SHEVUOS 7 (17 Kislev) - Dedicated by Libi Astaire in honor of the Yahrzeit of her father, Moshe ben Eliyahu Feinberg z'l.



תוספות ד"ה עולה ויורד

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara's question is asked only regarding a Korban Olah v'Yored.)

וא"ת קרבן קבוע נמי ה"ל למיפרך דנייתי מידי דהוה אשפחה חרופה דלית בה כרת ומייתי קרבן קבוע


Question: It should have asked that a permanent Korban can be brought as well by someone who is not punished with Kares, being that one does not receive the punishment of Kares for being with a Shifchah Charufah, but he does bring a set Korban (an Asham Shifchah Charufah)!

וי"ל דהתם אשם הוא דמייתי ולא חטאת


Answer: He brings an Asham there, not a Chatas (our Gemara is discussing bring a Chatas).



תוס' ד"ה מקיש

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the context of the Pasuk.)

ובאכילה דקודש איירי קרא כדאמר בפר' בתרא דמכות (דף יד:)


Explanation: The Pasuk is discussing eating Kodesh, as stated in Makos (14b).



תוס' ד"ה ואימא אף תרומה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos shows that our Gemara argues with the Gemara in Makos regarding whether this Pasuk is discussing both Terumah and Kodesh.)

דכתיב בכל קודש


Explanation: This is because it says, "In all Kodesh" (which seemingly includes Terumah).

משמע לפי סוגיא דשמעתין דהאי קרא איירי בין בתרומה בין בקודש


Our Gemara implies that this Pasuk is discussing both Terumah and Kodesh.

ותימה דסוגיא דמכות (שם) מוכחת דלא מיירי בתרוייהו דר"ל מוקי ליה בקודש גרידא ורבי יוחנן בתרומה גרידא


Question: This is difficult, as the Gemara in Makos (ibid.) shows that this Pasuk is not talking about both. Reish Lakish there says the Pasuk is only talking about Kodesh , while Rebbi Yochanan says that it is only talking about Terumah!

וי"ל דסוגיא דהכא כברייתא דת"כ דתניא התם בכל קדש לא תגע יכול אף במעשר ת"ל ואל המקדש לא תבא מה מקדש דבר שיש בו נטילת נשמה אף כל כו' יצא מעשר


Answer: The Gemara here is like the Beraisa in Toras Kohanim. The Beraisa states, "In all that is holy he should not touch." One would think this even means Ma'aser. This is why the Pasuk states, "And to the Mikdash he should not come." Just as the Mikdash is referring to a sin where one is punished by Kares, so too this must be talking about something that is punished by Kares. This excludes Ma'aser.

אי מה מקדש הנכנס בו בטומאה ענוש כרת אף קודש האוכלו בטומאה ענוש כרת יצתה תרומה ת"ל בכל קדש לרבות את התרומה אלמא בהדיא מוקי קרא בתרוייהו


If so, just as a person who goes into the Mikdash receives Kares, so too someone who eats Kodesh when they are impure should receive Kares, as opposed to Terumah. This is why the Pasuk says, "In all Kodesh" in order to include Terumah. This shows that the Pasuk is clearly including both Kodesh and Terumah.

וה"ה דהוה מצי למיפרך לפי סוגיא דמכות הניחא לר"ל אלא לר' יוחנן דמוקי לה בתרומה מא"ל


Observation: The Gemara also could have asked according to the Gemara in Makos that this (establishing the Pasuk regarding Kodesh and not Terumah) is understandable according to Reish Lakish. However, according to Rebbi Yochanan who says the Pasuk is discussing Terumah, what can we answer?



תוס' ד"ה אחת

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rashi's question and answer here is not exact.)

פירש בקונטרס וא"ת כלל ופרט ואין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט


Explanation: Rashi asks, "And if you will say that being that the first Pasuk is a Klal and the second is a Perat, we should say the typical understanding that the Klal only includes what is included in the Perat."

ואגב ריהטיה לא דק דה"ל להקשות פרט וכלל הוא ונעשה כלל מוסיף על הפרט דהפרט בצו וכלל באמור


Question: Being that he was learning quickly he was not exact in his question. The question he should have asked was that this should be considered a Perat u'Klal, and the Klal therefore adds onto the Perat. This is because the Perat is from Parshas Tzav and the Klal is from Parshas Emor.

