Question: Why don't we say that they argue also about whether or not Shirayim are Me'akev?

According to the opinion that everything written is Me'akev, Shirayim are Me'akev, for it says "v'Es ha'Dam Yatzak El Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach", and regarding Chatas it says "v'Es Kol ha'Dam Tishpoch El Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach."

According to the opinion that what is not Me'akev for all generations is not Me'akev, Shirayim were not Me'akev!

Answer: All agree that Shirayim were not Me'akev. Even the four Matanos of Chatas are not Me'akev, as long as one did at least one Matanah!

In "v'Nasata Al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach", Karnos is written without a Vov, to allude to one corner, for only this is Me'akev.

Strengthening of answer: Even according to the opinion that expounds based on the way we read (we pronounce it Karnos, i.e. plural), Shirayim are not Me'akev, for it says regarding Chatas "v'Es Kol ha'Dam Tishpoch", but it does not say 'v'Shafachta Kol ha'Dam El Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach' similar to the beginning of the verse "v'Nasata Al Karnos."

The Torah uprooted [Shirayim] and made them the remnant of a Mitzvah, to teach that they are not Me'akev.

Support: We say so in Zevachim (52a) regarding the Kohen Gadol's bull. "V'Es Kol ha'Dam Yishpoch El Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach" uprooted [Shirayim] and made them the remnant of a Mitzvah. Rashi explains that the Torah changed the wording. Initially it says v'Hizah, and here it says Yishpoch, and not v'Shafach. (Note: Both of these mean "he will spill." V'Hizah and v'Shafach are Vov conversive (a Vov switches past tense to mean the future), and Yishpoch is simple future tense.)

Strengthening of Support: Even according to the opinion that argues there, and holds that Shirayim of Penimiyim (Chata'os whose blood is sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim) are Me'akev, this is because it says about Yom Kipur "v'Chilah mi'Kaper", and we expound 'if he finished, he atoned. If not, he did not.' No one argues about Chitzonim (all other Korbanos, whose blood is put on the outer Mizbe'ach).

Observation: However, in the Yerushalmi it says that Semichah and Shirayim, which are not Me'akev for all generations, are not Me'akev here (regarding the Milu'im). This connotes that they argue also about Shirayim. (I.e. the opinion in the Bavli that Semichah is Me'akev would say similarly about Shirayim.)

Question: We should say that they argue about burning Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach, which is written regarding Milu'im, and is not Me'akev l'Doros!

Answer: All agree that this is not Me'akev. It is not Me'akev l'Doros due to "v'Hayah ha'Chazeh l'Aharon u'Vanav" like we expound in Pesachim (59b):

Suggestion: Perhaps if the Eimurim became Tamei or were lost, the Kohanim do not receive Chazah v'Shok!

Rejection: "V'Hayah ha'Chazeh l'Aharon u'Vanav" - in any case.

Also regarding the Milu'im, it says about the Chazeh l'Aharon u'Vanav"! (Rashash - the text should say "v'Hayah Lecha l'Manah", which is written regarding the Milu'im.) We can expound that it is theirs (Rashash -Moshe's) in any case.

Question: According to the first answer, that answers that we need the verse to exclude, and does not hold that Meshichah (anointing with Shemen ha'Mishchah) is equated to Ribuy (wearing the extra garments of a Kohen Gadol), how does it explain the Beraisa, which says "I would know only one who was anointed seven days"? Before bringing the verse "Asher Yimshach Oso", we do not know Meshichah for seven days even l'Chatchilah!

Answer: From reasoning, we would require Meshichah for seven days. Since we find there (the Milu'im) Meshichah and Ribuy, and the Torah revealed regarding one of them that it is for seven days, the same applies to the other. We learn what is unknown from what is explicit;

However, after the Torah excluded (it is not Me'akev that both be for seven days), the Gemara asks what is the source l'Chatchilah for Meshichah for seven days.

