Answer #2 (Abaye): The Beraisa can be R. Yehudah. It asked as follows:

Question: We should say that the bull does not atone for them for Tum'ah of the Mikdash or Kodshim, and nothing would atone for them for Tum'ah!

Answer #1: "Yechaper v'Al ha'Kohanim" proves that they get atonement for other transgressions;

Since they get atonement for other transgressions, presumably they get atonement also for Tum'ah.

It is more reasonable to say that they get atonement through the Kohen Gadol's bull, for it atones for more than it says. It atones also for "Beiso";

We do not find that the inner goat atones for more than Yisraelim.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we can learn from "Beis Aharon Borechu Es Hash-m."

Question: What forced the Tana to give an alternative answer? How could one challenge the first answer?

Answer: The Torah says (only) "Beiso". Therefore, the Tana shows that all Kohanim are called Beiso.

Question: (Above, we learned from "la'Am" that the inner goat does not atone for Kohanim.) We need "la'Am" to teach that the congregation pays for it!

Answer: That is learned from "ume'Es Adas Bnei Yisrael."

Question: (Above, we thought to learn from "Asher Lo" that the bull does not atone for Kohanim.) "Asher Lo" is needed to teach the following!

(Beraisa): The Kohen Gadol pays for the bull himself. The congregation does not pay;

Suggestion: Perhaps the congregation does not pay, because it does not atone for them, but Kohanim pay, for it atones for them!

Rejection: "Asher Lo."

Suggestion: Perhaps the Kohanim should not pay, but if they did, it is Kosher!

Rejection: Another verse repeats "Asher Lo" to teach that even b'Diavad, it is invalid.

Answer: The Tana asked, just like goat of the congregation does not atone for the Kohanim, because they do not pay for it, also the bull should not atone for Kohanim, for also they do not pay for it!

He answered that Kohanim are called Beiso.

Question: According to R. Shimon, we understand why the Torah teaches about two confessions (over the bull) and the (sprinkling of its) blood. These atone for the Kohanim for the three atonements Yisraelim get from the inner and outer goats and the goat that is sent;

However, according to R. Yehudah, the goat that is sent atones also for Kohanim. One confession and the blood should suffice!

Answer: The extra confession is to atone for himself before he atones for the Kohanim;

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): It is proper that the one making atonement for others should already have atonement himself.

(Mishnah): There are two primary Yedi'os (awarenesses) of Tum'ah. There are four in all:

He knew that he became Tamei, then forgot and knowingly ate Kodshim;

He knew that he became Tamei, then forgot (that this meat is) Kodesh and ate it;

He forgot the Tum'ah and the Kodesh, and after eating it he found out. In all these cases, he brings an Oleh v'Yored.

He knew that he became Tamei, then forgot and knowingly entered the Mikdash;

He knew that he became Tamei, then forgot the (place of the) Mikdash and entered;

He forgot the Tum'ah and the Mikdash, and after he left he found out. In all these cases, he brings an Oleh v'Yored.

The same law applies to one who enters the Azarah (Chatzer) of the Mikdash, or a (valid) addition to it;

To add onto Yerushalayim or the Azarah, we need a king, a Navi, the Urim v'Tumim, the great Sanhedrin of 71, two of the loaves that accompaniy a Korban Todah, and Shirah. Beis Din must walk (around the addition) , with the loaves after them, and all of Yisrael after them.

The inner loaf is eaten, and the outer loaf is burned.

If an addition was made without all this, one who enters there (b'Tum'ah) is exempt.

If one became Tamei in the Azarah, then forgot the Tum'ah but remembered (that he was in) the Azarah; or, if he remembered that he was Tamei, but forgot the Azarah; or, he forgot both:

If he bowed (before leaving), or delayed the time needed to bow, or did not leave on the shortest path, he is liable;

If he left on the shortest path, he is exempt.

This is a Mitzvas Aseh (that he must leave on the shortest path) to which the Korbanos for a mistaken Hora'ah (ruling of the great Sanhedrin which caused most of Yisrael to transgress a Mitzvah involving Kares) do not apply.

There is a Mitzvas Aseh regarding Nidah to which the Korbanos for a mistaken Hora'ah do apply:

If a woman told her husband during relations that she felt a flow of blood that makes her a Nidah, if he withdraws the Ever (while it is still in erection), he is Chayav Kares, because withdrawing it is pleasurable, just like inserting it. (Rather, he must not withdraw it until the erection ceases.)

R. Eliezer says, "Sheretz Tamei v'Nelam" teaches that he brings a Korban only if he forgot the Tum'ah, but not if he forgot the Mikdash;

R. Akiva says, "v'Nelam Mimenu v'Hu Tamei" - he brings a Korban only if he forgot the Tum'ah, but not if he forgot the Mikdash. (The Gemara will explain what they argue about.)

R. Yishmael says, it says 'v'Ne'elam' twice, to obligate in both cases, i.e. forgetting the Tum'ah or the Mikdash.

(Gemara - Rav Papa) Question: Why does the Mishnah say that there are four Yedi'os in all? Really there are six!

There is Yedi'ah of the Tum'ah at the beginning and at the end;

There is Yedi'ah of the Kodesh at the beginning and at the end;

There is Yedi'ah of the Mikdash at the beginning and at the end!

Question: Why didn't Rav Papa say that there are eight cases?

Each of the two Yedi'os of Tum'ah is really two cases, i.e. when he later ate Kodshim, or entered the Mikdash!

Answer: Both are considered a Yedi'ah of Tum'ah, so we do not distinguish them.

Answer (Rav Papa): Really, there are eight Yedi'os (like suggested above);

Version #1: The Tana counts only the four Yedi'os at the end, for these Yedi'os cause him to bring a Korban.

Version #2: The Tana counts only the four Yedi'os at the beginning, for these are unique to Tum'ah in the Mikdash or with Kodshim;

Regarding other Aveiros for which one bring a Korban, one is liable even if he had Yedi'ah only at the end.

Question (Rav Papa): What is the law if he forgot the laws of Tum'ah?

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: He does not know which rodents are Metamei and which are not.

Rejection: Even children learn this. Surely lack of this Yedi'ah does not exempt him!

Answer: Rather, he knows which rodents are Metamei, but he did not know whether a lentil's worth of a rodent is Metamei.

Is knowing that rodents are Metamei considered Yedi'ah?

Or, since he did not know whether a lentil's worth is Metamei, it is not Yedi'ah?

This question is not resolved.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If someone from Bavel never knew where the Mikdash is (and entered while Tamei), what is the law?

Question: According to whom does he ask?

Suggestion: He asks according to R. Akiva, who obligates obligates a Korban only if he knew at the beginning.

Rejection: R. Akiva does not obligate for forgetting the place of the Mikdash!

Suggestion: He asks according to R. Yishmael, who obligates a Korban for forgetting the place of the Mikdash.

Rejection: R. Yishmael obligates even if he did not know at the beginning! (Surely, he is liable!)

Answer: He asks according to Rebbi, who obligated a Korban only if he knew at the beginning, and obligates for forgetting the place of the Mikdash;

Rebbi also holds that having once learned is considered Yedi'ah (at the beginning).

Is knowing that there is a Mikdash considered Yedi'ah?

Or, since he did not where it is, it is not Yedi'ah?

This question is not resolved.