ומה שפי' דמדת כלל ופרט המרוחקין אינה כמדת כלל ופרט וכלל


Explanation: Rashi's explanation is that the way of deriving a Klal and Perat that are stated far apart from each other is not like the usual way of deriving a Klal, Perat, u'Klal.

אין נראה דבפ' נגמר הדין (סנהדרין דף מו.) מוכיח דריבה ומיעט הוי כמדת כלל ופרט המרוחקין ובקונטרס גופיה פירש לעיל (דף ד:) דריבה ומיעט שוה למדת כלל ופרט וכלל


Question: This does not seem accurate. In Sanhedrin (46a), the Gemara proves that Ribah and Mi'eit are similar to a Klal u'Perat that are far apart from each other. Rashi himself says earlier (4b) that Ribah u'Mi'eit is similar to a Klal u'Perat u'Klal.

וא"ת כיון דמדת כלל ופרט המרוחקין זה מזה שוה למדת כלל ופרט וכלל א"כ לא הוה לן למעוטי קדשי בדק הבית לבד אלא ה"ל למימר מה שלמים מיוחדין שיש להן מתירין כדדריש ר' שמעון לקמן גבי פיגול ונצריך כרת שלישי לדברים שאין להן מתירין


Question: Being that a Klal u'Perat that are distanced from each other is similar to a Klal u'Perat u'Klal, we should not have merely excluded Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Rather, it should have said that just as Shelamim are special in that it has steps taken (i.e. Zerikah) that permit parts of it to be eaten (by either people or the Mizbe'ach, so too only Korbanos that have steps taken permitting parts of them to be eaten are included in this prohibition). This is similar to the teaching of Rebbi Shimon later regarding Pigul. We then need the third Kares to teach that this is even true regarding Korbanos where no part is permitted to be eaten. [The Gemara in Zevachim 44a gives many examples, such as a Minchas Kohen, that are totally burnt, and no part permits another part to be eaten.]

ומנ"ל לאוקמה לטומאה הכתובה בתורה סתם או לדברים שאינן נאכלין


Assuming that this is the case, why should we be able to say that the third Kares is discussing any impurity stated in the Torah in general, or for things that are not eaten? [We need it to include Korbanos where nothing permits part of it to be eaten!]

וי"ל דלדברים שאין להם מתירין לא אצטריך דבפ' ב"ש (זבחים דף מד.) מרבי להו מאשר הם מקדישים


Answer: There is no Pasuk necessary for Korbanos that do not have a step permitting part of them to be eaten. In Zevachim (44a), they are included from the Pasuk, "that they make holy."

ולספרים דגרסי התם דמרבו להו מואל הקדשים


Text: There are some Sefarim that have the text that they are included from the Pasuk, "And to the Kodshim."

לא יתכן דהאי קרא גופיה מוקמינן ליה הכא לכלל


Question: This is not possible, as this Pasuk itself is used here as a Klal.



תוס' ד"ה תנהו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Gemara does not include Terumah.)

אבל לתרומה ליכא למימר דכרת בתרומה ליכא


Explanation: However, there is no reason to say we should include Terumah (instead of Tumas Mikdash), as there is no Kares for eating Terumah.

מיהו בסמוך דנפקא לן מטומאתו קשה דנוקמה בתרומה וכ"ת משום דכתיב גבי כרת הכי נמי כתיב גבי אכילה


Question: However, later the Gemara derives this from "his impurity." Why don't we say that this Pasuk is indeed referring to Terumah? If you will say that it is because it is stated regarding Kares, it is also stated regarding eating! [The Gemara earlier explained that while Tumas Kodesh and Tumas Mikdash are similar as they are punished with Kares, Terumah is similar to Tumas Kodesh as they both entail eating.]

ומיהו עדיפא מינה פריך


Answer: The Gemara asks a better question.



תוס' ד"ה ואחת

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the source for a warning for this prohibition.)



Implied Question: [What is the source for] the warning [for this prohibition? Every negative prohibition with a punishment has both a Pasuk that states a "warning" and a separate Pasuk stating the prohibition.]

מוהבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל דדרשינן בפרק רביעי דזבחים (דף מו:) לרבות עצים ולבונה


Answer: It is from the Pasuk, "And the flesh that will touch anything impure he should not eat." In Zevachim (46b), the Gemara says that this includes wood and frankincense.