Suggestion: Perhaps Ribuy, which is taught explicitly, is for seven days. Since Meshichah was excluded, perhaps it is totally excluded from seven days, and it is required only once!

Rejection: Since we need a verse to exclude, this shows that it was logical to equate Meshichah to Ribuy. If so, even though we exclude both from being Me'akev, l'Chatchilah we require all seven days.

Observation: (Our Gemara learns from a Ribuy that Michnesayim are Me'akev.) In Sanhedrin 83b, we derive that one who serves while Mechusar Begadim is Chayav Misah because when their Bigdei Kehunah are not on them, they are not considered Kohanim. It is as if they are Zarim.

Question (R. Yakov of Orlins): In Parshas Tetzaveh, it explicitly says [that one who serves while Mechusar Begadim is Chayav] Misah!

Granted, we need the verse to consider them like Zarim even to be Mechalel the Avodah. However, why do we need the verse that explicitly obligates Misah? It should suffice that without their garments, they are not Kohanim!

Answer (Ri of Orlins): The Michnesayim are not written here. We need the verse to obligate Misah for serving without Michnesayim.

Question: R. Yosi bar Chanina learns [that] Michnesayim [are Me'akev] from "v'Zeh ha'Davar." For him, it is as if they are explicitly written here!

Answer (Ritzva): The Torah must teach a Chiyuv Misah for Michnesayim to obligate even for entering the Ohel Mo'ed Mechushar Begadim empty (without serving) - "v'Hayu Al Aharon v'Al Banav b'Vo'am."

Similarly, if they did not wash their hands and feet, "b'Vo'am El Ohel Mo'ed Yirchatzu Oh b'Gishtam El ha'Mizbe'ach Leshares" obligates for entering the Ohel Mo'ed even empty.

Question: In Zevachim (19b), it says "had the Torah written only b'Vo'am, but not b'Gishtam, one might have thought [that one is liable] even for entering empty..." This connotes that really, one is exempt for entering empty!

Answer: This refers to the Mizbe'ach. It means that had the Torah written "b'Vo'am El Ohel Mo'ed Oh El ha'Mizbe'ach", but not Leshares, one might have thought that one is liable even for approaching the Mizbe'ach empty.

[Leshares] teaches that this is not so. One is exempt for approaching the Mizbe'ach empty.

Support: In the Tosefta (Kelim 1:6), Shimon ha'Tzenu'a said in front of R. Eliezer "I entered between the Ulam and Mizbe'ach without washing my hands and feet." R. Eliezer said "who is dearer, you or the Kohen Gadol?" Shimon was silent. R. Eliezer said "you are embarrassed to answer. The Kohen Gadol's dog is dearer than you!"

It continues to say "even if the Kohen Gadol [would go there without washing] they would bruise his face with logs, just the appointee (over Har ha'Bayis) did not find you."

Assumption: Presumably, Shimon ha'Tzenu'a did not serve without washing his hands. He would not err about this.

Rashi's opinion: Rashi on Chumash explained "b'Vo'am El Ohel Mo'ed" - to burn [Ketores].

Rejection: This is wrong. Rather, it is like I said [even for entering empty].

Observation: In Sanhedrin (15b), the Gemara asked about how many judges would be required to sentence an ox to die if it went up on Har Sinai [at the time of Matan Torah]. This depends on whether or not we learn [matters that applied only for] a limited time from [matters that apply to all] generations. The Gemara did not ask like it asks here "what was, was"!

Opinion: It seems that the Gemara omitted Michnesayim because it explains that [regarding the Kesones and Mitznefes] Aharon is first both in the command and in the action (Moshe dressing him). The Torah does not mention Michnesayim regarding either of these. Rashi gave a different reason. (We did not need to mention Michnesayim, for they are the first matter worn.) (Note: The Rashash did not understand Rashi's reason. He prefers the Ramban's opinion, that Aharon and his sons put the Michnesayim on themselves. Perhaps Tosfos' answer includes this as a possibility!)