1)

(a)We try to learn from the word "bah" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra) "le'Chol Tum'aso asher Yitma bah") that - eating Terumah be'Tum'ah is precluded from a Korban Oleh ve'Yored -

(b)... and the Pasuk is talking about - Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.

(c)Rava turns to a Beraisa to settle the issue. He refers to - Rebbi, its author, as 'Doleh Mayim mi'Boros Amukim (One who draws water from deep pits)'.

(d)Having stated in the Parshah of Korban Oleh ve'Yored "O be'Nivlas Chayah Temei'ah", Rebbi considers the phrase "O be'Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah" superfluous - based on the Pasuk in Shemini "Zos ha'Chayah asher Tocheilu", which goes on to include Beheimos in the list that follows, to teach us that "Chayah" incorporates 'Beheimah'.

2)

(a)Rebbi learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Beheimah Teme'ah" (here) and "Nefesh Ki Siga ... O bi'Veheimah Teme'ah" (in Tzav [in connection with someone who then eats Kodshim]) that - just as there, the Pasuk is speaking about Tum'as Kodesh (and not Terumah), so too here (by Korban Oleh ve'Yored).

(b)And from the Hekesh (in Tazri'a, in connection with a Yoledes) "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga ve'el ha'Mikdash Lo Savo", we learn that - Tum'as Mikdash is compared to Tum'as Kodshim, and is therefore included too.

(c)We query this from Mar however, who learns from "be'Chol Kodesh ... " that - a Yoledes between the eighth (or the fifteenth) day and nightfall of the forty-first (or the eighty-first) day, has the Din of a T'vul-Yom, and is forbidden to eat Terumah ...

(d)... in which case - we ought to include Achilas Terumah as well in the Din of Korban Oleh ve'Yored?

3)

(a)We try to answer the Kashya based on the word "bah", which presumably comes to preclude - Achilas Terumah from Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(b)It is more logical to include Bi'as Mikdash from the Hekesh and to preclude Achilas Terumah from "bah" - since Tum'as Mikdash, like Achilas Kodesh, is subject to Kareis (whereas Achilas Terumah, is only Chayav Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim.

(c)Rava counters this explanation however, in that - it would be more logical to include Terumah, because it is similar to Kodesh, inasmuch as like it, it entails eating, whereas Mikdash does not).

4)

(a)So Rava tries to learn Bi'as Mikdash (as opposed to Terumah) from the three K'riysos that are written in connection with someone who eats Shelamim be'Tum'ah ("Kol Ish asher Yikrav mi'Kol Zar'achem el ha'Kodshim"; "ve'ha'Nefesh asher Tochal mi'Besar Zevach ha'Shelamim" and "ve'ha'Nefesh ki Siga be'Chol Tamei"). Both "Yikrav" in the first Pasuk and "Siga" in the third Pasuk - refer to eating.

(b)When Rava says 'Achas li'Chelal (in Parshas Emor) ve'Achas li'P'rat (in Parshas Tzav) - he means that Shelamim is a 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal (included in Kodshim), she'Yatza Lidon be'Davar he'Chadash' (the Dinim of Shelamim), which comes to reflect on the entire K'lal (all Kodshim).

(c)Consequently, it is coming to teach us - that only Kodshei Mizbe'ach, like Shelamim, are subject to Kareis when one eats them be'Tum'ah, but not Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(d)The reason that we do not rather treat it as a regular K'lal u'P'rat, in which case we would rule 'Ein bi'Chelal Ela Mah she'bi'P'rat' (confining the Pasuk to Shelamim) - because the K'lal and P'rat are far apart (in two different Parshiyos).

5)

(a)From the third Kareis ("ve'ha'Nefesh ki Siga be'Chol Tamei" Rava learns Tum'ah Stam, which cannot refer to Achis Kodesh - since we already know this from Rebbi (as we learned earlier).

(b)It must therefore refer ('Im Eino Inyan') to Tum'as Mikdash (leaving "bah" to preclude Terumah).

(c)We query this explanation however, from a statement by Rebbi Avahu, who defines the three K'risos mentioned by Shelamim in exactly the same as Rava did, only for the third one, he retains the original Limud of Achilas Kodesh, which is necessary, in spite of Rebbi - to extend the Chiyuv Kareis to Kodshim that are not edible (such as wood from the Ma'arachah), Levonah (from the Minchah) and Ketores.

6)

(a)The current D'rashah will not work according to Rebbi Shimon - in whose opinion the Chiyuv Kareis is confined to Kodshim that are edible.