אי נמי כרת לא בעי אזהרה מידי דהוה אפסח ומילה


Answer: Alternatively, Kares does not require a warning, similar to Pesach and Milah (that are Mitzvos Asei and still make one liable to receive Kares).



תוס' ד"ה אתיא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why all of the teachings in the last Daf are needed.)

ואע"ג דגבי תרומה נמי כתיב טומאה בפרשת אמור אל הכהנים


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that regarding Terumah the Pasuk also states "Tumah" in Parshas Emor. [Why not make the Gezeirah Shaveh regarding Terumah?]

שמא אתי לדרשה אחריתי


Answer: Perhaps that word is required for another teaching.

וא"ת ולר"ל דלא גמר ג"ש דטומאה כדאמר בפרק בתרא דמכות (דף יד מנליה


Question: According to Reish Lakish who does not derive this Gezeirah Shaveh from Tumah, as stated in Makos (14b), what is the source for this teaching?

וי"ל דאתיא ליה מהיקשא דלעיל מבכל קדש לא תגע דלא מוקי ליה בתרומה כלל כדמוכח התם


Answer: He derives this from the Hekesh made earlier from the Pasuk, "In all Kodesh you should not touch," which he does not say is talking about Terumah at all, as is apparent there (in Makos ibid.).

וא"ת ולמה לן השתא בנין אב דהואיל וענש והזהיר בברייתא דלעיל


Question: [Being that we have this teaching] Why do we require the Binyan Av that because the warning and punishment were stated regarding Tumas Mikdash etc. [bottom 6b]?

וי"ל דברייתא נמי סמיך אהך ג"ש ונקט בנין אב לאפוקי משאר עבירות ואצטריך ג"ש לאפוקי תרומה


Answer: The Beraisa also relied on this Gezeirah Shaveh. It stated its teaching as a Binyan Av in order to exclude other sins, and required the Gezeirah Shaveh to exclude Terumah.


וא"ת אמאי איצטריך ג"ש דרבי כיון דידעינן מקדש מג"ש דטומאה נילף קודש מדאיתקש למקדש


Question: Why do we need Rebbi's Gezeirah Shaveh? Once we know Tumas Mikdash from the Gezeirah Shaveh of Tumah, we should learn Kodesh from the fact that it is compared to Tumas Mikdash!

וליכא למימר תרומה נמי דאמר קרא בה ולא בתרומה דהשתא ליכא למיפרך ואימא בה ולא קודש הואיל וקודש הוא בכרת כמו מקדש אבל תרומה לא דמי למקדש


One cannot say that Terumah also should be included, as the Pasuk says, "In it" excluding Terumah. We cannot ask that the Pasuk "In it" should exclude Kodesh, being that Kodesh is punished with Kares as is Tumas Mikdash. However, Terumah is unlike Tumas Mikdash.

וי"ל דאיצטריך ג"ש לאייתורי בה לרבות נבלת עוף טהור דלמעט תרומה לא איצטריך דמהיכא תיתי דמהיקשא דמקדש לא אתי מדאיצטריך ג"ש דרבי אבל אי לאו ג"ש דרבי לא הוה מרבינן נבלת עוף אלא אדרבה הוה ממעטינן ליה מכי יגע ובה אתא למעוטי תרומה


Answer: The Gezeirah Shaveh is needed to make "In it" extra in order to include a Neveilah (improperly slaughtered) kosher bird (which makes one impure when eating it). It is not needed to exclude Terumah, as why would we think that we would not know this from the Hekesh of Mikdash (6b) once we need the Gezeirah Shaveh of Rebbi! However, without Rebbi's Gezeirah Shaveh I would not have included the Neveilah of a kosher bird. On the contrary, I would have excluded it from the Pasuk of "When he will touch," and "In it" would have excluded Terumah.

ומיהו תימה למה לי ג"ש דרבי תיפוק מג"ש דטומאה דלענין קודש נמי דרשינן ליה בפרק בתרא דמכות (דף יד:)


Question: However, there is a difficulty. Why do we need the Gezeirah Shaveh of Rebbi? We should derive this from the Gezeirah Shaveh of Tumah that we use regarding Kodesh in Makos (14b)!



