Implied Question: This is despite the fact that when he finds out after Yom Kippur he must bring a Chatas. (Why doesn't this constitute two atonements?)

Answer #1: Even so, the atonement of pushing aside the affliction that is deserved because of this sin only happens once.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is not called "twice a year" unless it is two set times (as opposed to a Chatas that can be brought on any day of the year) when there is an atonement for this sin.

Explanation: The Gemara understands that it is obvious that even knowledge of having been taught this law from his teacher is not required. This is based on the conclusion of the Gemara (5a) that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi.

The Gemara understands that it is not logical that any Tana will hold that knowing the law because he learned it from his teacher is called knowing, besides Rebbi.

Implied Question: One cannot say that the Chitzon should push aside the affliction from the sin where there is knowledge both before and after, and the (accidental) sinner found out about it before sunset of Yom Kippur. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because he is obligated to bring a Korban (and we know that the Chitzon does not atone at all for someone obligated to bring a Korban, see Kerisus 25b and Tosfos in Shevuos 7b, DH EE B'SHOGEG).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that regarding the Pnimi, if it were not for the teaching, "Chata'im" are compared to "Pesha'im," I would think that it indeed pushes aside the affliction. (Being that there is no such Pasuk by the Chitzon, why can't we say that the fact that he is obligated to bring a Korban does not matter?)

Answer: Even so, being that the Pasuk revealed regarding the Pnimi that it does not atone for a sin where the sinner must bring a Korban, it is logical that this is also true regarding all of these Korbanos.

It is now understandable that the Gemara later says regarding Rebbi Shimon (see 9b) that the Si'eerei Regalim must only atone for a sin where there was never knowledge before or after, and it did not say it is for a sin where there was knowledge before and after and the sinner found out before sunset on Erev Yom Kippur.

However, one cannot say that the Gemara did not entertain that it is for a sin where there was knowledge before and after and the sinner found out before sunset on Erev Yom Kippur because the Chitzon is compared to the Pnimi.

Implied Question: When the Gemara later asks what is the Halachic teaching derived from the fact that the Chitzon and Pnimi are compared to each other, it could have given the above answer (d). (Why didn't the Gemara do so?)

Answer: Rather, without this the Gemara gave a good (i.e. better) answer, as this answer would not work for Rebbi Shimon's position regarding the Si'eerei Regalim (see 9b).

Question: According to Rebbi Yishmael, we should say the opposite. We should say that the Pnimi atones for someone who never had knowledge before and after the sin, while the Chitzon atones on someone who had prior knowledge but not knowledge after the sin. This is because never having any knowledge still enables one to possibly bring a Chatas according to Rebbi Yishmael.

Answer #1: Even so, knowing beforehand makes one more likely to end up bringing a Chatas, even if he does not currently know that he sinned. This is because he can easily remember that he sinned, as opposed to something that he never knew about at all.

Answer #2: According to the Gemara's conclusion, that Rebbi Yishmael holds like Rebbi Meir that all of the Si'eerim have the same atonement, it is understandable why we cannot say the opposite (as in the question above). This is because regarding Rosh Chodesh the Pasuk says, "la'Hashem" meaning that only Hash-m recognizes this sin (and he has no idea before or after).

Question: According to Rebbi Yishmael, why is "For all of their sins" required?

Answer: This is in order that we should not say the Korban fully atones for these sins.

Explanation: He does not exactly hold like Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Meir holds one must have prior knowledge, as the Mishnah states later that all of them atone for someone who did not have prior knowledge and he had knowledge afterwards. However, Rebbi Yishmael holds such a person must bring a Korban (and therefore the Korban clearly does not atone for such a person).

Question: What is the question? We obviously cannot establish the atonement of Regalim and Rosh Chodesh for anything other than someone who did not have knowledge before and after. If someone had knowledge, either before or after, the Pnimi and Chitzon will atone for him.

Answer: It is possible that the question is how we know that the atonement is for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav, and not for other sins.

