Implied Question: One cannot establish that the Beraisa is referring to Arayos that are punished with Kares and not death. [Why not?]

Answer: This is because it would be possible to ask that he should receive lashes (which one can receive instead of Kares), as explained earlier (7b, DH b'Shogeg).

Explanation: Rashi explains that a woman who gave birth who had Yom Kippur pass can eat Kodshim, and she does not have to bring a Korban.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that if this is so, her sin will never result in the bringing of a "Chatas." [If so, how can this Korban be included in the Pasuk, "l'Chal Chatasam?"]

Answer: There is no reason to worry about this, being that accidental Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav is called a "Chatas" (and this is enough to fulfill the Pasuk, without having the "sin" of a Yoledes called a "Chatas").

Implied Question: It is not called "twice during the year." [It would seem that this is against the Pasuk "once a year," as this can technically happen twice a year.]

Answer: This is because it only is set to happen once a year.

Question: However, this is difficult. She is supposed to bring a Korban. How can we say Yom Kippur should atone for someone who is already obligated to bring a Korban?

Answer: Being that a Korban Yoledes is not to atone but rather to allow her to eat Kodshim, it is not considered an obligation to bring a Korban. Even according to Rebbi Shimon who says that a Yoledes is a sinner, the main part of the Korban is to allow her to eat Kodshim. [Rebbi Shimon is only explaining the sleight sin aspect of the Korban.]

Question: However, this is difficult. What is the Gemara's question? If the question is that she should not have to bring a Korban at all, it should give an answer similar to that given regarding the Sa'ir ha'Mishtalei'ach in the end of Kerisus (26a). The Gemara there says that the reason she must still bring a Korban after Yom Kippur passes is in order to permit her to eat Kodshim (nothing to do with needing atonement). The Gemara gives a similar answer regarding Nazir, that his Korban is in order to allow him to start his Nezirus of purity.

Answer: It therefore seems according to Rabeinu Tam that here the question is from a doubtful Yoledes. For example, it is unclear if she miscarried a child or "wind" (something other than a partially formed child) at a time when it was not even apparent that she was pregnant. If her pregnancy was apparent, we would assume that she must have miscarried a child, as most woman would at that stage of pregnancy. Alternatively, we would say that she must have not realized that she miscarried, which means she does not have to bring a Korban.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that a Chatas ha'Of is brought for a doubtful situation, as stated in Nidah (72a). [Why, then, should it make a difference if it is a doubtful situation? She should still have to bring it?]

Answer#1: She is not considered as having to bring a Korban in this case, being that she is like someone who is supposed to bring an Asham Taluy. They are not considered as having to bring a Korban (after Yom Kippur has passed) as stated in Kerisus (25b), being that their Korban is only brought due to a doubt.

Answer#2: Additionally, an Olas ha'Of (which a Yoledes also must bring) is not brought due to a doubt.

Now the Gemara is asking that the Sa'ir should hold her off her Korban until she can bring a Chatas ha'Of after Yom Kippur. The following questions of the Gemara are in a similar vein.

However, in Kerisus (26a) the Gemara is asking that she should not have to bring a Korban at all. This is why it is understandable that the Gemara does not give the same answer here as it gives there.

Question: A Korban Yoledes is also called a Chatas! [Accordingly, how can we give this answer?]

Answer: We require that it is brought for a Chatas which is similar to Pesha'im. [In other words, it is for a sin (not just to make one clean and ready to eat Kodshim).]

Implied Question: The Gemara cannot answer that the Pasuk says, "And he will atone (which implies sin)." [Why not?]

Answer: This is because regarding a Yoledes the Pasuk also says, "And he will atone" meaning that she is ready (not the usual meaning of "atone") and clean to eat Kodshim.

Question: [What would be the difference etc.] You might ask that he is also bringing an Asham. [This therefore would not be a lenient difference, which is a requirement of the Gemara's teaching.]

Answer: There is at least a leniency regarding his Korban Chatas.

Question: This is difficult. There is no Korban brought for these seven sins unless he becomes a Metzora. How can we think that a Metzora's Korban is for these sins?

Answer: The Rivan understands that the Gemara originally thought that he is bringing the Korban for atonement and to permit him to eat Kodshim (see the side of the Gemara that it seems the word "b'Kehal" in Tosfos should be replaced with the word "b'Kodshim").

Explanation: The Gemara is referring to a case where he did not know that he became impure. The difference in his Korban is that he brings doves.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that he also brings a Korban Asham. [This therefore would not be a lenient difference, which is a requirement of the Gemara's teaching.]

Answer: Even so, the Korban that the Torah requires that he bring besides for that Asham is leniently different than other Korbanos (in that it is a bird).

Question: He is only called a sinner because he pained himself by refraining from drinking wine. The Sa'ir is only brought to atone for impurity!

Answer: It is possible to answer that being that through his becoming impure he is paining himself to abstain further from drinking wine, as stated in Nazir (3a) that he is called someone who is repeating his sin, it is fitting to say about him, "And he will atone from his impurity."

