(Mishnah): If blood was brought in Lechaper...

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): It says here "Lechaper ba'Kodesh", and it says that no one else may be in the Ohel Mo'ed on Yom Kipur when the Kohen Gadol enters "Lechaper ba'Kodesh";

Just like there, the Isur begins once the Kohen Gadol enters, even before Kaparah, also here the blood is Pasul once it enters, even before Kaparah;

R. Shimon says, it says here "Lechaper ba'Kodesh", and it says to burn the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur whose blood was brought in "Lechaper ba'Kodesh";

Just like there, this refers to after Kaparah, also here.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Eliezer holds that it is better to learn (about blood, which should be left) outside from (people who are commanded to stay) outside, and not from the Kaparah of Yom Kipur which is done inside;

R. Shimon holds that it is better to learn about (the blood of) an animal from (the blood of) an animal, and not from a law about people.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): (If it was entered b'Shogeg, it is Kosher.)

Inference: If it was entered b'Mezid, it is Pasul.

Question: Does this apply when he was Mechaper (like R. Shimon), or even before Kaparah (like R. Eliezer)?

Answer (R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa): It says "v'Es Par ha'Chatas v'Es Se'ir ha'Chatas...";

Question: Why does it say "veha'Soref..."?

Question: Clearly, the verse teaches that the one who burns them is Metamei Begadim! (He and the clothes he is wearing at the time become Teme'im.)

Answer: We ask why it says "ha'Chatas" twice.

Answer (R. Yehudah): This teaches that all Chata'os that should be burned (i.e. inner Chata'os) are Metamei Begadim (of those who burn them).

Objection (R. Meir): We already know that from "Lechaper" (that all Korbanos brought inside for Kaparah are Metamei Begadim)!

Question: Why doesn't R. Yehudah learn like R. Meir?

Answer (and summation of Answer (i)): R. Yehudah uses "Lechaper" for the Gezerah Shavah (of R. Shimon. This shows that he holds like R. Shimon.)

(Mishnah): The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh what is proper for it (like we will explain):

R. Yehoshua says, if any Kodesh proper for the fire (i.e. it is normally burned on the Mizbe'ach) was Alah (came up on the Mizbe'ach), Lo Yered (we do not take it down, even if it is Pasul) - "Hi ha'Olah Al Mokdah";

Olah is proper for the fire, and if it came up, Lo Yered. The same applies to all Kodshim.

R. Gamliel says, any Kodshim proper for the Mizbe'ach that Alah, Lo Yered - "Hi ha'Olah Al Mokdah Al ha'Mizbe'ach";

Olah is proper for the Mizbe'ach, and if it came up, Lo Yered. The same applies to all Kodshim.

They argue only about blood and Nesachim (of wine or water). R. Gamliel says Lo Yerdu (since they are offered on the Mizbe'ach), and R. Yehoshua says Yerdu (since they are not burned).

R. Shimon says, (when Nesachim accompany a Korban), whether (only) the Nesachim or Korban or both are Pesulim, we do not take down the Korban, but we take down the Nesachim.

(Gemara) Inference: (The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh) only what is proper for it, but nothing else.

Question: What does this come to exclude?

Answer (Rav Papa): This excludes a Kemitzah that was not put into a Kli Shares.

Question (Ravina): Why is this different than Ula's law?

(Ula): If Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim Alu before Zerikah, Lo Yerdu, for they became 'food' of the Mizbe'ach.

Answer: Eimurim are not taken down, for they are not lacking anything;

The Kemitzah is taken down, for it is lacking (it must be put in a Kli Shares).

(Mishnah - R. Yehoshua): Any Kodshim proper for the fire...

Question: How does R. Gamliel expound "Al Mokdah"?

Answer: This teaches that if meat (of an Olah) flies off the Mizbe'ach (due to the fire), we must return it.

Question: What is R. Yehoshua's source of this law?

Answer: He learns from "Asher Tochal ha'Esh".

R. Gamliel uses this to teach that meat of an Olah is returned to the fire, but Ketores is not.

(R. Chanina bar Minyomi): "Asher Tochal ha'Esh Es ha'Olah Al ha'Mizbe'ach" - meat of an Olah is returned to the fire, but Ketores is not.

R. Yehoshua says, it teaches both (meat of an Olah is returned, but Ketores is not.)

(Mishnah - R. Gamliel): Any Kodshim proper (for the Mizbe'ach)...

Question: How does R. Yehoshua expound "Mizbe'ach"?

Answer: This teaches what is Mekadesh what is proper for the fire, i.e. the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh.

R. Gamliel says, another verse teaches that ("Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash"!)

R. Yehoshua says, one verse teaches about Kodshim that were once proper (to be burned, i.e. but later became Tamei or became Nosar), the other teaches about Kodshim that was never proper (e.g. something slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo).

R. Gamliel says, since the Torah permits offering Pesulim, we do not distinguish whether or not it was ever proper.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): Whether (only) the Korban is Kosher...

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): (The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh an) "Olah" - just like Olah is offered due to itself, similarly, the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh anything offered due to itself;

This excludes Nesachim that accompany a Korban.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili) Suggestion: Perhaps "Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash" applies even to things not proper for the Mizbe'ach!

Rejection: "Kevasim" - it is Mekadesh (only) things proper for it, like lambs.

R. Akiva says, "Olah" teaches that it is Mekadesh (only) things proper for it, like an Olah.

Question: What is the difference between them?

Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): They differ about Olas ha'Of:

R. Akiva includes it from "Olah". R. Yosi ha'Galili excludes it from "Kevasim" (the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh only Behemos).

Question: What does R. Yosi ha'Galili learn from "Olah"?

Answer: Had it said only "Kevasim", one might have thought that it is Mekadesh even living animals. "Olah" teaches that, this is not so.

Question: What does R. Akiva learn from "Kevasim"?

Answer: Had it said only "Olah", one might have thought that it is Mekadesh even Menachos. "Kevasim" teaches that this is not so.

Question: What is the difference between these Tana'im (of the Beraisa) and those of our Mishnah?

Answer (Rav Papa): They argue about a Kemitzah that was put into a Kli Shares;

The Tana'im of our Mishnah say Lo Yered. The Tana'im of the Beraisa say Yered.