1)

(a)A second Beraisa discusses the three exceptions in Rebbi's precious ruling. The phrase in Sh'lach-L'cha "Ki D'var Hash-m Bazah" refers to someone who denies Hash-m and someone who deliberately makes false D'rashos in the Torah, whereas "ve'es Mitzvaso Heifar" refers to - someone who nullifies the B'ris Milah.

(b)Rebbi explains ...

1. ... the double expression "Hikares Tikares" to mean - "Hikares" before Yom Kipur, "Tikares", after Yom Kipur.

2. ... the phrase "Avonah bah" - to restrict the Kareis to where he has not done Teshuvah; if he has, then Yom Kipur atones even for the above three sins too.

(c)Rebbi extrapolates that "Ki D'var Hash-m Bazah" refers to somebody ...

1. ... who denies Hash-m - because "D'var Hash-m" implies the first of the Aseres ha'Dibros (the dual Mitzvah of "Anochi" and "Lo Yih'yeh L'cha", the one commandment that they heard directly from the Mouth of Hash-m.

2. ... who deliberately makes false D'rashos in the Torah - because someone who does that despises the Torah (the word of Hash-m).

(d)The Rabbanan (in whose opinion Teshuvah is crucial to Mechilah) explain ...

1. ... "Hikares Tikares" to mean - both in this world and in the next.

2. ... "Avonah bah" to mean - that without Teshuvah, death will not atone for these three sins (though it will atone for other sins).

2)

(a)The author of the Seifa of our Mishnah (regarding the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ch) 'Echad Yisrael, ve'Echad Kohanim ve'Echad Kohen Mashu'ach' is - Rebbi Yehudah.

(b)Rav Yosef nevertheless explains that we establish the author as Rebbi - because in this point, Rebbi holds like Rebbi Yehudah.

(c)Abaye asked Rav Yosef - whether he established our Mishnah specifically like 'Rebbi', who holds like Rebbi Yehudah, but not like Rebbi Yehudah (who does not hold like Rebbi), or whether Rebbi Yehudah holds like Rebbi too, and he could just as well have established the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah.

(d)According to the second side of the Sheeilah, Rav Yosef preferred to establish the author as Rebbi and not as Rebbi Yehudah - because it is more common to establish the Talmid like the Rebbe than vice-versa.

3)

(a)We resolve the She'eilah from a Sifra, which initially tries to prove from the Korban Chatas and Asham - that Yom Kipur, like them, only atones together with Teshuvah.

(b)The Tana refutes this proof however - by pointing out that Yom Kipur (unlike Chatas and Asham) atones for Meizid as well as Shogeg. Perhaps then, it will also atone without Teshuvah.

(c)We ask this Pircha in spite of the fact that three out of the five Ashamos as well as the Chatas of Shevu'as ha'Eidus atone for Meizid - because they constitute only a small minority of Chata'os and Ashamos.

4)

(a)The Tana finally learns from the word "Ach" (in the Pasuk in Emor "Ach be'Asor la'Chodesh ... ") - that Yom Kipur atones for those who do Teshuvah, but not for those who don't.

(b)The author of the Sifra is - Rebbi Yehudah.

(c)... a proof - that Rebbi Yehudah does not hold like Rebbi.

(d)Another Beraisa Darshens from the wrd "Hu" (in the Pasuk there "Ki Yom Kipurim Hu) - that Yom Kipur even atones for someone who fails to fast on Yom Kipur, who declare it Kadosh or who works on it.

(e)Abaye establishes the first Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, and the second one, like Rebbi. Rava establishes both Beraisos like Rebbi, and he establishes the first Beraisa - by someone who breaks Yom Kipur, in which case it will not atone for him, even according to Rebbi.

5)

(a)We try to prove the latter statement logically - because if Yom Kipur would atone for its own sins even without Teshuvah, then how would one ever receive Kareis for transgressing Yom Kipur?

(b)We refute this proof however, on the basis of the Pasuk in Emor "Ki ba'Yom ha'Zeh Yechaper Aleichem" - from which we learn that it is specifically the day of Yom Kipur that atones, in which case, Kareis would apply even according to Rebbi, if one transgressed on 'Kol Nidrei' night and died before the morning.

(c)So we try bringing an identical proof from the fact that, according to Rebbi, Kareis would not apply to someone who transgressed Yom Kipur by day, which we know must be possible - because the Torah writes (in connection with both the prohibition of work and of eating) "be'Etzem *ha'Yom* ha'Zeh".

