Question: This is difficult. What are the Levites going to use to atone? If one will maintain that they will use the public's Korban, this does not seem possible, as the Pasuk says, "that is to the nation." Levites are not called "nation" according to one opinion. This is the subject of an argument in Chulin (131b).

If one will maintain that they atone with Aharon's Korban, this does not seem possible, as they are not called part of "his house."

You might maintain that because we find that they do have an atonement, as the Pasuk says, "And he will atone," it must be "that is to the nation" only excludes Kohanim and not Levites and they therefore atone with the Korban of the nation. If so, we find that the Sa'ir of the nation is also permitted to mean more than it implies.

Explanation: Being that a Pasuk is required to say that the Korban is not brought from the Kohanim's money, the implication is that they atone with this Korban. The Gemara answers that the Tana has the following question etc. The Pasuk is needed so that one should not say that being that we find they have an atonement, he should atonement with his Korban and it should be brought with their money.

Question: However, this is slightly difficult. What is the question? Let us say that our derivation that the Korban is not brought from the Kohanim's own money is after we understand that the Kohanim atone with it!

Question: We should say that the second Pasuk of "that is to him" should indicate it must not be from the public funds, and the third is to say it is a Mitzvah to bring from his own money and not that of the Kohanim!

Answer: It is possible to answer that it is logical to first teach that it is a Mitzvah for him to bring from his own money before we derive that money from the public would render the Korban invalid. This is also apparent from Zevachim (7b) and other places.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we derive this from the Pasuk, "And from the congregation of Bnei Yisrael." (Why are two Pesukim necessary?)

Answer: Even so, "that is to the nation" implies that it belongs to the nation. Being that this Pasuk is extra (as stated above), we say that it teaches that the Kohanim do not atone with this Korban.

It is clear that this is true according to the opinion in Shekalim (2a) and Menachos (21b) that the Kohanim do not have to give Machatzis ha'Shekel (every year) for the public Korbanos. This opinion certainly holds they do not pay for this Korban.

However, even according to the opinion that they are commanded to give the Machatzis ha'Shekel and it comes from the Terumas ha'Lishkah, if there is not enough money in the Lishkah and the caretaker collects more money for the Sa'ir, the money is not collected from the Kohanim.

Additionally, if another person comes and gives a Sa'ir to the public, it is able to be used for this Korban even though the Kohanim never acquired it.

Question: This is difficult. Being that we find that they have an atonement with whatever others also atone, as is apparent from the Pasuk, "He will atone" it must be that we cannot establish the Kohanim as atoning with any Korban other than that of Aharon. This is evident from the fact the Kohanim are excluded from the public's Korbanos, as the Pasuk says, "that is to the nation." We cannot derive that they atone from the Korban of the nation, as the Pasuk has told us that they do not.

Answer: It is possible "that is to the nation" implies a reason, as if it said "because it belongs to the nation." If they would atone using Aharon's Korban even though they do not lose any money (i.e. contribute towards buying it), this Pasuk's reasoning is invalid. (The Gemara is asking that the entire derivation is seemingly implausible.)

Implied Question: If there is no prior knowledge or knowledge after the fact, the Si'eerei Regalim atone for Kohanim as well, even though they do not lose money (i.e. contribute towards this Korban). (If the Gemara assumes at this point that unless there is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv to the contrary, Kohanim should not be included in the atonement of Korbanos to which they did not contribute, why should they be included in the atonement of the Si'eerei ha'Regalim?)

Answer #1: Being that we find here that they do atone with Aharon's Korban even though they do not lose money, they can also atone with other Korbanos where they do not lose money.

Answer #2: Additionally, specifically regarding Yom Kippur they must be included by the Pasuk, as we find on Yom Kippur that there is different atonement for Yisraelim and Kohanim.

Observation: This implies that the Kohanim atone with two separate Viduyim (confessions). If so, the Mishnah in Yoma (35b) that states regarding the first Viduy, "Myself and my household" and in the second Viduy, "Myself, my household, and the sons of Aharon" is unlike Rebbi Shimon. According to him, during the first Viduy one should also mention, "And the sons of Aharon."

