1)

(a)Our Mishnah draws a distinction between a Kometz which is Tamei and one which is Yotzei - in that the Tzitz atones for the former, but not for the latter.

(b)In fact - the Tzitz even permits the Shirayim of a Tamei Minchah to be eaten by the Kohanim.

(c)According to the Beraisa, when the Torah writes in Tetzaveh (in connection with the Tzitz) "Ve'nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodashim", it cannot refer to the sin of ...

1. ... Pigul - since the Torah writes there "Lo Yechashev".

2. ... Nosar - since there the Torah writes "Lo Yeratzeh".

(d)The Pasuk refers to the sin of Tum'ah rather than that of Pigul and Nosar - because Tum'ah already enjoys a special dispensation with regard to a Tzibur (where the Torah writes "be'Mo'ado", 'Afilu be'Tum'ah').

2)

(a)Rebbi Zeira suggests that maybe it pertains to the sin of Yotzei - since it too, has a special dispensation by Bamos (which have no curtains behind which to restrict a Korban).

(b)Abaye quotes the Pasuk there "le'Ratzon lahem Lifnei Hash-m" which serves to refute Rebbi Zeira's suggestion, by virtue of the fact that - "Lifnei Hash-m" implies a sin that takes place bi'Fenim, and not by a Bamah.

(c)And, based on the key Pasuk "Avon ha'Kodashim", Abaye refutes Rebbi Ila'a's suggestion, that perhaps it comes to atone for the sin of S'mol (using the left hand), which is permitted on Yom Kipur (by the Kaf and the Machtah) - because "Avon" by definition, means a sin, to preclude S'mol, which (as opposed to Bamah) in the context of the Kaf and the Machtah, is not a sin, since that is the way the Avodah is meant to be performed.

(d)Rav Ashi answers differently. He extrapolates from the Lashon "Avon ha'Kodashim" that - the Tzitz comes to atone for the sin of the Kodshim (Tum'ah), and not for the sin of the Kohanim who sacrifice it (S'mol).

3)

(a)Rav Sima b'rei de'Rav Idi (or b'rei de'Rav Ashi) suggests to Rav Ashi that perhaps the Tzitz atones for the sin of Ba'al-Mum - which enjoys a special dispensation by birds (as Mar said ... Ein Tamus ve'Zachrus be'Ofos) ...

(b)... to which Rav Ashi replies that - the Torah specifically writes in Emor (in connection with bringing a Ba'al-Mum on the Mizbe'ach)- "Ki Lo le'Ratzon Yih'yeh lachem" (barring the Tzitz for atoning for it).

4)

(a)The Beraisa draws a distinction between Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko be'Shogeg and Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko be'Meizid - inasmuch as - in the case of the former, the Tzitz atones, whereas in the case of the latter, it does not.

(b)This distinction does not apply - to a Korban Tzibur, by which the Tzitz atones even be'Meizid.

(c)The Beraisa adds - u've'Oved-Kochavim, bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid, bein be'Oneis bein be'Ratzon, Lo Hurtzah ...

(d)... which we learn - from the Pasuk "le'Ratzon lahem", 've'Lo le'Ovdei-Kochavim'.

5)

(a)We query the previous Beraisa from another Beraisa, which rules that - Tzitz atones for the Dam, the Basar and the Cheilev of a Korban that is Tamei ...

(b)... and it atones bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid, bein be'Oneis bein be'Ratzon, bein be'Yachid bein be'Tzibur.

6)

(a)Rav Yosef tries to connect the two Beraisos to a Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan in a third Beraisa - where the Tana forbids separating Terumah from Tamei crops on to Tahor ones.

(b)The Tana Kama draws a distinction between whether one did so Bedi'eved be'Shogeg - in which case the Terumah is valid, or be'Meizid - in which case it is not.

(c)Rebbi Yossi maintains that - either way, it is valid.

(d)Rav Yosef equates the ruling of Rebbi Yossi with that of the second Beraisa in that - in both cases, the Tana does not penalize the sinner, even though he sinned be'Meizid.