תוס' ד"ה יש

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara chooses the three cardinal sins, and the fact that that there cannot be two atonements for one Korban.)

אכתי איכא טובא כגון אוכל תרומה בטומא' וטמא ששימש


Implied Question: There are a lot of places where it describes a sinner as doing something impure, such as eating Terumah when impure or an impure Kohen serving in the Beis Hamikdash. [Why did the Gemara specifically pick the three cardinal sins?]

אלא נקט הני לרבותא דיש להביא אע"פ שהן חמורות וכי ממעט להו ממעט נמי אחריני


Answer#1: Rather, it said these three to show that they also could be included even though they are serious sins. When it excludes them, others are also excluded.

א"נ נקט הני אע"ג דלאו טומאה ממש נינהו אלא בלשון טומאה נכתבו


Answer#2: Alternatively, it says these even though they do not deal with actual literal impurity, and were just described by the Pasuk as being impure.

וא"ת איך יכפר על כולן הא אמר לקמן (דף ח:) כפרה אחת מכפר ואינו מכפר ב' כפרות


Question: How could this Korban atone for all of these sins? The Gemara says later that a Korban achieves one atonement and not two atonements!

וליכא למימר דה"ק יש להביא אחת מג' טומאות דא"כ אמאי איצטריך מטומאה ולא כל טומאה דלא מכפר אלא אחת תיפוק ליה מאחת דדרשינן מיניה לקמן דאינו מכפר ב' כפרות וע"כ אית לן לאוקמה בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו לפי שחלק הכתוב


One cannot say that our Gemara means that one of three impurities should be included (for this Korban). If so, why do we require the Pasuk, "From the impurities" to tell us that this does not atone for all impurities? We should derive this from the Pasuk, "From one" which is the source of the teaching later (8b) that each Korban atones for one sin! It therefore must be that the Pasuk is referring to Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav, as implied by the Pasuk's division (of Tumas Mikdash from other Tumos, as explained in the continuation of our Gemara).

וי"ל דלא חשיב ב' כפרות אלא כשמכפר מה שקרבן אחר מכפר וכן משמע לשון הקונטרס דלקמן


Answer: It is not considered two separate things to atone for unless the Korban is atoning for the same sin as another Korban. This is also implied by Rashi later.

תדע דהא מכפר על הקודש ועל המקדש ולא מיקרי ב' כפרות כיון שאין קרבן אחר מכפר כענין זה


You should know that this is true, as our Gemara is saying that the Korban atones for Kodesh and the Mikdash. It is not called two atonements, as there is no other Korban that atones for these sins.



תוס' ד"ה בעבודה זרה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the reference to Avodah Zarah in the Pasuk.)

פירוש קדושת שמי והאי קרא במולך כתיב וקסבר האי תנא מולך היינו ע"ז ופלוגתא היא בפרק ארבע מיתות (סנהדרין ד' סד.)


Explanation: This ("Mikdashi" in this context) means "Kedushas Shemi" -- "the sanctity of My name." This Pasuk is stated regarding serving Molech. This Tana understands that Molech is an Avodah Zarah. Whether or not this is correct is an argument in Sanhedrin (64a).



תוס' ד"ה וכפר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this Pasuk can be understood as referring to Kodesh, when the it is clear it is talking about the Mikdash.)

אע"ג דבמקדש מיירי כדמוכח לקמן בשמעתין


Implied Question: This (the assumption that the Pasuk is discussing Kodesh) is despite the fact that it is talking about the Mikdash, as is apparent later in the Gemara. [Why does the Gemara make this assumption?]

מ"מ מדאפקיה רחמנא בלשון קודש שמעינן טומאת קודש


Answer: Being that the Torah stated this regarding the Mikdash using a term that is suited for Kodesh, we derive the law regarding Tumas Kodesh.

ומדאיתקש ליכא למימר דאם כן תרומה נמי


One cannot say that this is true due to a Hekesh, as if this would be true we should also include Terumah.



תוס' ד"ה אי בשוגג

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara knows that the atonement of a public Korban does not take away a private person's obligation to bring a Korban.)