(b)According to Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi Avahu concludes, we need the third Kareis to include Chata'os Ha'Penimiyos (so-called because their blood is sprinkled inside the Heichal) - incorporating the bull and the goat of Yom Kipur, and the bull of the Chatas brought both by the Kohen Gadol and the Sanhedrin, in the Din of Kareis for eating them be'Tum'ah.

(c)Rebbi Avahu explains that Rebbi Shimon requires a special D'rashah for Chata'os Ha'Penimiyos - because he precludes them from Pigul. Consequently, if not for the extra 'Kareis', he would have precluded them from Tum'ah as well.

(d)So the Neherda'i in the name of Rava try to learn the Din of Tum'as Mikdash from one of the three extra 'Tum'os' that are mentioned together with the three above-mentioned 'K'riysos'. We refute this suggestion too however - on the grounds that once the Torah has written Kareis (as we just learned), it has no option but to write Tum'ah as well (in which case, none of these three Tum'os is superfluous).

7)

(a)Rava finally learns Tum'as Mikdash from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Tum'aso" (in connection with Korban Oleh ve'Yored) "Tum'aso" (in Parshas Chukas), which is written - in connection with Parah Adumah.

(b)We ask why the Torah now needs to write "bah", which cannot come to preclude Terumah from a Korban Oleh ve'Yored (like we thought earlier) - because, seeing as it is not subject to Kareis be'Meizid, it does not need to be precluded (see also Tosfos ha'Rosh).

(c)So we answer that it comes to *include* 'Nivlas Of Tahor', a problem - since until now, we have considered "bah" to be a 'Miy'ut', and not a 'Ribuy'.

(d)Based on the Pasuk "O ki Yiga", we answer that "bah" is indeed a Miy'ut', only bearing in mind that 'Nivlas Of Tahor' is automatically precluded from "O ki Yiga" (since its Tum'ah is confined to swallowing it, and not touching it), it is now considered two consecutive Miy'utim ('Miy'ut achar Miy'ut'), which comes to include.

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that the Sa'ir ha'Ha'Penimi atones for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav of which one is aware at the time that one sins but forgets later. The Beraisa suggests that - it might come to atone for the three cardinal sins Avodah-Zarah, Giluy Arayos and Shefichus Damim ...

(b)... since by each of them the Torah uses an expression of Tum'ah.

(c)When the Torah writes ...

1. ... in Kedoshim "Le'ma'an Tamei es Mikdashi" it is referring to - Avodah-Zarah.

2. ... in Acharei-Mos "u'Shemartem es Mishmarti Levilti Asos me'Chukos ha'To'evos ... ve'Lo Sitam'u bahem" it is referring to - Giluy Arayos.

3. ... in Masei "ve'Lo Setamei es ha'Aretz" it is referring to - Sh'fichus Damim.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "mi'Tum'os B'nei Yisrael" that - the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi atones for only some Tum'os (with reference to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav (seeing as the Torah has already distinguished it from other Tum'os [as will be explained shortly]).

9)

(a)Rebbi Shimon queries the need for Rebbi Yehudah's previous D'rashah - because, in his opinion, it can be derived from the Parshah of Chatas Ha'Penimi itself, without having to learn it from other sources.

(b)From ...

1. ... the Pasuk "ve'Chiper al ha'Kodesh mi'Tum'os ... " he learns that - the Chatas Ha'Penimi atones for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.

2. ... the Hekesh "mi'Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam" he learns that - it atones for sins which do not require a Korban (like "Pish'eihem", which always refers to sins done on purpose, for which there is no Korban), such as where there was a Yedi'ah at the beginning but not at the end.

3. ... "le'Chol Chatosam" that - it only atones for cases which can still lead to a Chatas (should the sinner remember what he did) but not to cases where there was no Yedi'ah at all.

10)

(a)The problem with the Beraisa's above suggestion that the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi comes to atone for the three cardinal sins is that - Meizid is already Chayav Misah, whereas Shogeg is Chayav a Korban (or Galus), so why is Sa'ir Ha'Penimi necessary?

(b)We answer this Kashya by establishing the need for the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi - either by Meizid where there was no warning (see Tosfos DH 'be'Meizid'), or by Shogeg where there was no Yedi'ah at the end (see Tosfos DH 'be'Shogeg').

(c)The second answer that applies to Sh'fichus Damim but not to the others is that - it speaks be'Shogeg, in one of the various cases where the murderer is not Chayav Galus (for example if he killed the victim with an upward stroke).