Question: This is difficult. Rava there (in Yoma ibid.) establishes the Viduy of the Sa'ir la'Azazel as being according to Rebbi Shimon. We can therefore presume that all of these Mishnayos discussing the Viduyim are according to Rebbi Shimon!

Answer: Even Rebbi Shimon agrees that he does not explicitly mention the sons of Aharon until he appears to be free of sin (i.e. after having atoned with his own Korban).

Observation: Rashi implies that he wants to understand that the entire Mishnah is referring to a case where he knew, as he explains, "And he knew he became impure."

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that he establishes the Mishnah as being according to Rebbi, who says that it is enough to have been taught that this is forbidden by his teacher to be considered knowing. (Why, then, does he have to say that he actually knew?)

Answer: Even so, he explains the Mishnah by saying that he knew in general, even though this was not necessary.

One who is didactic in learning the Mishnah can explain the entire Mishnah as referring to a case where he merely knew the law (not that he actually knew he became impure).

Text: This text is the correct text. This is also the opinion of Rashi.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rashi explains in Shabbos (3a) that the thing that bring someone to an obligation of bringing a Chatas (for accidentally transgressing carrying on Shabbos) is uprooting the object from its place. (This is the beginning of the action. How can we reconcile this with our Gemara's statement that the main cause of the obligation is knowing after the fact that one has accidentally sinned?)

Answer: This is not difficult at all. In Shabbos (ibid.), the Gemara discusses one who uproots an object (carries it) and puts it down. One cannot be obligated to bring a Chatas through uprooting alone. However, one who uproots can be obligated to bring a Chatas if he would finish the act of carrying. Here, however, he was never obligated to bring a Chatas when he originally found out he was impure (as this itself is not connected to any act of prohibition). He was only obligated when he found out at the end (that he had accidentally entered the Mikdash or eaten Kodesh).

Explanation: This is like he knows, as he should have asked about this, being that this law is even known to children. However, the law that a Sheretz makes one impure even if he touches a Sheretz the size of a lentil [as stated nearby] is only known to (Talmudic) students.

Question: We should derive that he knew this law in the house of his teacher when he learned that a Tzav (similar to a frog - Rashi in Vayikra 11:29, perhaps a turtle) makes one impure.

Answer #1: It is possible to answer that the case is where he did not learn. While he saw that people were careful, he did not know what they were careful not to touch (i.e. to avoid becoming impure).

Answer #2: Alternatively, he learned the law, but never understood the difference between a Tzav and a frog.

Answer #3: Additionally, it is possible to explain that the Gemara means that he must have learned in his teacher's house that the Torah says a Tzav makes one impure. A person cannot establish that this is referring to a child who was captured (by Nochrim, and therefore grew up being ignorant of Torah), being that he knows that one of them is impure.

Observation: According to what was explained, that the fact that he should have asked is considered knowing, one must explain that the case is nowadays (i.e. when there is no Beis Hamikdash) as it is uncommon to ask where it is.

Even so, the Gemara still said the case is regarding a person from Bavel, as people from Eretz Yisrael are more likely to know where it is.

Question: There is difficulty with this. Why isn't this forgetting implying that he knew, as in the Pasuk regarding Torah, "And it will be removed from the eyes of all of the living?"

Explanation: Rashi explains that this is unlike the knowing from his teacher's house. In that case, he knew that a Sheretz makes one impure. When he touched the Sheretz, he forgot that he becomes impure through this touching. This implies that knowing from his teacher is not considered knowing unless he knew when he touched it that he had touched a Sheretz.

Implied Question: Earlier (5a), the Gemara asked, "Is there anyone who does not know the laws from his teacher's house?" The Gemara answers that we find this regarding a child who was captured by Nochrim (at a young age).

Answer: It could have also answered that he did not know when he touched it that he had touched a Sheretz.