Question: Rabeinu Shelomo from Daryush asks that in Yoma (85b) the Gemara says that death and Yom Kippur atone together with repentance. This implies that repentance is necessary. Without it, there is no atonement. Who is this like?

This is unlike Rebbi (who says Yom Kippur alone is enough). It is also unlike the Rabbanan, as they hold that death without repentance is an atonement for all sins besides these three (discussed in our Gemara).

Answer: It is possible to say that the Rabbanan here do not say that death takes away a (serious) sin unless it is accompanied with affliction and whatever he is punished with after death. Through all of the above, he will not receive Kares in the next world. However, together with repentance, death will take away the sin entirely. He will not receive any other punishment after death. However, according to Rebbi, death and Yom Kippur without repentance take away other sins entirely. Our Gemara can now be understood as being according to the opinion of the Rabbanan.

Explanation: Rashi explains that most Chataos and Ashamos do not atone for a sin committed on purpose. The only exceptions are an Asham Shifchah Charufah, Asham Nazir Tamei, Asham Shevuas ha'Pikadon, and Chatas d'Shevuas ha'Eidus.

Question: Why don't we derive from these exceptions that do atone for a purposeful sin just like they atone for an accidental sin (that Yom Kippur does the same)?

Answer: It would still be possible to ask that they do not atone for sins of Kares or death by Beis Din (as opposed to Yom Kippur that does).

Question: Let us say that Yom Kippur should not atone for a sin done on purpose, being that it should be like a Chatas and Asham!

Answer #1: It is possible to answer that the Pasuk, "It is a day of atonement" implies according to one opinion even for those who do not repent. Accordingly, everyone agrees that we include sins done on purpose.

Answer #2: Additionally, on the contrary, we should derive from a Si'eer ha'Na'aseh b'Fnim that it atones for a sin done on purpose (that Yom Kippur also atones for such a sin).

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that the person did not accept Yom Kippur by saying the blessing, "He who makes Yisrael and Yom Kippur holy."

Implied Question: This does not appear correct, as we do not find special blessings for Yom Kippur that are according to Torah law!

Opinion #2: It appears to Rabeinu Tam that a person who says Yom Kippur is holy refers to someone who admits that Beis Din made Yom Kippur holy (through Kidush ha'Chodesh) and he therefore rests from doing Melachah because of the holiness of the day. Someone who does not say Yom Kippur is holy is a person who does not rest from doing Melachah because it is Yom Kippur, but rather does not do Melachah because he is lazy.

Question: This is difficult. Perhaps the case is where he did repent, and the Tana merely holds that it only atones for those who repent!

Question: Why does Rebbi require the teaching from "Ach" that there are things for which Yom Kippur does not atone, if we presently understand that Rebbi does not even hold there practically is Kares on Yom Kippur?

Answer #1: It is possible to answer "According to you etc. (does Rebbi really hold that there is no Kares for violating Yom Kippur)?"

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible this teaching of "Ach" is required if he repented, but he scorns the atonement and does not want that Yom Kippur should atone for him.

Explanation: However, after the case cannot be after the sending of the Sa'ir (la'Azazel), as this creates atonement throughout the entire day.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara implies earlier (8b) that Korbanos do not atone for sins that happen after they are brought, even on the same day. This is evident from the Gemara's statement (ibid.)that the difference is for the impurity that happens between the bringing of one Korban and another (on the same day). (How, then, can we say the Azazel keeps atoning even after it is brought?)

Answer #1: The Sa'ir la'Azazel is different, as the Torah states regarding the Azazel, "For on this day He will atone for you, to purify you from all of your sins." This implies that the entire day is one of atonement (through the Sa'ir la'Azazel).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the day itself, even without the Sa'ir la'Azazel atones somewhat, taking away full fledged punishments of Kares (and making them into a weaker punishment).

We find a similar concept in Zevachim (6a). The Gemara there states that an Olah atones slightly for a person who inherits it, but it does not atone fully.

It is now understandable why the Gemara does not answer that the case is when he died before the Sa'ir was sent or that it was a year where they did not have a Sa'ir la'Azazel, as stated earlier (8b). The difference would be if there was no Chitzon done that year.