7)

(a)We query Rav Yosef's suggestion that the authors of the two Beraisos are the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yossi, respectively, by countering that even Rebbi Yossi might not agree with the latter Beraisa concerning Ritzuy Tzitz - because the fact that he does not penalize the person for taking Terumah from Tamei crops on to Tahor ones, does not mean that he is also lenient with regard to Ritzuy Tzitz (by Kodshim).

(b)In fact, we assume that Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the fact that the Tzitz atones even for Achilos (to permit the Kohanim to eat the Basar), since in another Beraisa, he argues with Rebbi Eliezer who holds ha'Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos.

(c)To answer that - Rav Yosef will simply switch the opinions in the latter Beraisa - Rebbi Eliezer will hold that the Tzitz does not atone for Achilos, whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that it does.

(d)We query this answer too however, with another Beraisa, where, based on the Pasuk in Tzav "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar ... ve'ha'Nefesh asher Tochal Basar mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim ... ve'Tum'aso alav, ve'Nichr'sah", the Tana rules that - one is only Chayav Kareis for eating be'Tum'ah Kodshim that are permitted to Tehorim, but not Kodshim that are forbidden ...

(e)... exempting a Tamei person who eats Kodshim before the Zerikas ha'Dam, from Kareis.

8)

(a)When we suggest Ne'echal li'Tehorin Chayavin Alav Mishum Tum'ah, ve'she'Eino Ne'echal li'Tehorim, Ein Chayavin alav ... , we mean that - perhaps the Torah is coming to preclude Lan and Yotzei (which are Nitar but not Ne'echal).

(b)We ...

1. ... initially include - Pigulin and Nosaros from "asher la'Hashem" ...

2. ... but ultimately preclude them from "mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim", 've'Lo Kol Zevach'.

(c)Bearing in mind that Nosaros is synonymous with Lan, when the Beraisa says (after having included Lan and Yotzei) Yachol she'Ani Marbeh es ha'Pigulin *ve'es ha'Nosaros*, it really means to say - ... es ha'Pigulin *ke'Nosaros'*.

(d)Now that we have one Pasuk to include Kareis for eating Kodshim be'Tum'as ha'Guf, and one Pasuk to preclude it, we opt to include Lan and Yotzei, and exclude Basar which became Tamei before the Zerikas Dam - since the former were initially permitted, whereas the latter were not.

9)

(a)We now query Rav Yosef, who switched the opinions of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yossi (regarding Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos). We know that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer - because he is the one who holds Ein Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei ...

(b)... yet the Beraisa also holds that the Tzitz atones for Achilos, like Rebbi Eliezer said in the Beraisa above (a Kashya on Rav Yosef who switched that opinion to that of Rebbi Yossi).

10)

(a)Rav Chisda finally resolves the original discrepancy between the two Beraisos - by presenting the author of the second Beraisa as Rebbi Eliezer (and not as Rebbi Yossi).

(b)And we know that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the ruling in the second Beraisa, which does not penalize even the sinner who sinned be'Meizid - because we have a specific Beraisa to the effect that he validates the Terumah, even if it was made Tamei, be'Meizid.

(c)We must assume that Rebbi Eliezer is lenient by Kodshim just as he is lenient with regard to Terumah - because otherwise, who is the author of the second Beraisa?

11)

(a)Ravina resolves the initial discrepancy differently. He draws a distinction between the Tum'ah and the Zerikah regarding Shogeg and Meizid - permitting the former even be'Meizid, as long as the latter was performed be'Shogeg.

(b)Consequently, he establishes ...

1. ... the first Beraisa, which differentiates between Shogeg and Meizid - by the Zerikah.

2. ... the second Beraisa, which does not - by the Tum'ah (as the respective Lashon in each Beraisa implies).

(c)According to Rav Shilo however - it does not matter whether the Zerikah is performed be'Shogeg or be'Meizid. Provided the Tum'ah occurred be'Shogeg, the Tzitz atones.

(d)And he explains the Lashon of ...

1. ... the second Beraisa ' ... she'Nitma bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid to mean - Nitma be'Shogeg; ve'Zarko, bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid.

2. ... another Beraisa, which states Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko be'Shogeg Hurtzah; be'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah to mean - Dam she'Nitmah ve'Zarko, Nitma be'Shogeg Hurtzah; be'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah'.