(d)We refute this proof too however - by establishing the Kareis by day either where a person ate a bone and choked before a second of the day passed that could atone for him, or - where he ate at the last second before nightfall. Either way, he will receive Kareis for his sin on the day of Yom Kipur, even according to Rebbi.

6)

(a)Rav Yehudah reconciles the statement in our Mishnah 'Echad Yisrael, ve'Echad Kohanim ve'Echad Kohen Mashu'ach' with the statement (that follows it) 'Mah bein Yisrael le'Kohanim u'le'Kohen Mashu'ach' - by explaining the Mishnah to mean - that even though the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach atones for Yisre'elim, Kohanim and the Kohen Machu'ach alike, when it comes to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, their Kaparos are different ...

(b)... and the author is then Rebbi Yehudah.

(c)According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (in connection with the Par and the Sa'ir of Tom Kipur) "Ve'chiper es Mikdash ha'Kodesh" refers to the Kodesh Kodshim - where a Tamei person would have to wait the time it takes to prostrate oneself, before rendering it Tamei, and being Chayav.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah Darshens ...

1. ... from "ve'es Ohel Mo'ed" - that the Par and Sa'ir atone for the Heichal that became Tamei too.

2. ... from "ve'es ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav (for the Ketores) is included as well.

3. ... from "Yechaper" - that they also atone for the Azaros.

7)

(a)According to him, ''ha'Kohanim" (in the Pasuk "ve'Al ha'Kohanim, ve'Al Kol Am ha'Kahal Yechaper") is literal, whereas ...

1. ... "Kol Am ha'Kahal" refers to - Yisre'elim who sinned ...

2. ... and "Yechaper", to - Levi'im who sinned.

(b)This latter phrase cannot also be referring to the Par and the Sa'ir (where it is written) - because the Torah specifically differentiates between Yisrael (who bring a goat) and the Kohanim (who bring a bull).

(c)It therefore refers to - the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.

(d)According to Rebbi Shimon, the Viduy of the Par of the Kohanim (and not the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach) atones for the sins of the Kohanim, as we learned in our Mishnah. Rebbi Shimon therefore explains that the Hekesh of the Kohanim and Levi'im to the Yisre'elim that we just quoted - merely comes to teach us that they are all B'nei Kaparah, both as regards Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav and as regards all other sins.

8)

(a)Rebbi Shimon learns from "Sh'nei ha'Se'irim" (in the Pasuk there "Ve'lakach es Sh'nei ha'Se'irim") - that just as the Sa'ir Penimi does not atone for the Kohanim (since that is what the Par did), neither does the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.

(b)We know that the Sa'ir Penimi does not atone for the Kohanim - because the Torah writes "asher la'Am".

(c)Rebbi Yehudah learns from there - that the two goats must be equal in appearance, height and value.

9)

(a)The Beraisa tries to learn from "Asher Lo" (in the Pasuk there "Ve'hikriv Aharon es Par ha'Chatas Asher Lo") - that Aharon's bull will atone for his own sins, but not for that of the other Kohanim.

(b)In that case - the Kohanim would not gain atonement at all.

(c)The Beraisa then suggests that it is the Sa'ir Penimi that atones for all the Kohanim - because the Pasuk writes there "ve'Al ha'Kohanim" (as we just learned).

(d)The Tana concludes that it must be the Par and not the Sa'ir - because (despite "Asher Lo"), it is by the Par that the Torah writes "ve'es Beiso".

10)

(a)To answer a Kashya that will be explained shortly, the Tana proves from the Pasuk in Hallel "Beis Aharon Borchu es Hash-m ... " - that all the Kohanim are referred to as ''Beiso".

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah and Rava establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon - because it insinuates that if not for the bull, the Kohanim would have no Kaparah at all, not even for other sins (and it is according to Rebbi Shimon, that it is the bull and its Viduy that atone for all the sins of the Kohanim.

(c)Abaye establishes it even like Rebbi Yehudah - because, according to him, the Beraisa is only referring to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, and when it says '"Yechaper al ha'Kohanim", he means that just as the Kohanim receive atonement for their other sins (via the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach), so too, will they receive atonement for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav).

(d)And when the Tana said 've'Im Nafshach Lomar' (to which he answered with the Pasuk "Beis Aharon Borchu es Hash-m") - he meant to ask simply from the Pasuk "es Beiso", which otherwise appears to pertain to Aharon's immediate family exclusively.