Question: #1: This seems to be derived regarding Rosh Chodesh using a Gezeirah Shaveh from the Tzitz. Rosh Chodesh then teaches this lesson regarding the Regalim using a Hekesh.

However, whether or not this is a valid method is an argument between Rav Papa and Mar Zutra in Zevachim (50a).

If he would say that the Pnimi is also compared using this Hekesh from the Moadim that is mentioned regarding the Korban Musaf, "Milvad Chatas ha'Kipurim" this would be understandable. Now we would say that the Regalim are compared to the Pnimi (not Rosh Chodesh) which atones for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav.

However, this is difficult according to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah and Rebbi Meir that hold that the Regalim atone for a pure person who ate impure (meat). How can they learn a Hekesh from Rosh Chodesh? This is not derived from Rosh Chodesh itself, but rather is derived using a Gezeirah Shaveh from the Tzitz!

Question #2: There is an additional difficulty. If the Pnimi is also included in this Hekesh, why does Rebbi Yehudah require the teaching from "Chatas la'Hashem" (regarding Rosh Chodesh) that this atones for a sin that only Hash-m knows about? Rosh Chodesh and Regalim are compared to the Pnimi which atones for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav. Accordingly, the case can only be when there is no prior knowledge or knowledge afterwards!

Answer: It is possible to answer that being that the Tzitz is not a service, but rather an adornment (of the Kohen Gadol), Rosh Chodesh can teach this lesson regarding other Korbanos. Something derived (from one topic to a second topic) cannot then be used to apply this lesson (from the second topic) to a third topic if the first topic is also a service of the Beis Hamikdash.

Question: However, this is difficult according to Rebbi Meir. How can he derive that Rosh Chodesh and Regalim apply to a case where there is no prior knowledge, but there is knowledge after the sin, from the Chitzon? The Chitzon itself is only derived from the Pnimi, which clearly atones for a sin for which there is knowledge! [This is deriving from one topic to a second to a third when all three are services of the Beis Hamikdash!]

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers in Sefer Hayashar that being that this Hekesh of Moed is a complete Hekesh regarding the Chitzon (and all of the Si'eerim, see Tosfos ha'Rosh), and Regalim is derived from Rosh Chodesh that the sin is only recognized by Hash-m as clearly stated by the Pasuk, we do make a Hekesh for this entire teaching. This is even for things that are only derived from a source that is once removed (third topic from second topic derived from first topic). This is also implied in Zevachim (57a).

Implied Question: The Gemara at this point does not yet have difficulty with how we derive that this applies to Shevuos and Yom Kippur, as it does later in the Gemara. (Why not?)

Answer: Being that at this point the Gemara understands that each is derived from its friend (the next Parshah of Korbanos), even for the Korbanos that do not say "v'Sa'ir" instead of "Sa'ir" we can derive from the previous Parshah, being that the next one says, "v'Sa'ir." (In other words, if they are all linked by some of them saying "v'Sa'ir" this should be good enough if we say they are all derived from each other.)

However, later the Gemara understandably asks that being that they are all derived from Rosh Chodesh, Shevuos and Yom Kippur should not be included as regarding them the Pasuk does not say, "v'Sa'ir." This is because there is a separation between Rosh Chodesh and them (making us unable to assume we should derive them from Rosh Chodesh).

Implied Question: It is not obvious to the Gemara that the derivation from "it" should be like the derivation of "sin." (Why not?)

Answer: This is because Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah derives from "sin" but not from "it."

This must also be the explanation later regarding the teaching of "one," as the teaching of "once a year" is more obvious to the Gemara than the teaching of "one (sin) it should atone (for)."

Explanation: Everyone understands that the Sa'ir designated for one Rosh Chodesh could be brought on a different Rosh Chodesh, and that the Sa'ir designated for one Regel can be brought on another Regel.

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Zevachim (6a) asks whether or not one can atone with a Korban Olah if it was separated to be an Olah, and only later the sin was committed. In our Gemara, if it will not atone, how can it be brought? It was not separated for the impurity that occurred between the two Korbanos (which is what it is supposed to atone for)!

