Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva’s opinions are analyzed regarding the fact that the sliding scale sacrifice is only brought for one who forgets one is impure and not one who forgets the mikdash or kodashim. They each bring a different proof text -does that mean they disagree about something or not? A case is brought of one who walked on two paths – one pure and one impure and went into the mikdash. Two variations are brought and there is a debate about what the halacha is in each of the cases.
Questions are asked regarding the requirements for becoming obligated in a sacrifice if one became impure in the temple. What is the time one needs to be there? If one takes the short path out, one will not be obligated -is this something that is measured in time or not?
Do all the elements mentioned in the mishna that are needing for sanctifying additional space need to be there or is it sufficient for just one of them? This has ramifications for the second temple period where not all these elements were accessible? The debate regarding this is based on the whether or not the kedusha in the first temple remain forever or did it need resanctification in the time of Ezra. From where do we derive that one who becomes impure in the mikdash will need to bring a sliding scale sacrifice if one doesn’t leave the temple immediately? What are the measurements for how long one needs to be in there in order to be obligated in the sacrifice? WOuld it be the same for one who did in intentionally and will be punished by lashes?
The ceremony for consecrated additional space in the azara of the Beit Hamikdash is discussed.
The braita at the end of the last page pointed out that the kohanim seem to be excluded from both the goat offering to azazel and from the bull offering of the high priest. This assumption is challenged and explained. The second perek starts with a description of the 4 cases of “yediot ha’tuma” and explain the 4 cases. It also describes what one who becomes impure while in the mikdash should do. Rav Papa challenges the number 4 used in the mishna and the gemara brings 2 versions of his answer to his own question. A few questions for which there are no answers are brought regarding what is considered – having had knowledge from the beginning in particular cases.
The mishna is attributed to Rebbi as it seems to imply that Yom Kippur itself atones for sins even for those who don’t repent. Could the mishna really be Rebbi – isn’t the continuation Rabbi Yehuda? This issue is resolved and leads to further discussion. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon’s debate regarding through which sacrifices on Yom Kippur do the kohanim receive atonement for all their sins – is it with the goat that is sent to Azazel or the bull of the high priest.
The debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis is discussed relating to animals left over from the previous year that were designated for the Tamid sacrifice – can they be redeemed without a blemish or not. According to Rabbi Shimon, they cannot – so what does one do with them? What about a sin offering?
The gemara continues to analyze and explain the opinions in the mishna regarding what sins the goat sin offerings on Rosh Hashana, the holiday and Yom Kippur atone for? The gemara startsa discussion on a different topic regarding what is done with extra sheep left at the end of the year that were designated for the Tamid (daily) sacrifice.
The gemara begins to analyze the 3 opinions brought in the mishna regarding the purposes of the goat sin offerings brought on the outer altar on Yom Kippur and on the regalim and Rosh Chodesh.
The braita which extrapolated exactly for what sin is the goat sin offering whose blood is sprinkled inside the kodesh kodashim meant to atone for is explained in detail.