If we know this because of the Binyan Av that the house of Rebbi Yishmael stated, it is possible to ask as the Gemara does later. The Gemara asks that Yom Kippur is different as it atones for many sins. The Gemara answers that "l'Chatas la'Hashem" teaches that this Korban atones for a sin that only Hash-m knows about (he had no knowledge before or after).

Being that it atones for when there was never prior knowledge or knowledge after the fact, it is not possible to ask, "Yom Kippur is different etc." This is because it was merely a revealing piece of information (not a Binyan Av see TOSFOS DH HO'IL) that the Chatas referred to by the Pasuk is Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav, as stated later in the Gemara.

Explanation: The Aruch explains that this Sa'ir should be an atonement for Bnei Yisrael. It was incumbent upon Me to set the time for this atonement, and I did so on Rosh Chodesh, in order to appease the moon.

Explanation: Rashi explains that this is referring to the Si'eer Chitzon. This is indeed must be the Gemara's intent.

Proof #1: If it would be deriving this from the Pnimi, when the Gemara asks that Yom Kippur is different as it atones for many sins, it should also have asked that its blood goes inside (by the Kodesh Kodoshim, and is therefore holier than the Si'eer Rosh Chodesh). (The absence of such a question indicates that it is not referring to the Pnimi, but rather to the Chitzon.)

Proof #2: Additionally, instead of learning from the Pnimi, we should derive from the Si'eer la'Azazel that it atones for other sins. Even though the Si'eer la'Azazel is not really a Korban (as it is pushed off a cliff, not offered in the Beis Hamikdash), the Pnimi is also not a regular Korban, as it is burned outside the encampment. It would therefore be more appropriate to derive from the Si'eer la'Azazel, as the derivation would be two Korbanos that are done outside the Beis Hamikdash (in some fashion). However, now that the derivation is from the Chitzon, this is understandable, as this is much more similar to the Si'eer Rosh Chodesh than the Si'eer la'Azazel.

It is also understandable why the earlier Hekesh teaching that the Chitzon atones from the Pnimi was required. We could not have learned this from the Pnimi using a Binyan Av, as we would not derive a Binyan Av for the Chitzon from the Pnimi (as they are so different).

Question: If the Si'eer Rosh Chodesh is derived from the Chitzon, you should see from here that a law that is derived through a Hekesh (regarding one topic) can now teach that the same is true regarding a different topic through a Binyan Av.

This is evident from the fact that we only know that the Chitzon itself atones for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav because it is compared to the Pnimi. This (whether or not something derived using a Hekesh can now teach that law regarding another topic using a Binyan Av) is a question in Zevachim (50a). (Our Gemara should be clear proof that it can. Why, then, isn't this used as an answer to that question?)

Answer: This is not considered a Binyan Av, but rather a revealing piece of information, as is apparent later.

It is now also understandable that the Si'eerei Regalim are compared to Rosh Chodesh. This is despite the fact that this law regarding the Si'eer Rosh Chodesh is only known from a Binyan Av from the Chitzon, and the Chitzon is known from a Hekesh from the Pnimi.

Opinion: Rashi explains later that something derived using a Binyan Av can teach that this should apply to a different topic through a Hekesh. We therefore can learn Si'eerei Regalim from Rosh Chodesh, even though we only know this regarding Rosh Chodesh from a Binyan Av from Yom Kippur.

Question #1: This cannot be said, as the Gemara asks Zevachim (51a) whether or not something learned using a Binyan Av can go and teach regarding another topic using a Hekesh.

Question #2: Additionally, this is worse than something taught using a Hekesh that we know cannot teach this regarding a topic using a Hekesh, as Rashi himself later explains. We derive the Si'eerei Rosh Chodesh from the Chitzon which regarding itself is only known through a Hekesh from the Pnimi.

Implied Question: One cannot ask that we should derive from this Binyan Av that Rosh Chodesh should also atone for the same atonement as the Chitzon. (Why not?)

Answer #1: This is because the Chitzon is compared to the Pnimi regarding that its atonement should not be twice a year.

