Question: It should have asked that a permanent Korban can be brought as well by someone who is not punished with Kares, being that one does not receive the punishment of Kares for being with a Shifchah Charufah, but he does bring a set Korban (an Asham Shifchah Charufah)!

Answer: He brings an Asham there, not a Chatas (our Gemara is discussing bring a Chatas).

Explanation: The Pasuk is discussing eating Kodesh, as stated in Makos (14b).

Explanation: This is because it says, "In all Kodesh" (which seemingly includes Terumah).

Our Gemara implies that this Pasuk is discussing both Terumah and Kodesh.

Question: This is difficult, as the Gemara in Makos (ibid.) shows that this Pasuk is not talking about both. Reish Lakish there says the Pasuk is only talking about Kodesh , while Rebbi Yochanan says that it is only talking about Terumah!

Answer: The Gemara here is like the Beraisa in Toras Kohanim. The Beraisa states, "In all that is holy he should not touch." One would think this even means Ma'aser. This is why the Pasuk states, "And to the Mikdash he should not come." Just as the Mikdash is referring to a sin where one is punished by Kares, so too this must be talking about something that is punished by Kares. This excludes Ma'aser.

If so, just as a person who goes into the Mikdash receives Kares, so too someone who eats Kodesh when they are impure should receive Kares, as opposed to Terumah. This is why the Pasuk says, "In all Kodesh" in order to include Terumah. This shows that the Pasuk is clearly including both Kodesh and Terumah.

Observation: The Gemara also could have asked according to the Gemara in Makos that this (establishing the Pasuk regarding Kodesh and not Terumah) is understandable according to Reish Lakish. However, according to Rebbi Yochanan who says the Pasuk is discussing Terumah, what can we answer?

Explanation: Rashi asks, "And if you will say that being that the first Pasuk is a Klal and the second is a Perat, we should say the typical understanding that the Klal only includes what is included in the Perat."

Question: Being that he was learning quickly he was not exact in his question. The question he should have asked was that this should be considered a Perat u'Klal, and the Klal therefore adds onto the Perat. This is because the Perat is from Parshas Tzav and the Klal is from Parshas Emor.

Explanation: Rashi's explanation is that the way of deriving a Klal and Perat that are stated far apart from each other is not like the usual way of deriving a Klal, Perat, u'Klal.

Question: This does not seem accurate. In Sanhedrin (46a), the Gemara proves that Ribah and Mi'eit are similar to a Klal u'Perat that are far apart from each other. Rashi himself says earlier (4b) that Ribah u'Mi'eit is similar to a Klal u'Perat u'Klal.

Question: Being that a Klal u'Perat that are distanced from each other is similar to a Klal u'Perat u'Klal, we should not have merely excluded Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Rather, it should have said that just as Shelamim are special in that it has steps taken (i.e. Zerikah) that permit parts of it to be eaten (by either people or the Mizbe'ach, so too only Korbanos that have steps taken permitting parts of them to be eaten are included in this prohibition). This is similar to the teaching of Rebbi Shimon later regarding Pigul. We then need the third Kares to teach that this is even true regarding Korbanos where no part is permitted to be eaten. [The Gemara in Zevachim 44a gives many examples, such as a Minchas Kohen, that are totally burnt, and no part permits another part to be eaten.]

Assuming that this is the case, why should we be able to say that the third Kares is discussing any impurity stated in the Torah in general, or for things that are not eaten? [We need it to include Korbanos where nothing permits part of it to be eaten!]

Answer: There is no Pasuk necessary for Korbanos that do not have a step permitting part of them to be eaten. In Zevachim (44a), they are included from the Pasuk, "that they make holy."

Text: There are some Sefarim that have the text that they are included from the Pasuk, "And to the Kodshim."

Question: This is not possible, as this Pasuk itself is used here as a Klal.

Explanation: However, there is no reason to say we should include Terumah (instead of Tumas Mikdash), as there is no Kares for eating Terumah.

Question: However, later the Gemara derives this from "his impurity." Why don't we say that this Pasuk is indeed referring to Terumah? If you will say that it is because it is stated regarding Kares, it is also stated regarding eating! [The Gemara earlier explained that while Tumas Kodesh and Tumas Mikdash are similar as they are punished with Kares, Terumah is similar to Tumas Kodesh as they both entail eating.]

Answer: The Gemara asks a better question.

Implied Question: [What is the source for] the warning [for this prohibition? Every negative prohibition with a punishment has both a Pasuk that states a "warning" and a separate Pasuk stating the prohibition.]

