(a)We just learned in a Beraisa that according to Rebbi Yehudah, "mi'Tum'os Bnei Yisrael" (in connection with the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi) refers to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, seeing as the Torah has already distinguished it from other Tum'os. Where does the Torah do this?
(b)In what way does the Korban Olah ve'Yored differ from the Chatas that one brings for other Tum'os?
(c)In that case, how do we know that it does not pertain to the Korban ...
1. ... for Avodah-Zarah, which consists of a goat without the option of bringing a lamb, according to Rav Kahana?
2. ... of a Yoledes (a woman who gave birth) who also has the option of bringing a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, according to Rav Hoshaya?
1)
(a)We just learned in a Beraisa that according to Rebbi Yehudah, "mi'Tum'os Bnei Yisrael" (in connection with the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi) refers to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, seeing as the Torah has already distinguished it from other Tum'os - by Korban Olah ve'Yored (as we have already learned).
(b)The Korban Olah ve'Yored differs from the Chatas that one brings for other Tum'os - inasmuch as a poor man brings birds or even a flour-offering (depending on the extent of his poverty), instead of a fixed Chatas.
(c)Nevertheless, it cannot pertain to the Korban ...
1. ... for Avodah-Zarah, which differs from other Chata'os in that he brings a goat without the option of bringing a lamb, says Rav Kahana - because Rebbi Yehudah is referring to a distinction le'Kula, and not one that is le'Chumra.
2. ... of a Yoledes (a woman who gave birth) who also has the option of bringing a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, says Rav Hoshaya - because he is referring to the Pasuk "le'Chol Chatosam" (implying that the Korban comes to atone for a sin), and not "le'Chol Tum'osam" (which could pertain to a Yoledes).
2)
(a)What did Rav Kahana mean when he said 'Ana Chalak Lehakeil ka'Amrinan, ve'Hai Chalak Lehachmir'? Which leniency was he referring to?
(b)In that case, what do we mean when we then ask 've'Eima Yoledes'?
(c)And how will we answer the Kashya from Yoledes according to Rebbi Shimon, who holds that a Yoledes is considered a sinner?
(d)Which sin is he referring to?
2)
(a)When Rav Kahana said 'Ana Chalak Lehakeil ka'Amrinan, ve'Hai Chalak Lehachmir', he was referring to - the leniency of relying on the Chatas Ha'Penimi to atone for the sin.
(b)And when we then ask 've'Eima Yoledes', we mean that - once Yom Kipur has passed, she should be permitted to enter the Beis-Hamikdash and eat Kodshim even though she has not brought her Korban.
(c)Whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, who holds that a Yoledes is considered a sinner - the Kashya from Yoledes (on the source of Rebbi Yehudah) poses no problem, because Rebbi Shimon learns from a different source anyway (as we explained above).
(d)Rebbi Shimon is referring to - the oath that a Yoledes makes after childbirth, that she will not be intimate with her husband again.
3)
(a)We then ask 've'Eima Metzora?' Why can the Kashya not be the fact that he brings birds as a Korban (like we will ask shortly in the case of a Tamei Nazir)?
(b)Then what is the Kashya?
(c)How does Rav Hoshaya answer this Kashya?
(d)And how will we answer according to Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni, who ascribes Tzara'as to one of seven sins?
(e)Then what is the purpose of the Korban?
3)
(a)We then ask 've'Eima Metzora?' The Kashya cannot be the fact that he brings birds as a Korban (like we will ask shortly in the case of a Tamei Nazir) - because the birds of a Metzora are not brought as a Korban, but in addition to the animal Korban that he brings.
(b)The Kashua therefore is that - a Metzora, like a Yoledes, brings a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.
(c)Rav Hoshaya answers this Kashya - like he answered the previous one, namely, ''le'Chol Chatosam", 've'Lo le'Chol Tum'osam' ...
(d)... even according to Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni, who ascribes Tzara'as to one of seven sins - since the plague of Tzara'as itself atones for the sin ...
(e)... and the purpose of the Korban - is to permit the Metzora to eat Kodshim.
4)
(a)We then ask that perhaps "le'Chol Chatosam" refers to a Tamei Nazir. What leniency pertains to the Korbanos of a Tamei Nazir?
(b)Here once again, we apply Rav Hoshaya's answer, except according to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar. Of which sin is a Nazir guilty, according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar?
(c)So how do we know that "le'Chol Chatosam" does not pertain to a Tamei Nazir according to him?
4)
(a)We then ask that perhaps "le'Chol Chatosam" refers to a Tamei Nazir - whose Korban consists of only pigeons or doves instead of a goat or a lamb.
(b)Here once again, we apply Rav Hoshaya's answer, except according to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar - who holds that - a Nazir is guilty of abstaining from wine (which Hash-m created for us to benefit from).
(c)We know that "le'Chol Chatosam" does not pertain to a Tamei Nazir according to him - because he holds like Rebbi Shimon (whose opinion we explained earlier).
5)
(a)Rebbi Shimon seems to be right, when he learns from "ve'Chiper al ha'Kodesh mi'Tum'os ... " that the Chatas Ha'Penimi comes to atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav. What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from ...
1. ... there?
2. ... the Pasuk there "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed" (from which Rebbi Shimon learns Rebbi Yehudah's previous D'rashah)? What would we have thought if not for this Pasuk?
(b)And how does Rebbi Shimon counter Rebbi Yehudah's argument?
(c)Rebbi Shimon learns from "mi'Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam" that the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi does not atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there was a Yedi'ah at the beginning and at the end with a He'elam in the middle. What problem do we have with this D'rashah?
(d)How do we establish the case to solve the problem?