Answer #2: Additionally, regarding this topic it is possible to ask that Yom Kippur is different as it atones for many sins. It would not be possible to answer that this is merely revealing a piece of information, as the Pasuk regarding Rosh Chodesh only implies that it atones for sins where there was no prior knowledge or knowledge after the sin.

Implied Question: We cannot explain that the Gemara's question here is how do we know that the Si'eerei Regalim atone for other sins, as was indeed the Gemara's question regarding Rosh Chodesh (see TOSFOS DH MAI TAIMAI). (Why can't this be the Gemara's question here as well?)

Answer: If so, what is the Gemara's question later that Rosh Chodesh occurs more often and Yom Kippur has more atonement? On the contrary, we should certainly derive from there that even though they are stringent, they do not atone for other sins (certainly Si'eerei Regalim do not atone for other sins)!

Explanation: Rather, it is possible to explain that the Gemara's question is as follows. How do we know that the Si'eerei Regalim atone for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav which is punishable by Kares? Perhaps it only atones for other sins that do not bear the punishment of Kares, as the Pasuk does not explicitly say that it atones for a particular sin!

This is unlike Rosh Chodesh, where it is clear from the Pasuk that the Si'eer Rosh Chodesh atones for a sin that the person has no knowledge about. This implies all sins that are not known to the person, as Rashi explains later.

This is why the Gemara asks how we know that it does not apply to other sins, and is also why the Gemara considers this later to be revealing a piece of information (and not a teaching such as a Binyan Av).

Explanation: Rashi explains that this means that the amount of atonement on the day (of Yom Kippur) is great. He is indeed correct.

Implied Question: One cannot explain the Gemara means that it atones on Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav that is punished with Kares. (Why not?)

Answer: This is precisely the point we are trying to derive!

Question: How can we derive from Yom Kippur? Don't we say that something (regarding one topic) that is derived from a Hekesh (from a different topic) cannot now go and teach that law regarding another (third) topic? Why do we need to ask that Yom Kippur has a lot of atonement?

Answer: This question is necessary in order that we should not derive from Rosh Chodesh. If we would only ask that Rosh Chodesh occurs more often, the Gemara could ask that Yom Kippur should prove this is so. However, now that there is a question showing that Yom Kippur is also different (from the Regalim), we cannot prove anything from Yom Kippur.

Question: Why don't we derive using a Tzad ha'Shaveh from both Rosh Chodesh and Yom Kippur? (This is a method of derivation where we take the common aspects of two topics and derive that these aspects should apply to a third similar topic.)

Answer: It is possible to ask regarding such a Tzad ha'Shaveh that both Rosh Chodesh and Yom Kippur are very different from the Regalim, as they have a lot of atonement. Being that Rosh Chodesh occurs often, it is considered somewhat to have a lot of atonement.

Text: Here we do not have the text, "being that Yom Kippur has a lot of atonement." This is because we are deriving a leniency regarding Rosh Chodesh from Yom Kippur that it does not also atone for other sins. This question would be a stringency.

Rather, we only have the text, "And we do not ask." This is referring to the question that Yom Kippur is not as frequent.

Question #1: This is difficult. How do we know that Shevuos is included? The Torah does not say, "v'Sa'ir" regarding Shevuos. If this is derived using a Binyan Av from the other Regalim, we should understand from here that something derived from a Hekesh can now be taught regarding a different topic using a Binyan Av! (The Gemara in Zevachim (50a) asks whether or not this is true, and does not give this answer. The fact that the Gemara did not prove anything from Shevuos indicates that it is not derived in this manner. How, then, is it derived?)

Question #2: Additionally, if we could use a Binyan Av, the Pasuk should have said "v'Sa'ir" only by the first Regel after Rosh Chodesh, and the others could be derived from a Binyan Av!

Answer #1: It is perhaps possible to answer that the derivation here is only regarding the Sa'ir that is written after Rosh Chodesh, while the other "v'Sa'ir" is for a different derivation. The other Regalim are derived automatically, as once this is said regarding one, the characteristics of the others are derived from what is specified by other Regalim. This does not even require a Binyan Av.

The Gemara later that asks from Shevuos and Yom Kippur is mainly asking from Yom Kippur. The Gemara is specifically asking according to Rebbi Meir, as he says that all of the Si'eerim have equal atonement, even Yom Kippur.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that our Gemara is actually relying on the Hekesh stated by Rebbi Yonah (10a), as our Gemara concludes. The Gemara here only stated the beginning of the teaching later [it is like saying etc.].

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Yehudah holds of the Hekesh of "b'Moadeichem" as per the opinion of Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah does not understand that it is logical to say that all of the Si'eerim should have the same atonement as indeed is the opinion of Rebbi Meir. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because (Rebbi Yehudah understands that) the Hekesh of the Chitzon to the Pnimi is preferable. It is possible to say that it does not atone for two different things, and it does not atone twice in the year.

However, according to Rebbi Meir the Hekesh comparing the Moadim is preferable.

Question: According to this, why did we have to answer earlier that Rebbi Yishmael holds like Rebbi Meir? We should say that the Chitzon atones for a case where there is no prior knowledge and currently no knowledge after the sin, but he will end up being told! The Regalim and Rosh Chodesh do not atone for this, as being that it will end up being known it is not called a "sin" that only Hash-m knows about.

Answer: It is possible to answer that being that the truth is that according to Rebbi Yehudah a sin that will end up being known is atoned by the Regalim and Rosh Chodesh, the Gemara does not want to establish Rebbi Yishmael as arguing in this matter.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer, as it does later, that only that atones for this sin (and not another)?

Answer #1: The Tzitz is not called "another" regarding Rosh Chodesh, as the Pasuk does not indicate that Rosh Chodesh atones for when the Korban is offered (in an impure fashion). Rather, this is derived from the Tzitz. However, the Gemara can answer regarding "the sin of the congregation" which is stated by Rosh Chodesh that nothing else atones for that sin.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Shmuel explains that the Gemara's question is as follows. Just as there it refers to the Korbanos being offered, meaning that the Tzitz atones for these Korbanos themselves (i.e. they are valid though offered in impurity), Rosh Chodesh atones for the sin of the one bringing the Korban while impure. We now do not need the teaching regarding the broken Tzitz.

The Gemara answers that it says, "the sin of the congregation." This means that it is referring to a sin that is only done with a congregation, as opposed to the atoning for the Korban itself which can be regarding any Korban.

Alternatively, it is referring to the sin of the congregation and not the sin of the Kohen.

Explanation: The Gemara is asking regarding a Korban that was offered in impurity when the Korban of Rosh Chodesh was brought. Korbanos that were brought before Rosh Chodesh are clearly not included in this atonement, as how would there be a retroactive atonement for what was already brought in impurity?

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that it bears one sin not two sins?

Answer #1: It is possible to answer that regarding the Tzitz the Pasuk states, "the sin of the Kodshim." The meat being impure and the Korban being valid are all included in "the sin of the Kodshim" (and it is therefore not two sins).

Answer #2: Additionally, "the sin of the Kodshim" implies two sins of Kodshim, as "Kodshim" (being plural) implies many Kodshim.

Implied Question: The Gemara could not have answered this regarding the first question. (Why not?)

Answer: The previous question was referring to the sin of the congregation. Only regarding the impurity of meat do we say (this answer) that there is nothing else that atones.

Implied Question: It appears that they are not arguing. (If so, why do they state two separate teachings?)

Answer: It must be that the teaching of "it" is required due to the question stated later that the Korbanos of the Regalim should atone for Rosh Chodesh. The teaching of Rav Ashi is also required for Rebbi Shimon ben Rebbi Yehudah, who does not understand that "it" implies this teaching. [See Tosfos ha'Rosh and Maharsha who make this correction in text (and the Maharsha's explanation of Tosfos).]

Explanation: The Gemara is relying on the Hekesh of Rebbi Yonah, as I explained earlier (DH K'D'AMAR).