This is specifically according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar. However, according to the Rabbanan, even if he becomes impure on purpose, the Korban is not brought because of a sin. Even if he would become impure due to forced circumstances, which would mean he is not a sinner according to the Rabbanan, he would still have to bring a Korban.

The Pasuk, "And from that which "Chata" -- "he sinned" on the soul" means that "he was lacking" according to the Rabbanan.

This is like, "And I and my son Shelomo were "Chata'im" -- "lacking." This is also like, "To the gate "v'Lo Ya'chati" -- "and he will not be lacking."

Implied Question: One cannot explain "u'le'Chal Chatasam" as meaning "and to all of their lackings."

Answer: The Gemara has stated that the Torah implies "Chata'im" are like "Pesha'im" -- "sins" (as stated on 7b).

Question: We should also derive this from the Sa'ir l'Azazel (that it cannot atone for a Korban that is obligated to be brought before Yom Kippur), as regarding this we also derive that "Chata'im" must be like "Pesha'im."

Answer: It is possible to answer that we only derive that "Chata'im" must be like "Pesha'im" if he knows during the day that he is obligated to bring a Korban. However, if he only finds out close to sunset of Yom Kippur, he is not considered as having to bring a Korban.

This is why the word "Chata'im" stated by the Sa'ir ha'Pnimi is extra. It is in order to teach that it is like "Pesha'im," and that even if he only found out close to sunset the Sa'ir does not push aside (afflictions he deserves due to this sin).

Explanation: The Gemara did not want to say a case where there is no knowledge before and after.

Implied Question: One might think that being that the Si'eerei Regalim and Roshei Chadashim atone for such sins, we should possibly switch the types of sins for which each Korban atones (and have the Si'eerei Regalim atone for sins where one first did know and then did not know). [Why doesn't the Gemara entertain this possibility?]

Answer: The Pasuk says there (regarding the Si'eer Rosh Chodesh), "la'Hashem Chatas" (more accurately "l'Chatas la'Hashem" see 9a) meaning that only Hash-m knows about this sin. [It is therefore clear that the Si'eerei Regalim atone for sins where one did not know originally or later.]

Implied Question: Even according to Rebbi Shimon who does not derive this from "la'Hashem," the Gemara could not have entertained that this Korban is for sins where there never was any knowledge before and after. [Why not?]

Answer: This is because of the comparison of the Mishnah, that whatever this atones for, the other also atones. [The Mishnah (2a) stated that both the Sa'ir ha'Chitzon and Pnimi atone for a sin where there is knowledge at some stage, ruling out where there never is any knowledge.]

Question: How can it be better than the Sa'ir l'Azazel that only pushes aside suffering? This is as stated in Kerisus (25a) that people who are obligated to bring Chata'os and definite Ashamos (as opposed to an Asham Taluy) are still liable to bring them after Yom Kippur!

Answer: It is possible to answer that here the question is from the implication of the Pasuk. "And it will atone for all of their sins" implies that it atones fully for the sin. However, regarding the Sa'ir la'Azazel it only says, "for all of their sins" regarding "Viduy" -- "confession (done before bringing the Korban" not regarding the actual atonement. [The implication of the Pasuk for complete atonement is indeed stronger than the Sa'ir la'Azazel, and is why the Gemara suggests this.]

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Kerisus (26a) asks regarding the Sa'ir la'Azazel, perhaps when he finds out that he was obligated to bring a Korban after Yom Kippur he does not have to bring a Chatas? Why should this question be correct? Regarding the Sa'ir la'Azazel the Pasuk also says, "for all of their sins!" [This should mean the Korban pushes aside affliction for the sin until he eventually brings a Chatas! Why would we think he should not bring a Chatas?]

Answer#1: It is possible to answer that there this ("for all of their sins") indeed applies. He knew before Yom Kippur that he might have sinned and therefore had to bring an Asham Taluy, and that therefore the Sa'ir la'Azazel would atone for him (as is the law). Even if he finds out after Yom Kippur that he had definitely sinned (accidentally), he will not have to bring a Chatas. The sin is something which will eventually obligate him to bring a Chatas, being that he already is liable to bring an Asham Taluy (before Yom Kippur, as this is brought on a possible obligation to bring a Chatas).

However, it is obvious that where he has no idea at all or even a doubt before Yom Kippur that he will have to bring a Chatas when he finds out. This is derived from the Pasuk "for all of their sins" as stated here in our Gemara.

Answer#2: Alternatively, regarding the Sa'ir la'Azazel we have no teaching that it atones specifically for sins which will eventually obligate one to bring a Chatas. This is evident from the fact that it atones for many sins that never mandate one to bring a Korban, such as basic positive or negative commandments and other sins.

Answer#3: Alternatively, the Sa'ir la'Azazel is better in that pushes aside suffering for sins that a person finds out about close to sunset (on Erev Yom Kippur) as I have explained.

Question: This is understandable according to Rebbi Shimon who does not hold of the derivation, "A sin that only Hash-m knows about." The Hekesh is therefore needed to teach that the Sa'ir ha'Chitzon does not atone for that which the Si'eerei Regalim atone for (namely when the person never has any knowledge of his sin).