Answer #3: Some commentaries explain that Yom Kippur without the Sa'ir atones fully. The difference (regarding whether or not there is a Sa'ir) is that the Sa'ir atones immediately, while Yom Kippur only atones when it becomes dark after Yom Kippur.

Proof: This is as the Beraisa states that there is a stringency regarding the Sa'ir over Yom Kippur, as the Sa'ir atones right away and Yom Kippur only atones when it becomes dark after Yom Kippur. There is a stringency regarding the Yom Kippur over the Sa'ir, as Yom Kippur atones without a Korban, and the Sa'ir atones because it is a Korban.

Implied Question: The Gemara answered with a case where he choked on a piece of raw meat. (If Yom Kippur only atones after it becomes dark after Yom Kippur, why is this case necessary?)

Answer #1: This detail is not necessary. The case could also be that he died on that day. It just said this case to be sure he had no atonement.

Answer #2: Alternatively, even if he did not die on that day, but rather he died after many dies, he still has no atonement. The case is where he did so close to sunset.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that the Gemara is discussing cases of impurity in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim and the Heichal.

Question: This is difficult. Why do we need a Pasuk to teach us that it atones for each group in Bnei Yisrael? Later (16b), regarding Kares, we only require one Pasuk for all of these groups!

Answer: Perhaps the answer is that once they are all considered to have the same atonement, they can also be deemed similar for other things.

Question #1: However, this is difficult. This would mean Rashi would be forced to explain that the case of Mizbe'ach is, as it sounds, that a person offered something while impure. If so, this is the same a case of an impure person who did Avodah in the Beis Hamikdash. We do not find, however, that the Pnimi atones for a Kohen who served while impure.

Question #2: Additionally, if it is referring to a case of Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav according to Rebbi Yehudah, what does the Gemara mean earlier (8a) when it says that Rebbi Shimon holds the Pesukim clearly indicate the sin for which it atones? Even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the Pesukim indicate this! (They both hold it is Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav.)

Question #3: Additionally, at the end of Yoma (61a) the Gemara quotes this regarding the Mishnah there that discusses sprinkling again by the Heichal and Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav. The Gemara there understands that these Pesukim are referring to the sprinkling (not the sins committed).

Opinion #2: It therefore appears that the Beraisa is discussing the sprinkling of blood (as is apparent in Yoma ibid.). Lifnei u'Lifnim refers to sprinkling between the poles of the Aron. The Heichal refers to sprinkling on the curtain (separating the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim and the Heichal). Mizbe'ach refers to the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav. The Azaros refers to the leftover blood that would be poured on the western Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon in the Azarah, as stated in Zevachim (47a).

Question #1: However, there is a difficulty with this explanation, as it says, "Azaros." It should have just said, "Azarah."

Question #2: Additionally, the sprinklings are all explicitly stated in the Parshah. However, they are not all required b'Dieved. We derive this in Zevachim (52b) and Yoma (60b) from the Pasuk, "And he will finish...and he will atone" implying that if he finished the sprinklings, he atones. If he did not finish the sprinklings, he does not atone. (However, if he did not do the proper amount of sprinklings by the Chitzon and only did one, the atonement is valid.)

Answer: It is possible that we require this Pasuk to teach us that both a Kohen who is anointed and a Kohen who merely wears all of the clothes of the Kohen Gadol (i.e. he is the Kohen Gadol but was not anointed) can atone. This is because the entire Parshah just states Aharon (implying only an anointed Kohen).

Additionally, the Beraisa states in Toras Kohanim, "And the Kohen who was anointed will atone." What does this Pasuk teach us? The entire Parshah is stated regarding Aharon. It therefore states, "And he will atone the Mikdash ha'Kodesh etc." to teach that any anointed Kohen or Kohen who wears all of the Bigdei Kehunah must do so.

Explanation: However, they are not compared to the Si'eer ha'Pnimi, as the Pasuk says, "to the nation" and we derive later that this implies "not for Kohanim."

Question: This is difficult. In Kerisus (25b), regarding the teaching that "Chata'im" must be like "Pesha'im," the Gemara asks that this is stated regarding the Sa'ir ha'Pnimi (and should therefore not apply to the Sa'ir la'Azazel). According to our Gemara that we compare the Sa'ir ha'Pnimi and the Azazel, we should derive there that the same applies to the Sa'ir la'Azazel, as they are compared to each other.