Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned in a Beraisa that according to Rebbi Yehudah, "mi'Tum'os Bnei Yisrael" (in connection with the Sa'ir Penimi) refers to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, seeing as the Torah has already distinguished it from other Tum'os. The Torah do this - 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 a less expensive Korban.

(c) Nevertheless, it cannot pertain to ...

1. ... Avodah-Zarah, which differs from other brings a goat without the option of bring a lamb, says Rav Kahana - because Rebbi Yehudah is referring to a distinction le'Kula, and not one that is le'Chumra.
2. ... a Yoledes (a woman who gave birth) who has the option of bringing a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, says Rav Hoshaya - because he is referring to the Pasuk "le'Chol Chatasam" (implying that the Korban comes to atone for a sin), and not "le'Chol Tum'osam" (which could pertain to a Yoledes).

(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 Penimi to atone for the sin.

(b) And what we therefore meant when we asked 've'Eima Yoledes', we meant - 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) According to Rebbi Shimon, who holds that a Yoledes is considered a sinner (because she swears that she will not be intimate with her husband again - 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).

(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, and are brought in addition to the animal Korban that he brings.

(b) We then ask 've'Eima Metzora?' - be which we mean that a Metzora, like a Yoledes, brings a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(c) Rav Hoshaya answers this Kashya - like he answered the previous one ''le'Chol Chatosam", 've'Lo le'Chol Tum'osam'.

(d) And this answer is valid 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.

(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) In this case too, 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 Hashem 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.

(a) Rebbi Shimon seems to be right, when he learns from "ve'Chiper al ha'Kodesh mi'Tum'os ... " that the Chatas 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 animals).

(b) Rebbi Shimon counters Rebbi Yehudah's argument - by learning this from his original Pasuk "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed" (which implies from the same animals).

(c) Rebbi Shimon learned from "mi'Pish'eihem le'Chol Chatosam" that the Sa'ir 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 case where the sinner brings a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, so why would we have even thought that the Chatas Penimi on Yom Kipur needs to atone for it?

(d) To solve the problem, we establish the case - when 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 Penimi will not tide the sinner over (to shield on him from Yisurin) until such time as he brings his Korban after Yo Kipur.

6)

(a) Having established that the Sa'ir 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 come to a Korban) ...

(b) ... but 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Ein Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof', which might come to a Korban (Oleh ve'Yored), does not get the chance if being tided over).

(c) Even though, at this point, we maintain that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz already atones for 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof', we are suggesting - that maybe we should switch them, so that Sa'ir 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) We learn from the fact that the Torah writes "le'Chol Chatosam" (by Chatas Penimi) and not "me'Chatosam" - that Chatas 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]).

(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 in that case, death alone will atone, 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 Penimi tides over the sinner from punishments until he remembers and brings the Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the Sa'ir ha'Na'seh ba'Chutz atones for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there was no Yedi'ah at the beginning but there was at the end. Seeing as our Mishnah compares the two goats ("Mi'levad Chatas ha'Kipurim"), from where do we know that the Chatas Penimi does not atone for 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ', as well as 'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... '. Bearing in mind that 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 is not brought at all that year (see also Tosfos DH 've'Nafka Minah').

(b) We learn from "Ve'chiper Aharon al Karnosav *Achas* ba'Shanah" (written in connection with the Par ve'Sa'ir ha'Penimi on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi) - that it only atones for one sin ('Yesh Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ') and not for two ('Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ').

(c) And conversely, 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 Penimi - from the second phrase there "Achas ba'Shanah Yechaper", from which we learn that the Sa'ir Penimi is the only Korban that atones for this particular sin (and not the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz).

(d) If it did - it would be in order to tide the sinner over regarding Tum'os that occurred between the Sa'ir Penimi and the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz.