38b (R. Yochanan): The (last) three Matanos (Zerikos) of a Chatas may not be done at night, but they may be done after the owner died. One who offers them outside (the Mikdash) is liable;

(Rav Papa): In some respects, they are like the first Zerikah (which is Mechaper). E.g. if the blood splashed on a garment, it must be washed (in the Azarah).

Support (Rav Papa for himself - Mishnah): If blood splashed from the Korban's neck onto a garment, it need not be washed. If blood splashed from the Keren or the Yesod onto a garment, it need not be washed.

Inference: If blood Ra'uy for (that should have been put on) the Keren splashed onto a garment, it must be washed!

Objection: If so, we should also infer that if blood Ra'uy for the Yesod splashed onto a garment, it must be washed, but this is wrong!

(Beraisa): "Asher Yizah" excludes (from the obligation to wash a garment that absorbed) blood of a Korban after Zerikah.

The Mishnah is like R. Nechemyah (this will be explained).

(Mishnah - R. Nechemyah): If one offered Shirayim outside, he is liable.

Question: Indeed, R. Nechemyah is Mechayev for Shirayim outside, just like one is liable for offering Eimurim outside. We cannot prove that he requires washing!

Answer: Indeed, we can prove this!

(Beraisa #1): The following apply to blood that must be put on the Yesod: it must be washed, intent (Chutz) takes effect on it, and one is liable for it outside.

None of these apply to blood that is poured into the Amah.

Conclusion: Beraisa #1 must be R. Nechemyah, for he is Mechayev for Shirayim outside, and it says that Shirayim must be washed and intent takes effect on them.

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): The law of Shirayim and Eimurim is different (than blood that is Mechaper). Since they are not Me'akev Kaparah, intent does not take effect on them.

Answer (and rejection of the above answer): Beraisa #1 refers to the last three Matanos of a Chatas. It means that what remains of them is put on the Yesod. (There is no source that R. Nechemyah obligates washing Shirayim.)

Question: The Beraisa says that intent takes effect on the three Matanos. Rav Papa says that intent is not Mefagel!

Answer: The Beraisa discusses the last three Matanos of inner Chata'os.

Question: This implies that one is exempt for offering the last three Matanos of outer Chata'os outside the Mikdash, and it need not be washed. If so, the Beraisa should have distinguished between inner and outer Chata'os, rather than between the Yesod and the Amah!

Answer: The Beraisa is R. Nechemyah. He is Mechayav for Shirayim (even of outer Chata'os) outside. He taught that the Yesod and Amah differ in all three respects (washing, intent and outside). Shirayim of inner and outer Chata'os do not (one is liable for both of them outside).

Answer #2 (Ravina): The Mishnah said 'if blood splashed from the Keren or the Yesod...' This refers to blood that splashed off the Keren, or blood Ra'uy (proper) for the Yesod.

Question (Rav Tachlifa bar Gaza): You should (be consistent and) say that it refers to blood Ra'uy for the Keren or for the Yesod!

Answer (Ravina): The Mishnah would not need to teach both of them. If blood Ra'uy for the Keren need not be washed, all the more so blood Ra'uy for the Yesod need not!

92a (Mishnah): The Parshah (about laundering Dam Chatas that splashed on a garment) discusses Chata'os that are eaten - "b'Makom Kadosh Te'achel." Even so, it applies also to those that are not eaten (inner Chata'os). "Toras ha'Chatas" teaches that there is one law for all Chata'os.

93a (Mishnah): If Dam Chatas splashed from the animal's neck onto a garment, it need not be laundered;

If it splashed from the Keren or the Yesod, it need not be laundered;

If it fell onto the floor and was gathered from the floor, it need not be laundered;

The only blood that must be laundered is blood that was received in a Keli and is Kosher for Haza'ah.

(Mishnah): ... Only blood that was received in a Keli must be laundered.

The Mishnah gives the reason for the law. The reason we need not launder blood that was gathered from the floor is because only blood that was received in a Keli and is Kosher for Haza'ah must be laundered. 'Kosher for Haza'ah' excludes if less than the amount needed for Haza'ah was put into each of two Kelim. (Even if the blood was later joined, it is Pasul.)