הכא אתי שפיר דפשיטא ליה דלא מכפר אבר קרבן כדדרשינן בסיפא דברייתא חטאים דומיא דפשעים דלאו בני קרבן


Implied Question: Here this is understandable. It is obvious to the Gemara that the Korban does not come to atone for someone who owes a Korban, as derived in the second part of the Beraisa that "Chata'im" (the sins atoned for by this Korban) are compared to "Poshim" who do not bring a Korban.

אבל לקמן דפריך אסיפא דברייתא גופה דקתני יכול על כל טומאה של קודש וכו' האי בר קרבן הוא משמע דבלאו הך דרשה דחטאים דומיא דפשעים פשיטא ליה דלא מכפר אבר קרבן


However, later the Gemara asks regarding the second part of the Beraisa where it says, "One might think this is regarding all impurities of Kodesh etc." that this is something for which one must bring a Korban! This implies that even without the derivation that "Chata'im" are compared to "Poshim" it would be clear that the Korban does not atone for someone who must bring a Korban. [Why would the Gemara think this is obvious?]

ונראה דפשיטא ליה משום דאתי מקל וחומר משעיר המשתלח דמכפר על כמה עבירות ומרובה כפרתו אפ"ה אינו מכפר אבר קרבן כדדרשינן ביה התם חטאים דומיא דפשעים וכ"ש אבר קטלא ואבר מלקות דלא מכפר


Answer: It appears that it is obvious because this is learned from a Kal v'Chomer from the Sa'ir l'Azazel. Even though the Sa'ir l'Azazel atones for many sins and its atonement is great, even so it does not atone for someone who is obligated to bring a Korban. This is as the Gemara itself derives from "Chata'im" being compared to "Poshim." Certainly it does not atone for someone who is supposed to be killed or receive lashes by Beis Din. [Accordingly, if this is true by the Sa'ir l'Azazel, it is certainly true of the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh b'Fnim.]

כדמוכח התם דאמר חייבי מלקיות שעבר עליהן יום הכפורים חייבין ופריך פשיטא מ"ש מחייבי חטאות ואשמות ודאין


This is apparent from the Gemara there which says that if someone was liable to receive lashes by Beis Din before Yom Kippur and then Yom Kippur passed, he still is liable to receive lashes. The Gemara asks, this is obvious! Why should it be different from people who owe a Chatas or Asham Vadai (as opposed to an Asham Taluy)?

וא"ת ונוקי כגון דאתיידע ליה סמוך לשקיעת החמה


Question: Why don't we say that this is talking about a case where he found out close to sunset (and did not have a chance to bring the Korban before Yom Kippur)?

וי"ל דהאי נמי נפקא לן מסיפא דברייתא דלא תלי ליה


Answer: This, too, is derived later in the second part of the Beraisa as not pushing aside (his sin).



תוס' ד"ה במזיד

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what is in the category of "Chatas" and "Pesha.)

ואם תאמר והא לא אתיא לכלל חטאת


Question: His sin does not come to be considered a "Chatas!"

וי"ל דהשתא דמוקי במזיד לא הוי חטאים אלא פשעים ובפשעים לא בעינן דאתיא לכלל חטאת דכולהו לאו בני חטאת נינהו


Answer: Now that the Gemara is discussing a sin committed on purpose, it is not discussing a category of "Chata'im" but rather of "Pesha'im." We do not require that a sin be considered "Chatas" in order to be considered in the category of "Pesha," as all sins committed on purpose are considered Pesha'im.

אבל גבי שפיכות דמים קשיא דמוקי ליה בשוגג ולא אתיידע ליה והא לא אתי לכלל חטאת


Question: However, regarding murder this is difficult, as one of the cases is when he killed someone by accident and he did not know about it. This is not considered a "Chatas!" [It is also not considered a Pesha.]

ואין לומר הואיל ואתי לכלל גלות אתי לכלל חטאת קרינא ביה דהא מוקי להו נמי בהנך דלאו בני גלות נינהו


One cannot say that because he is liable to have to run to a city of refuge it is called that he committed a "Chatas." This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara also says that a case of accidental killing that fits this profile is someone who killed accidentally, but does not have to go to exile.

