds out, even after Yom Kipur.
Question: They are not extra. It needed to say "Oh Hoda" regarding each!
We could not learn Nasi or Tzibur from Yachid, for a Yachid brings a female, but they bring males! (Rashi - the Torah is more stringent about them. Perhaps they bring Chatas even for Safek. Shitah - perhaps two witnesses can obligate a Nasi to bring a Chatas even if he contradicts them. Alternatively, male Chata'os atone more, even for what was not yet known. If Reuven ate Chelev twice in one He'elem, found out about one of them and brought a Chatas, it would atone for both, even if he later found out about the other.)
We could not learn Yachid from Nasi. A Nasi is exempt from Shevu'as ha'Edus. (The Torah is more stringent about a Yachid. He is liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus!)
We could not learn the Tzibur from Nasi. A Nasi sometimes brings a female Chatas (for Avodah Zarah), but the Tzibur always brings males!
We could not learn Yachid or Nasi from the Tzibur. The Tzibur is liable only for He'elem Davar and Shigegas Ma'aseh (the Sanhedrin erred, and the majority of Yisrael sinned)!
Answer: One of them could be learned from the others.
Suggestion: We could learn Yachid from the others.
Rejection: The Tzibur and Nasi are exempt from Shevu'as ha'Edus, but a Yachid is liable!
Suggestion: We could learn Tzibur from the others.
Rejection: Yachid and Nasi (sometimes) bring females, but the Tzibur never does!
Conclusion: We could learn Nasi from the others. (We adopt Rashi's text.)
Suggestion: We cannot learn from Yachid, for his Chatas is always a female!
Rejection: Tzibur is Yochi'ach (shows that this is not the determining factor. It does not bring a Chatas for Safek, even though) it never brings a female!
Suggestion: We cannot learn from Tzibur, for it is liable only for He'elem Davar.
Rejection: Yachid is Yochi'ach. He is liable for Shigegas Ma'aseh alone!
Summation of Answer (#1): "Oh Hoda" regarding Nasi is extra, for Nasi could have been learned from the others. These words obligate a Chatas when one finds out after Yom Kipur.
Objection (Abaye): We cannot learn Nasi from the others, for they are not prone to change status, but a Nasi could be deposed and revert to be like a Yachid! (Be'er Sheva asks that a Yachid could be appointed Nasi! Mitzpeh Eisan - the chance that a particular Yachid will be appointed Nasi is much less than the chance that a particular Nasi will be deposed. Shitah - we ask from a Mamzer, who cannot be appointed Nasi. (Presumably he means that because some Yechidim cannot change, we cannot learn from any Yachid.) Birkas ha'Zevach - alternatively, only a Nasi can change status for the worse.)
Answer #2 (to Question (a) - Abaye): Each of these can be learned from the others through a Gezeirah Shavah "Mitzvos-Mitzvos." It would have sufficed to write "Oh Hoda" regarding one of them;
The repetitions obligate whenever one finds out, even after Yom Kipur.
Question: Perhaps one must bring when he finds out (that he sinned) after Yom Kipur, for Yom Kipur does not atone specifically for that Chet, but if he finds out after bringing Asham Taluy, which atones specifically for that Chet, he is exempt!
Answer (Rava): "Oh Hoda Elav" obligates in any case. (When he finds out, he brings a Chatas.)
Question: Since he is liable even after bringing Asham Taluy, why is Asham Taluy brought?
Answer #1 (R. Zeira): In case he will die without finding out, he will die without this sin.
Objection (Rava): Death itself atones!
Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, it protects him from punishment (in this world).
CHATAS HA'OF BROUGHT FOR A SAFEK
(Mishnah): If Chatas ha'Of was brought mi'Safek (and the doubt was resolved after Melikah, it must be buried).
(Rav): It was Mechaper.
Question: If it was Mechaper, why must it be buried?
Answer #1: Kohanim did not expect to eat it, so it was not guarded well (from Tum'ah). Therefore it must be buried.
Objection: When was it not guarded well?
We are not concerned while it was alive (it is not Mekabel Tum'ah then);
After Melikah, the Kohen guards it! (Aruch la'Ner - Kaparah requires Yedi'ah. We must say that the doubt was resolved before Haza'ah. This must be immediately after Melikah, or else the blood would drip out! In any case, the Kohen must guard it from Tum'ah until finishing its Avodah! - PF)
Answer #2: The Mishnah discusses when she learned that she was really exempt;
Letter of the law, one may benefit from it (like any other Chulin Nevelah. Shitah - This is like the opinion that Chulin b'Azarah is only mid'Rabanan. Rashi - the Isur of Chulin b'Azarah applies to slaughter, but not to Melikah. Aruch la'Ner - Rashi explains like R. Yosi. Rashi above (7b) and the Gemara in Nazir (29b) say that Chulin b'Azarah applies to Melikah. Those Gemaros are like R. Meir, who says that Melikah is in place of Shechitah);
Chachamim decreed to bury it, lest people think that one may benefit from a Chatas ha'Of brought for an (unresolved) Safek.
Rav discusses a different case.
(Mishnah): If a woman brought a Chatas ha'Of Al Safek, and found out before Melikah that she is definitely obligated, it is offered for a Chatas ha'Of Vadai, for the same Korban brought for Vadai is brought for Safek. (We adopt Shitah's alternate text.)
Question: If she learned after Melikah that she was obligated, what is the law?
Answer #1 (Rav): We do Haza'ah and Mitzuy. It is Mechaper, and it may be eaten.
Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): (We do Haza'ah and Mitzuy. It is Mechaper, but) it may not be eaten. This is a decree, lest people think that one may eat a Chatas ha'Of ha'Ba Al Safek;
Support (for Rav - Levi - Beraisa): If one brought a Chatas ha'Of Al Safek, and found out after Melikah that she was obligated, we do Haza'ah and Mitzuy. It is Mechaper, and it may be eaten.
Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If one brought a Chatas ha'Of Al Safek, and found out before Melikah that she is exempt, it becomes Chulin, or she may sell it to someone else who needs to bring a Chatas ha'Of;
If she found out before Melikah that she is obligated, she offers it for a Chatas ha'Of Vadai, for the same Korban brought for Vadai is brought for Safek;
Version #1 (our text): If she found out after Melikah that she was obligated, one may not benefit from it - it was brought due to Safek, it was Mechaper. (Rashash - "it was Mechaper" implies that Haza'ah and Mitzuy were done. Rav could agree that it is forbidden (Tosfos 22b). However, the Beraisa connotes that it is forbidden mid'Oraisa, therefore R. Yochanan's decree (when she found out between Melikah and Haza'ah) is reasonable.)
Version #2 (Shitah): If she found out after Melikah that she was obligated, we do Haza'ah and Mitzuy. It is Mechaper; but it may not be eaten;
If she found out after Mitzuy that she was obligated, it was Mechaper; and it is forbidden.
MISUSE OF DEMEI ASHAM
(Mishnah): If one was Makdish two Sela'im for an Asham (e.g. for Shifchah Charufah; the same applies to Asham Gezeilah, Me'ilah or Taluy) and used it to buy two rams (for Acharayus, i.e. in case one of them will become lost or Pasul):
If one of them is worth two Sela'im, he offers it for his Asham. The other (is Mosar Asham; it) grazes (until it gets a Mum. Its redemption money goes to Nedavah, i.e. to bring voluntary Olos of the Tzibur when the Mizbe'ach is idle. Shitah - this is like R. Yehudah, who holds that one who changes Hekdesh to a different Hekdesh does not transgress Me'ilah. Alternatively, we discuss one who was Mezid (unlike the coming clauses), therefore there is no Me'ilah.)
If he used the two Sela'im to buy two rams for Chulin (he transgressed Me'ilah. He must also bring Asham Me'ilah and pay the Keren (principal) of his theft (misappropriation of two Sela'im of Hekdesh) and an added Chomesh (which is a quarter of the principal, i.e. two Zuz). The money is spent to buy a replacement Asham Shifchah. If there is excess, it is Mosar Asham, i.e. Nedavah.)
If one animal is worth two Sela'im, and the other is worth 10 Zuz, the first is offered for his Asham, the latter for Me'ilaso (this will be explained).
If he used it to buy two rams, one for his Asham and one for Chulin (he transgressed Me'ilah with a Sela of Mosar Asham, i.e. what remained after buying his Asham):
If the Asham is worth two Sela'im, he offers it for Asham and the other (if it is worth two Sela'im) for Me'ilaso, and he brings with it a Sela and its Chomesh (given for Nedavah, to pay for Me'ilaso).
(Gemara) Question: In the Reisha (b:1), what is the meaning of "the latter for Me'ilaso"?
Answer #1: He offers it for Asham Me'ilah. (He is Makdish the first animal and offers it for Asham Shifchah. This is payment of Keren, since the money stolen was Hukdash for this.) He fulfills paying Chomesh through the Asham Me'ilah (since it is two Zuz more than its required value).
Objection #1: "V'Es Asher Chota Min ha'Kodesh Yeshalem v'Es Chamishiso Yosef Alav" teaches that the Chomesh must be together with the Keren!
Objection #2 (Seifa): If he used it to buy two rams, one for his Asham and one for Chulin, if the Asham is worth two Sela'im, he offers it for Asham and the other for Me'ilaso, and he brings with it a Sela and its Chomesh. (Here, the Asham Shifchah is not payment of Keren or Chomesh, for it is already Kodesh. Rashi - even if the Asham Me'ilah is worth nine Zuz, the extra Zuz cannot count for payment of Chomesh, because Chomesh must be paid together with Keren. Mishneh l'Melech (Me'ilah 4:6) asks that it cannot count for Chomesh because Chomesh must go to the same Kedushah as Keren (here, Mosar Asham). We cannot derive that they must be given together! Aruch la'Ner answers, before the Asham Shifchah is offered, the Chiyuv is to return money to Kedushas Asham (only afterwards it is Mosar). If one would not need to pay Chomesh with Keren, one could fulfill Chomesh through bringing an Asham Me'ilah worth nine Zuz!)
Answer #2: In the Reisha, "Me'ilaso" refers to what he misappropriated from Hekdesh, i.e. two Sela'im;
The two Sela'im animal is offered for Asham (Me'ilah). The 10 Zuz animal (is offered for Asham Shifchah, like the Kedushah of the money used to buy it. This) pays back the Keren and Chomesh of his theft;
"Me'ilaso" means 'his theft.'
Question (Seifa): If he used it to buy one ram for his Asham and one for Chulin, if the Asham is worth two Sela'im, he offers it for Asham and the other for Me'ilaso, and he brings with it a Sela and its Chomesh. (Clearly, "Asham" refers to Asham Shifchah, for it received this Kedushah from the money and never lost it. He pays Keren and Chomesh in addition to "Me'ilaso". Here, "Me'ilaso" must refer to Asham Me'ilah!)
Does "Me'ilaso" mean "his theft" in the Reisha, and "Asham Me'ilah" in the Seifa?!