Tosfos (Sof 38b): Rashi (DH Ha) says that 'the Mishnah is like R. Nechemyah' concludes the question. He obligates washing even Shirayim, but Chachamim exempt washing even blood of the three Matanos. The next question in the Gemara (indeed, R. Nechemyah is Mechayev for Shirayim outside, just like one is liable for offering Eimurim outside. We cannot prove that he requires washing!) challenges the objection, and it is the first answer for Rav Papa). Others say that 'the Mishnah is like R. Nechemyah' answers the objection. R. Nechemyah obligates washing blood for which one is liable (for offering it) outside. Likewise, since one is liable for the last three Matanos outside, such blood must be washed.) The next question in the Gemara (indeed, R. Nechemyah...) challenges Rav Papa.

Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:6): If Dam Chatas splashed from the animal's neck onto a garment, or it splashed from the Keren of the Mizbe'ach, or it spilled on the floor and was gathered and splashed onto a garment, it need not be laundered. "Asher Yizah mi'Damah" discusses only blood that was received in a Keli and is Kosher for Haza'ah, and there is enough for Haza'ah.

Kesef Mishneh: Rashi explains that on Daf 39a, we explained that the Mishnah discusses blood that splashed off the Keren, or blood Ra'uy for the Yesod. Once Shirayim were put on the Yesod, (if it splashed onto a garment) there is no need to launder it. This is why the Rambam omitted blood that splashed from the Yod. He explicitly says like Rashi (in Halachah 7).

Ri Korkus: The Chidush is that what splashed from the Keren need not be laundered, even though the Matanos were not finished. The Rambam did not explain the law if the blood was received in a Keli and spilled on the ground and was gathered, if it must be laundered (if it splashed onto a garment). However, he taught that it depends on if it is Kosher for Haza'ah, and we hold that such blood is Kosher (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashim 1:25) (so it must be laundered). Therefore, we must say that the Rambam exempts blood that spilled from the animal's neck to the floor.

Radvaz: 'Kosher for Haza'ah and there is enough for Haza'ah' suggests that these are two matters. However, we can say that the latter explains the former, i.e. that enough was received in the Keli for Haza'ah.

Rambam (7): If one did the four Matanos, and afterwards blood splashed from the bucket onto a garment from the Shirayim, it need not be laundered, even though the Shirayim were not yet thrown on the Yesod. The same applies to Chata'os that are burned.

Lechem Mishneh: The Kesef Mishneh says that the Rambam learns from the Mishnah 92a. This is wrong. The Rambam already wrote above (Halachah 2) that it applies to Chata'os that are eaten and those that are burned. Rather, the Rambam needed to teach both here because one might have thought that Shirayim of och is not Me'akev, but Shirayim of inner Chata'os is Me'akev. He teaches that this is not so. Below (19:4) the Rambam says 'one who does Zerikah of Shirayim outside the Mikdash, even Shirayim of inner (Chata'os), is exempt.'

Rambam (5:9): Blood of a Chatas must be sprinkled with the finger - "he will immerse his finger in the blood." There must be enough blood on the Keli in order to immerse his finger. He may not soak up blood (from the wall of the Keli) with his finger.

Mishneh l'Melech: The Rambam connotes that it suffices if there is enough blood for Haza'ah in the Keli when he immerses his finger, even if less than this was received in each of two Kelim and one was poured into the other. The Gemara clearly requires that a Shi'ur be received in one Keli! Rashi explains so. Later, I noticed that the Rambam (8:4) says that Kabalah of less than the Shi'ur for Haza'ah is not Mekadesh the blood. Surely he does not mean that only this amount was received. This would be obvious, for the blood cannot be used for anything! Rather, he means that if less than this amount was received in each Keli. There, he taught about Kabalah. Here he teaches that also at the time of Haza'ah there must be a Shi'ur in the Keli. One might have thought that as long as Kabalah was proper, if the blood was divided into two Kelim and there is not a Shi'ur in either, it is fine. He teaches that this is not so.