However, according to Rebbi Yehudah, why is this Hekesh necessary? It must be that the Chitzon atones for a sin where one had no prior knowledge but found out afterwards they had sinned! What else can it atone for? There is no reason to ask that the sins atoned by the Chitzon and Regalim may be the opposite (i.e. that the Si'eerei Regalim atone for sins where one did know afterwards that he had sinned, and that the Chitzon atones when he never knew). This is because Rebbi Yehudah holds of the teaching "la'Hashem Chatas" that the Si'eerei Rosh Chodesh (and Regalim) atone for sins that only Hash-m knows about!

One cannot say that the Hekesh is required to teach that the Chitzon only atones for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav and not other sins. [Why not?]

The wording of the Mishnah (i.e. the Hekesh) implies that it is needed to teach that it atones for a sin where he originally did not know and afterwards found out he had sinned.

Answer: It is possible to answer that without this Hekesh we would establish that the Chitzon atones for sins of Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav where there was never any knowledge, and the Si'eerei Regalim and Rosh Chodesh atone for other types of sins where there was never any knowledge.

We would not derive that since this comes at set times, just as this only atones on Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav etc, as Tana Dvei Rebbi Yishmael derives (9a). We would derive that just as this atones when there is no knowledge at all, so too this atones when there is no knowledge at all.

However, now that there is the Hekesh of the Chitzon to the Pnimi, we must derive as does Tana Dvei Rebbi Yishmael (above).

Clarification: Despite the fact that this sin will never result in a "Chatas" there is no problem, as I have explained earlier (8a, DH AIMA YOLEDES).

Question: If so, why is the Chitzon brought at all?

Answer: It is possible to answer that this is because of the impurity that happens between the two Korbanos.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that if the Pnimi would also atone for the Chitzon, than the atonement of the Pnimi would be twice (for two different things) a year (not once, as implied by the Pasuk)?

Answer: This is not a problem, being that the main atonement regarding the Pnimi, where the person knew beforehand and did not know afterwards, will only be once a year.

Question: Being that the Chitzon is compared to the Pnimi, we should derive that the atonement of the Chitzon should only be once a year (just as that of the Pnimi is only once a year)!

This is apparent from the Gemara's question later regarding the Chitzon that the Si'eerei Regalim and Rosh Chodesh already atone (for where there is no knowledge at all). The Gemara means that the Chitzon must not atone for this as well, as this would be twice a year.

Additionally, later the Gemara asks, "When the Pasuk says, "one," it does so regarding the Sa'ir ha'Pnimi. The Gemara answers that being that the Chitzon is compared to the Pnimi, it also only atones once.

Later, when the Gemara asks that the Chitzon should atone for itself and for the Pnimi, it should answer that the Chitzon cannot atone twice, being that it was compared to the Pnimi.

Answer: It is possible to answer that because the Pasuk does not say, "once" by the Chitzon itself, but rather derives that this applies to the Chitzon based on a Hekesh from the Pnimi, we have no reason to exclude the Pnimi from atoning for the Chitzon and visa versa.

On the contrary, based on the Hekesh we can say that whatever this one atones for, the other should also atone! The questions mentioned above are asked because they are compared to each other. However, regarding the Chitzon, Rosh Chodesh, and Regalim that are not compared to each other, the Gemara understandably asks that the Si'eerei Reglaim and Rosh Chodesh already atone for this (and therefore the Chitzon must not atone for it).

This is because regarding other atonements (besides the Pnimi) it is as if the Pasuk says, "once a year" in respect to the Chitzon.

Question: If the one asking the question did not know the derivation, "once a year" why didn't he solely ask that both should atone, or at least push aside the suffering, for the sins for which the Pnimi atones?

Answer#1: Regarding this question, the questioner definitely knew that he would be given the answer, "once a year." This is because the Chitzon only has this one atonement.

However, regarding the question that the Chitzon should atone for itself and the Pnimi, the questioner does not think it is logical that we should exclude from, "once a year" being that the main atonement is not that of the Pnimi.

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that it is logical that they are not brought for the same thing, in a way that one cannot atone without the other. It is illogical to say that the Pnimi should atone for both, and that the actual Chitzon is only brought due to (a sin of) impurity that happens between the bringing of the Pnimi and Chitzon.

It is now understandable why the Gemara said earlier that the difference is where the Chitzon was not brought, and it did not say that the difference is to protect for what happens between the bringing of the Pnimi and the Chitzon.

Where the Chitzon was done afterwards the Pnimi would not atone on the Chitzon, in order that the Chitzon should not be brought just for impurity that happens between the Pnimi and the Chitzon.

Question: Why don't we say that both Korbanos are brought for the reason that the Chitzon is brought, and that the Pnimi holds off the suffering and the Chitzon completes total atonement?

Answer: If the Chitzon totally atones, this would mean that the sin would never result in the bringing of a Chatas. Accordingly, the Pnimi would not be able to hold off suffering for these sins (as the Pasuk says, "l'Chol Chatasam," see beginning of Tosfos 8a DH V'AIMA YOLEDES).