Answer: It is possible to answer that here, being that the animal was lost, its separation to be a Korban is also uprooted. The other animal that was separated instead atoned for the sins for which it was supposed to atone. When Rosh Chodesh arrives, a new separation will take effect for sins that were already committed.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Zevachim (6b) discusses the sheep brought as Korbanos on Shevuos, and does not say that when the first animal was slaughtered it is apparent that the second animal should not be considered to be separated until it will be slaughtered. (If the above answer is correct, why didn't the Gemara itself say this answer?)

Answer: This is incomparable to a goat that went lost, as the sheep of Shevuos were separated in order that they should be slaughtered one after the other.

Question: If so, how do we know that the Si'eer of Regalim atones for someone who had no prior knowledge or knowledge after the fact? Perhaps it only atones for the same thing as the Si'eer of Rosh Chodesh, meaning a pure person who ate impure Kodshim [and not an impure person who ate Kodshim]?

It is understandable according to Rebbi Shimon that being that he derives from "it," the atonement of the Regalim is for a case where there is no prior knowledge or knowledge after the fact, as stated earlier.

According to Rebbi Meir as well, even though he does not derive from "it," his opinion is understandable. This is because he does derive (from "Chatas la'Hashem") that this is a sin that only Hash-m knows about. He also holds of the Gezeirah Shaveh of "sin" -- "sin" from the Tzitz, and that we learn all of the Si'eerim of the Regalim from Rosh Chodesh.

However, according to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah who does not derive "it" or (from "Chatas la'Hashem") that this is a sin that only Hash-m knows about, as he says that Rosh Chodesh only atones for a pure person who eats impure Kodshim, this is difficult. (How do we know that the Si'eer of Regalim atones for someone who had no prior knowledge or knowledge after the fact?)

Answer #1: Regarding this, he certainly derives from "it" that the Si'eer of Regalim atones for another sin (instead of deriving only one sin, he derives an additional specific sin besides that of Rosh Chodesh), namely someone who had no prior knowledge or knowledge after the fact. However, being that the Regalim do have another atonement, meaning no prior knowledge and no knowledge after the fact (as stated above), they also atone for Rosh Chodesh.

The derivation of "it" is not simple, as he holds that it is illogical to exclude that nothing else can atone for that sin, unless this Korban itself is only supposed to atone for one specific sin (as opposed to another sin).

It is now understandable why the Gemara asks why the Regalim do not atone for Rosh Chodesh. This means, why don't they also atone for Rosh Chodesh? The derivation of "it" is not obvious, being that they have another atonement, as I have explained (in (b) above).

However, regarding the derivation of "once a year" that is more simple that the derivation of "it should atone one" one must explained as I explained earlier (in TOSFOS DH ELA above).

Answer #2: It is also possible to answer that Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah holds that the Si'eerei Regalim are compared to the Si'eer ha'Chitzon. Just as the Chitzon atones for something that is punished by Kares, namely Tumas Mikdash v'Kashav, so too the Si'eerei ha'Regalim atone for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav.

Question: At the end of Kesuvos (105a), the Gemara says that the judges would receive their pay from the Terumas ha'Lishkah. The same goes for those who would correct the Sefarim, and others mentioned in Kesuvos (106a). It therefore seems that Beis Din makes a condition about such things (that the money can come from the Terumas ha'Lishkah). Why, then, is this a question (regarding the animals designated for Temidin that were not used)?

Answer: The cases in Kesuvos are different, as they did not involve an animal that had Kedushas ha'Guf (it itself was supposed to be brought as a Korban).

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that this is referring to the three extra Maneh (a Maneh is equal to approximately twenty ounces) that were left over every year from the handful that the Kohen Gadol took on Yom Kippur, as it was impossible that they would all fit in his hand.

Opinion #2: He did not have to give this explanation. In any event there was extra every year. Every year they would prepare three hundred sixty-five Maneh for the days of the solar year, and three Maneh for the handful of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. Out of the three hundred sixty-five Maneh, eleven were left due to the amount of days that the solar year is more than the lunar year.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that they needed to add more for leap years, which are the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth years (out of a nineteen year cycle). (If they needed more for the leap years, why didn't they just add the extra from the non-leap years to the leap years?)