Answer: It is from the Pasuk, "And the flesh that will touch anything impure he should not eat." In Zevachim (46b), the Gemara says that this includes wood and frankincense.

Answer: Alternatively, Kares does not require a warning, similar to Pesach and Milah (that are Mitzvos Asei and still make one liable to receive Kares).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that regarding Terumah the Pasuk also states "Tumah" in Parshas Emor. [Why not make the Gezeirah Shaveh regarding Terumah?]

Answer: Perhaps that word is required for another teaching.

Question: According to Reish Lakish who does not derive this Gezeirah Shaveh from Tumah, as stated in Makos (14b), what is the source for this teaching?

Answer: He derives this from the Hekesh made earlier from the Pasuk, "In all Kodesh you should not touch," which he does not say is talking about Terumah at all, as is apparent there (in Makos ibid.).

Question: [Being that we have this teaching] Why do we require the Binyan Av that because the warning and punishment were stated regarding Tumas Mikdash etc. [bottom 6b]?

Answer: The Beraisa also relied on this Gezeirah Shaveh. It stated its teaching as a Binyan Av in order to exclude other sins, and required the Gezeirah Shaveh to exclude Terumah.

Question: Why do we need Rebbi's Gezeirah Shaveh? Once we know Tumas Mikdash from the Gezeirah Shaveh of Tumah, we should learn Kodesh from the fact that it is compared to Tumas Mikdash!

One cannot say that Terumah also should be included, as the Pasuk says, "In it" excluding Terumah. We cannot ask that the Pasuk "In it" should exclude Kodesh, being that Kodesh is punished with Kares as is Tumas Mikdash. However, Terumah is unlike Tumas Mikdash.

Answer: The Gezeirah Shaveh is needed to make "In it" extra in order to include a Neveilah (improperly slaughtered) kosher bird (which makes one impure when eating it). It is not needed to exclude Terumah, as why would we think that we would not know this from the Hekesh of Mikdash (6b) once we need the Gezeirah Shaveh of Rebbi! However, without Rebbi's Gezeirah Shaveh I would not have included the Neveilah of a kosher bird. On the contrary, I would have excluded it from the Pasuk of "When he will touch," and "In it" would have excluded Terumah.

Question: However, there is a difficulty. Why do we need the Gezeirah Shaveh of Rebbi? We should derive this from the Gezeirah Shaveh of Tumah that we use regarding Kodesh in Makos (14b)!

Implied Question: There are a lot of places where it describes a sinner as doing something impure, such as eating Terumah when impure or an impure Kohen serving in the Beis Hamikdash. [Why did the Gemara specifically pick the three cardinal sins?]

Answer#1: Rather, it said these three to show that they also could be included even though they are serious sins. When it excludes them, others are also excluded.

Answer#2: Alternatively, it says these even though they do not deal with actual literal impurity, and were just described by the Pasuk as being impure.

Question: How could this Korban atone for all of these sins? The Gemara says later that a Korban achieves one atonement and not two atonements!

One cannot say that our Gemara means that one of three impurities should be included (for this Korban). If so, why do we require the Pasuk, "From the impurities" to tell us that this does not atone for all impurities? We should derive this from the Pasuk, "From one" which is the source of the teaching later (8b) that each Korban atones for one sin! It therefore must be that the Pasuk is referring to Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav, as implied by the Pasuk's division (of Tumas Mikdash from other Tumos, as explained in the continuation of our Gemara).

Answer: It is not considered two separate things to atone for unless the Korban is atoning for the same sin as another Korban. This is also implied by Rashi later.

You should know that this is true, as our Gemara is saying that the Korban atones for Kodesh and the Mikdash. It is not called two atonements, as there is no other Korban that atones for these sins.

Explanation: This ("Mikdashi" in this context) means "Kedushas Shemi" -- "the sanctity of My name." This Pasuk is stated regarding serving Molech. This Tana understands that Molech is an Avodah Zarah. Whether or not this is correct is an argument in Sanhedrin (64a).

Implied Question: This (the assumption that the Pasuk is discussing Kodesh) is despite the fact that it is talking about the Mikdash, as is apparent later in the Gemara. [Why does the Gemara make this assumption?]

Answer: Being that the Torah stated this regarding the Mikdash using a term that is suited for Kodesh, we derive the law regarding Tumas Kodesh.

One cannot say that this is true due to a Hekesh, as if this would be true we should also include Terumah.

Implied Question: Here this is understandable. It is obvious to the Gemara that the Korban does not come to atone for someone who owes a Korban, as derived in the second part of the Beraisa that "Chata'im" (the sins atoned for by this Korban) are compared to "Poshim" who do not bring a Korban.