ויש לומר אף על גב דלא אתי לכלל חטאת אין לחוש כיון דתלי נמי אטומאת מקדש וקדשיו דאתי לכלל חטאת וכן משמע לקמן דפריך וניכפר פנימי אדידיה ואדחיצון ואע"ג דכפרת חיצון לא אתי לכלל חטאת


Answer: It is possible to answer that even though this is not considered a "Chatas" there is no reason not to include it, being that it is together with Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav which is called a Chatas. This is also implied later, as the Gemara asks that the Pnimi should atone on what it atones for and for what the Chitzon atones. This is despite the fact that the atonement of the Chitzon is not considered a Chatas.

וא"ת והיאך אפשר לאוקמה במזיד והא לא משכחת ביה כפרת חיצון דהיינו אין בה ויש בה


Question: How can we establish this Korban as being an atonement for a sin committed on purpose? We do not find that the Chitzon (Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh b'Chutz) will achieve atonement for these sins when the sinners did not know originally that they sinned and then found out after they had committed the sin! [Tosfos assumes at this point that the Chitzon atones for another way that the sin could have been committed, namely that there was no knowledge and then there was knowledge.]

וי"ל דאין לחוש דמוקמא כפרת חיצון אטומאת מקדש וקדשיו גרידא


Answer: This is not a problem, as the atonement of the Chitzon is only regarding Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav.

וא"ת והיכי מצי לאוקמה במזיד ולא אתרו ביה הלא בגדי כהונה מכפרין על אלו ג' עבירות אפוד על ע"ז כתונת על שפיכות דמים ומכנסים על גילוי עריות


Question: How can the Gemara establish the case as sinning on purpose without warning? The Bigdei Kehunah atone for the three cardinal sins (see Zevachim 88b). The Eifod atones for idolatry, the Kesones atones for murder, and the Michnasayim atone for promiscuity.

וי"ל דבעי למימר ששעיר הפנימי יכפר עמהם וזה בלא זה לא יועיל


Answer: The Gemara means that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh b'Fnim will atone together with the wearing of the Bigdei Kehunah. One without the other will not effect atonement.

ואע"ג דלקמן פריך וניכפר פנימי אדידיה ואדחיצון ולא בעי למיפרך וניכפרו תרוייהו אחד


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara later asks, let the Pnimi atone for itself and for the intended atonement of the Chitzon, and the Gemara does not ask that they both should only achieve their atonements together. [Why don't we entertain that both are needed for atonement, just as the Bigdei Kehunah and Pnimi atone together?]

דשתי קרבנות ודאי אין סברא שיבואו לכפר על דבר אחד אבל זה אפשר דבגדי כהונה יכפרו עם קרבן דבר אחד


Answer: There is no logic in saying that two separate Korbanos were mandated to be brought for one sin. However, it is possible that Bigdei Kehunah will atone for one sin together with a Korban.



תוס' ד"ה בשוגג

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara goes through these questions regarding the three cardinal sins, but not regarding Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav.)

ואם תאמר והמקשה מה היה סבור דהא כי מוקמינן ליה בטומאת מקדש וקודש איירי נמי בשוגג ולא אתיידע ליה דהיכא דאתיידע ליה בר קרבן הוא


Question: What was the logic of questioner? When we establish that the Pnimi atones for Tumas Mikdash and Kodesh, it is also talking about a case where he did so accidentally and did not know about it. If he knew, he would have to bring a Korban and would not be included! [Accordingly, why does the questioner ask regarding the case of the three cardinal sins, and not just assume it will match the case of Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav?]

ויש לומר דמטומאת מקדש וקדשיו אתי שפיר דאיכא לאוקמה במזיד ואפילו אתרו ביה דליכא [אלא] כרת ומשום הכי פריך טפי אהנך ג' טומאות דאיכא למיפרך בין בשוגג בין במזיד


Answer: We can even establish the case of Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav as being on purpose and with warning, as it is only punished with Kares (see side of the Gemara that adds the word "Ela"). This is why the Gemara asks more regarding these three "Tumos," as one can ask both on the accidental and purposeful transgression of these three sins.

אבל קשיא דאטומאת מקדש וקדשיו נמי איכא למיפרך אמזיד אי במזיד בר מלקות הוא דחייבי כריתות שלקו נפטרו מידי כריתתן


Question: However, this is difficult. One can still ask regarding one who purposely transgresses Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav. If he does so on purpose, he should receive lashes! This is because someone who is liable to receive Kares is exempt if he receives lashes (see Tosfos 8a, DH "Giluy").