5)
(a)Rebbi Shimon seems to be right when he learns from "ve'Chiper al ha'Kodesh mi'Tum'os ... " that the Chatas Ha'Penimi comes to atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav. Rebbi Yehudah learns from ...
1. ... there that - the Kohen Gadol must repeat in the Kodesh the Avodah (one sprinkling above and seven below) that he performed in the Kodesh Kodshim.
2. ... the Pasuk there "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed" (from which Rebbi Shimon learns Rebbi Yehudah's previous D'rashah) that - he does so with the blood of the same bull and goat from which he sprinkled inside (and does not need to bring other animals, as we would otherwise have thought).
(b)Rebbi Shimon counters Rebbi Yehudah's argument - by learning that from his original Pasuk "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed" (which implies from the same animals).
(c)Rebbi Shimon learns from "mi'Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam" that the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi does not atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there was a Yedi'ah at the beginning and at the end with a He'elam in the middle. The problem with this D'rashah is that - it is the same case where the sinner brings a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, so why would we have even thought that the Chatas Ha'Penimi on Yom Kipur needs to atone for it?
(d)To solve the problem, we establish the case - where his second Yedi'ah took place just before Sheki'as ha'Chamah on Erev Yom Kipur, when it was too late to bring a Korban, and we need the Pasuk to teach us that the Chatas Ha'Penimi will not tide the sinner over (to shield on him from Yisurin) until such time as he brings his Korban after Yom Kipur.
8b----------------------------------------8b
6)
(a)Having established that the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi tides over Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav that is not subject to a Korban, what does the Tana mean when he asks 'Minayin le'Yesh bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Ein bah Yedi'ah be'Sof she'Sa'ir Zeh Toleh'? What alternative is there?
(b)What would the Din then be by 'Yesh bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Ein bah Yedi'ah be'Sof', which might lead to a Korban?
(c)But surely, the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz already atones for that?
(d)So what do we learn from the fact that the Torah writes "le'Chol Chatosam" (by Chatas Ha'Penimi) and not "me'Chatosam"?
6)
(a)Having established that the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi tides over Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav which is not subject to a Korban, when the Tana asks 'Minayin le'Yesh bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Ein bah Yedi'ah be'Sof she'Sa'ir Zeh Toleh' - he means that it should atone for 'Ein bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Yesh bah Yedi'ah be'Sof' (since it can never lead to a Korban) ...
(b)... whereas 'Yesh bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Ein bah Yedi'ah be'Sof', which might lead to a Korban (Oleh ve'Yored), does not get the chance of being tided over).
(c)Even though, at this point, we maintain that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz already atones for that, we are suggesting that - maybe we should switch them, so that the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi atones for 'Ein bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ' and the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz, for 'Yesh bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ...'.
(d)From the fact that the Torah writes "le'Chol Chatosam" (by Chatas Ha'Penimi) and not "me'Chatosam", we learn that - Chatas Ha'Penimi is speaking by a case of 'Yesh bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ', so that it only tides over until the sinner remembers that he sinned (and Chatas ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz must therefore atone for 'Ein bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ' [and not the other way round, as we just suggested]).
7)
(a)What objection does Rava raise to Rebbi Zeira's suggestion that 'tides over' means that, should he die, it will atone for his sin?
(b)Then how does Rava explain it?
7)
(a)Rava objects to Rebbi Zeira's suggestion that 'tides over' means that, should he die, it will atone for his sin, on the grounds that - death alone atones for a person's sins, as we learned in Yoma (that death is the ultimate atonement for anything that Teshuvah or Yom Kipur alone do not atone for).
(b)Rava therefore explains that - the Chatas Ha'Penimi tides over the sinner from punishments until he remembers and brings the Korban Oleh ve'Yored.
8)
(a)We learned in our Mishnah that the Sa'ir ha'Na'seh ba'Chutz atones for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there is no Yedi'ah at the beginning but there is at the end. What do we now ask, based on the fact that the Torah compares the two goats (when it writes "Mi'levad Chatas ha'Kipurim")?
(b)What would be the point of that, seeing as the 'Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz' is going to be brought anyway, a short while later?
8)
(a)We learned in our Mishnah that the Sa'ir ha'Na'seh ba'Chutz atones for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there is no Yedi'ah at the beginning but there is at the end. In that case, we ask, bearing in mind that the Torah compares the two goats (when it writes "Mi'levad Chatas ha'Kipurim") - the Chatas Ha'Penimi ought to atone for that, too?
(b)Seeing as the 'Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz' is going to be brought anyway a short while later - the question obviously refers to a case where for lack of funds, the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz was not brought at all that year (see also Tosfos DH 've'Nafka Minah').
9)
(a)What do we learn from the word "Achas" in the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'chiper Aharon al Karnosav Achas ba'Shanah" (in connection with the Par ve'Sa'ir ha'Ha'Penimi on the Mizbe'ach ha'Ha'Penimi)?
(b)And what do we learn from the phrase there "Achas ba'Shanah Yechaper"?
(c)How do we learn it from there?
(d)If not for this D'rashah, what function would the Chatas ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz serve?
9)
(a)From the word "Achas" (in the Pasuk in the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'chiper Aharon al Karnosav Achas ba'Shanah" (in connection with the Par ve'Sa'ir ha'Ha'Penimi on the Mizbe'ach ha'Ha'Penimi) we learn that - it only atones for one sin ('Yesh bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ') and not for two ('Ein bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ').
(b)And conversely, from the phrase there "Achas ba'Shanah Yechaper" we learn that - the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz does not also atone for 'Yesh bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ', like the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi ...
(c)... since it implies that the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi is the only Korban that atones for this particular sin, and not the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz).
(d)If not for this D'rashah, the Chatas ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz would serve the function of - tiding over the sinner regarding Tum'os that occurred between the Sa'ir Ha'Penimi and the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz (as we already explained).