However, later the Gemara asks regarding the second part of the Beraisa where it says, "One might think this is regarding all impurities of Kodesh etc." that this is something for which one must bring a Korban! This implies that even without the derivation that "Chata'im" are compared to "Poshim" it would be clear that the Korban does not atone for someone who must bring a Korban. [Why would the Gemara think this is obvious?]

Answer: It appears that it is obvious because this is learned from a Kal v'Chomer from the Sa'ir l'Azazel. Even though the Sa'ir l'Azazel atones for many sins and its atonement is great, even so it does not atone for someone who is obligated to bring a Korban. This is as the Gemara itself derives from "Chata'im" being compared to "Poshim." Certainly it does not atone for someone who is supposed to be killed or receive lashes by Beis Din. [Accordingly, if this is true by the Sa'ir l'Azazel, it is certainly true of the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh b'Fnim.]

This is apparent from the Gemara there which says that if someone was liable to receive lashes by Beis Din before Yom Kippur and then Yom Kippur passed, he still is liable to receive lashes. The Gemara asks, this is obvious! Why should it be different from people who owe a Chatas or Asham Vadai (as opposed to an Asham Taluy)?

Question: Why don't we say that this is talking about a case where he found out close to sunset (and did not have a chance to bring the Korban before Yom Kippur)?

Answer: This, too, is derived later in the second part of the Beraisa as not pushing aside (his sin).

Question: His sin does not come to be considered a "Chatas!"

Answer: Now that the Gemara is discussing a sin committed on purpose, it is not discussing a category of "Chata'im" but rather of "Pesha'im." We do not require that a sin be considered "Chatas" in order to be considered in the category of "Pesha," as all sins committed on purpose are considered Pesha'im.

Question: However, regarding murder this is difficult, as one of the cases is when he killed someone by accident and he did not know about it. This is not considered a "Chatas!" [It is also not considered a Pesha.]

One cannot say that because he is liable to have to run to a city of refuge it is called that he committed a "Chatas." This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara also says that a case of accidental killing that fits this profile is someone who killed accidentally, but does not have to go to exile.

Answer: It is possible to answer that even though this is not considered a "Chatas" there is no reason not to include it, being that it is together with Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav which is called a Chatas. This is also implied later, as the Gemara asks that the Pnimi should atone on what it atones for and for what the Chitzon atones. This is despite the fact that the atonement of the Chitzon is not considered a Chatas.

Question: How can we establish this Korban as being an atonement for a sin committed on purpose? We do not find that the Chitzon (Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh b'Chutz) will achieve atonement for these sins when the sinners did not know originally that they sinned and then found out after they had committed the sin! [Tosfos assumes at this point that the Chitzon atones for another way that the sin could have been committed, namely that there was no knowledge and then there was knowledge.]

Answer: This is not a problem, as the atonement of the Chitzon is only regarding Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav.

Question: How can the Gemara establish the case as sinning on purpose without warning? The Bigdei Kehunah atone for the three cardinal sins (see Zevachim 88b). The Eifod atones for idolatry, the Kesones atones for murder, and the Michnasayim atone for promiscuity.

Answer: The Gemara means that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh b'Fnim will atone together with the wearing of the Bigdei Kehunah. One without the other will not effect atonement.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara later asks, let the Pnimi atone for itself and for the intended atonement of the Chitzon, and the Gemara does not ask that they both should only achieve their atonements together. [Why don't we entertain that both are needed for atonement, just as the Bigdei Kehunah and Pnimi atone together?]

Answer: There is no logic in saying that two separate Korbanos were mandated to be brought for one sin. However, it is possible that Bigdei Kehunah will atone for one sin together with a Korban.

Question: What was the logic of questioner? When we establish that the Pnimi atones for Tumas Mikdash and Kodesh, it is also talking about a case where he did so accidentally and did not know about it. If he knew, he would have to bring a Korban and would not be included! [Accordingly, why does the questioner ask regarding the case of the three cardinal sins, and not just assume it will match the case of Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav?]

Answer: We can even establish the case of Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav as being on purpose and with warning, as it is only punished with Kares (see side of the Gemara that adds the word "Ela"). This is why the Gemara asks more regarding these three "Tumos," as one can ask both on the accidental and purposeful transgression of these three sins.

Question: However, this is difficult. One can still ask regarding one who purposely transgresses Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav. If he does so on purpose, he should receive lashes! This is because someone who is liable to receive Kares is exempt if he receives lashes (see Tosfos 8a, DH "Giluy").