Seeing as we already know the Isur of eating Basar Kodshim Tamei via a Hekesh to Ma'aser Sheini, why does the Torah need to insert "ve'ha'Basar asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel"?
What are the implications of be?Chol Tum?ah?
Chagigah, 24a: It implies even a Sheini le'Tum'ah X - to teach us that in the relm of Kodshim, there is a Shelishi le'Tum'ah min ha'Torah.
How will we reconcile the Reisha of the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar asher Yiga" (Vaday), implying that Safek Tum'ah one is permitted to eat, with the Seifa "Kol TahorYochal" (Vaday), implying that a Safek is Asur?
Sotah, 29a: The Seifa is referring to where an object, that is incapable of asking a She'ilah, became Safek Tamei, whereas the Seifa is talking about a person, who can ask, and the Torah iss teaching us here that Safek by Yesh bo Da'as Lish'ol is Tamei, and by Ein bo Da'as Lish'ol is Tahor. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 75, who elaboratess.
Why does the Torah repeat the word "ve'ha'Basar ..."?
Rashi: To permit Basar of a limb of Kodshei Kodshim, part of which left the Azarah, or of a limb of Kodshim Kalim, part of which left Yerushalayim - to permit the part that remained inside to be eaten. 1
Although this is not the case regarding Tum'ah (See Ba'al ha'Turim).
What is "veha'Basar, Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" coming to teach us?
Rashi #1: "veha'Basar? teaches us that, although the Basar of a Chatas and an Asham that leave the precincts of the Azarah may not be eaten, 1 the Basar of a Shelamim may be eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim.
Rashi #2: ?Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" teaches us that not only the owner, but anyone who is Tahor, may eat the Shelamim.
Moshav Zekenim: It is placed next to Kareis for eating Kodshim (in the next Pasuk), to teach us that one is liable only for what is permitted to Tehorim, but not for Basar before Zerikah.
As we learned earlier, in Vayikra 6:9 (Rashi).