Answer: In any event, they needed to buy new Ketores from the new collection.

Observation: However, the Beraisa in Kerisus (6b) that says that once every seventy-two years they would only make half the amount must be referring to the extra three Maneh from Yom Kippur.

This is because all of the extra Ketores from eleven regular years would have to be used to fill up the lack of Ketores during the leap years. In the end of every nineteen year cycle, the solar and lunar (together with its leap years) years only have a difference of one hour and four hundred eighty five parts.

Rather, the extra three Maneh would be left, and the only thing that would go into his hand on Yom Kippur is half a Maneh. The other two and a half Maneh were left every year. This means that after seventy-two years there was one hundred eighty Maneh. There is another four Maneh left to equal half of three hundred sixty eight. The Beraisa was not exact in its amount (that it was really seventy-four years and not seventy-two years). (See Maharsha for an understanding of how the Gemara could indeed have been exact.)

Text: Some Sefarim do not have the text "two" (in "seventy-two"). Rather, they only have the text, "once every seventy years." This is also the text of the Yerushalmi.

It is much better to say that the Gemara was not exact in its amount according to this text. If the text includes, "two" it is not very understandable (as why say "two" instead of "four").

In (the Medrash discussing) Pitum ha'Ketores that is quoted in Machzorim, the text is once every sixty or seventy years (this is also the text in our Gemaros of Kerisus ibid.). This is indeed possible if the last two years of this sixty year cycle are non-leap years.

Text: We do not have the text, "mi'Menah." This is because they used to separate from the Terumas ha'Lishkah. The Yerushalmi in Shekalim (6a) is not discussing the Terumas ha'Lishkah, so it is therefore not applicable to say "from it" (which would indicate from what we previously discussed).

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that they acquire it through one of the caretakers (of the assets of the Beis Hamikdash). According to what is said later, that the holiness is transferred onto the worker's own monies, this means that the workers do this on their own after they have acquired the Ketores.

Implied Question: However, the term "(they) would separate" only implies that they would separate it. Additionally, the Mishnah says, "they would give it to the workers as their wages." This implies that they did not yet acquire their wages (at this stage).

Opinion #2: It therefore appears that "the heart of Beis Din" makes a condition on this extra Ketores (that it can be transferred for regular use, see Kerisus 6a-7a that this applies to many things) that it can become a mundane object simply through separating it as such.

Question: Why, then, does their have to be a whole process (as stated in the Beraisa)? The caretakers should merely give the workers the extra Ketores as their wages!

Answer #1: However, according to Ben Azai who says in Shekalim in the chapter titled "ha'Terumah" that Hekdesh does not become mundane due to the work alone (but rather its holiness must be transferred onto money), this is understandable.

Even according to Rebbi Akiva who says that it can be transferred for work, this is only regarding the Ketores of an individual. For example, this applies to someone who is Makdish his possessions and amongst them are things that are fit to be brought as Korbanos Tzibur. These types of Hekdesh can be transferred directly as wages. However, if the Ketores already belonged to the public (i.e. it was already part of the Ketores that was going to be brought that year), they were more stringent regarding its transfer.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara here is discussing the wages of those who make the Ketores of the new year. They must be paid from the new collection of the year. (See footnote #488 in Tosfos ha'Rosh regarding this novel statement of Tosfos.)

Observation: According to the Gemara in Meilah (14b) that these workers are people who work to repair the structure of the Beis Hamikdash, they cannot receive Ketores as wages, as their wages are only given from Bedek ha'Bayis (general Hekdesh funds, not things that were designated to be brought as Korbanos).

Question: Without putting it into a grinder it would also become invalid, as it originally had Kedushas Damim (monetary holiness)!

Answer: It is possible to answer that even Kedushas Damim would not make it invalid if it was touched by a Tevul Yom. Rather, the only thing making it invalid is putting it into a grinder (and grinding it) in a way that it can now be offered. However, before this step it cannot become invalid.