QUESTION: Rebbi Avahu explains why the Torah mentions the punishment of Kares in three verses with regard to a Tamei person who eats the meat of a Korban Shelamim. The first verse states, "Any man who shall come near [to eat]... the consecrated meat that the Jewish people bring to Hash-m, and his Tum'ah is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me" (Vayikra 22:3).

The second verse states, "The person who will eat from the Korban Shelamim that is for Hash-m at the time that the state of Tum'ah is upon him... his soul shall be cut off from its people" (Vayikra 7:20).

The third verse states, "Any soul who touches any impurity...and eats from the meat of the Shelamim...will be cut off from its people" (Vayikra 7:21).

Rebbi Avahu explains that the first verse teaches a Klal, a general rule that all forms of Kodshim are included in the prohibition against eating Kodshim when one is Tamei (see Rashi DH Achas). The second verse is required to teach a Prat, a specific detail in the law. Rashi (DH Achas) writes that since the first verse discusses all forms of Kodshim, and the second and third verses refer specifically to a Korban Shelamim, one of those two specific verses teaches that only forms of Kodshim which are similar to a Korban Shelamim are included in the prohibition.

Accordingly, only Kodshei Mizbe'ach (animals fit to be offered on the Mizbe'ach) are included in the prohibition, but not Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (inanimate items consecrated for the upkeep of the Beis ha'Mikdash).

The third verse teaches that one is liable even when he eats an inedible item when he is Tamei, like the wood of the fire on the Mizbe'ach, or the incense offering. The Gemara adds that according to Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that a Tamei person is not liable for eating inedible items from the Mizbe'ach, the third verse teaches that even if one eats a Chatas ha'Penimis (a Chatas offered inside the Heichal), he is liable.

Why does Rebbi Shimon need a special verse to include a Chatas ha'Penimis in this law? The Gemara explains that Rebbi Shimon maintains that any Korban that differs from a Korban Shelamim and is not offered on the Mizbe'ach in the Azarah cannot make one liable for Pigul. Accordingly, it is possible that he also maintains that one who is Tamei is not liable for eating the Chatas ha'Penimis, since it is not offered on the outer Mizbe'ach. The third verse therefore teaches that one indeed is liable for eating a Chatas ha'Penimis when he is impure.

The RITVA asks that the third verse could teach something else. Many forms of Kodshim are offered on the outer Mizbe'ach but never become permitted to eat. For example, the Kometz of a Minchah, the Minchas Nesachim, and the Minchas Kohanim are offered on the outer Mizbe'ach but may not be eaten. What is the source that a Tamei person who eats these forms of Kodshim is liable?

The Ritva adds that the Gemara in Zevachim (44a) states that only parts of Korbanos that eventually become permitted to be eaten can become Pigul. Accordingly, one is not liable for Pigul if the part of the Korban which is in question would never become permitted to be eaten. This means that the Gemara's logic for why a verse is needed to include a Chatas ha'Penimis similarly applies to these Korbanos. One would have thought that just as one is not liable when he eats these Korbanos when a Kohen had Pigul thoughts about them, so, too, he should not be liable when he eats these Korbanos in a state of impurity.

Why does the Gemara not say that this is the law derived from the third verse which mentions that one who eats Shelamim while Tamei receives Kares?

ANSWER: The Ritva answers that this law is already derived from the second verse. The verse states, "The person who will eat from the Korban Shelamim that is for Hash-m...." The Gemara in Zevachim (36b) explains that the words, "that is for Hash-m," teach that one who is Tamei is liable for eating from the limbs of Kodshim Kalim that are offered on the Mizbe'ach (even though they are for Hash-m and are not permitted to be eaten, even by one who is Tahor).

If one who is Tamei is liable for eating limbs which must be burned on the Mizbe'ach and which are never permitted to be eaten, then one similarly is liable for eating any of the items mentioned above, such as the Kometz, Minchas Nesachim, and Minchas Kohen.

In contrast, the two examples which the Gemara here mentions, inedible items and Chatas ha'Penimis, cannot be derived from the teaching in Zevachim (36b). Inedible items cannot be derived because the verse is discussing a person who "eats meat," which suggests that one who is Tamei is liable for Kares only when he eats edible items of Kodshim.

Liability for eating a Chatas ha'Penimis also cannot be derived from this verse, because this type of Chatas is not considered "for Hash-m," since it is burned outside of Yerushalayim and not on the Mizbe'ach. This is why the Gemara chooses to include either inedible items or the Chatas ha'Penimis in the teaching of the third verse, and not other things that are not permitted to be eaten. (D. BLOOM)

QUESTION: The verse states that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh bi'Fnim, the goat offered by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, the blood of which is sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, atones for the "impurities of the Jewish people" (Vayikra 16:6). The Beraisa says that this may refer to the three major impurities (sins) of Bnei Yisrael: idolatry, immorality, and murder. The Beraisa later rejects this possibility and concludes that the Sa'ir atones for the impurities of the Beis ha'Mikdash and its holy vessels.

The Gemara (end of 7b) asks, what did the Beraisa mean when it originally suggested that the Sa'ir atones for idolatry? Certainly, the Beraisa could not have meant that the Sa'ir atones for intentional idol-worship, because the perpetrator in such a case is Chayav Misah, and he cannot be exonerated with the offering of a Korban. If the idol was worshipped accidentally, then the perpetrator is obligated to bring the special Korban Chatas for such a sin (Bamidbar 15:27). How could the Beraisa originally have suggested that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh bi'Fnim atones for idol worship?

Why does the Gemara not address the possibility that perhaps the Torah is teaching that this special offering on Yom Kippur indeed atones for both deliberate and inadvertent sins of idolatry? (RITVA)

ANSWER: The RITVA (see also TOSFOS DH Iy b'Shogeg) answers that the Gemara's source that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh bi'Fnim does not atone for idolatry is the Gemara in Kerisus (25a). The Mishnah there states that one who is obligated to bring a Chatas or an Asham for a sin he committed must bring his Korban even if Yom Kippur passes before he has brought his Korban.

The Gemara there (25b) discusses at length the source that the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach itself does not atone for these transgressions. The Gemara concludes that this is derived from various verses. The Gemara there (26a) also states that if one is liable for lashes and Yom Kippur passes, he is not exempt from the lashes. It follows that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh bi'Fnim does not effect any such atonement.

Moreover, the two Se'irim are compared to each other in the verse, "And he shall take the two Se'irim" (Vayikra 16:7). Accordingly, just as the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach does not atone for the sins for which individuals must bring Korbanos, the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh bi'Fnim also does not atone for such sins. (D. BLOOM)