Explanation #1 (Rashi): What the Torah specified about the Haza'os written about them, it did not distinguish them. Both are thrown on (i.e. towards) the Paroches, and both on the Keranos, and both are with the fingers.

Implied question: "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah are not written regarding the Sa'ir [of Yom Kipur]!

Answer: This is not a Shinuy, for we can say that [really, they apply also to the Sa'ir, just the Torah] did not specify everything. [It is reasonable to say so,] for what it specified, it did not distinguish;

[Even] if this (Se'ir Yom Kipur) enters inside [Kodesh ha'Kodoshim] and this (Par Helam) does not enter, and [the Sa'ir] requires eight Haza'os and [the Par] requires seven, for what is written about them, there is no difference;

If there are more Avodos of [the Sa'ir] than of [the Par], in any case the actions of the Avodos required for both of them, it did not distinguish.

Question #1: The Rashbam changed the text, for this cannot be. If so, why do we learn Par Yom Kipur from Se'ir Yom Kipur? From the reason that we learn the Sa'ir, we should learn the Par!

Question #2: Why do we say after this "he learns Se'ir Yom Kipur [from Se'irei Avodah Zarah, from a Kal v'Chomer]"? Now, why is this Kal v'Chomer needed? We already learned [Se'ir Yom Kipur] from Par Helam!

Question #3: Also, the Beraisa above did not mention that we need to learn [Se'ir Yom Kipur]!

Explanation #2: Rather, it means as follows. "In a place where the Korbanos are different," i.e. this is Par Helam and this is Se'ir Yom Kipur. They are two kinds of animals. Even so, the actions are equated for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah for what is written about them;

I.e. those Avodos written about them, even though the amounts are not the same, for [Dam] ha'Sa'ir goes inside [the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim], and in the Heichal it is thrown once above and seven times below (which is not true for Par Helam)...

However, for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah they are equated, like we learn below Se'ir Yom Kipur from Se'irei Avodah Zarah through a Kal v'Chomer.

Where the Korbanos are the same, for this is a Par and this is a Par...

And we hold below (50b) that something learned from a Kal v'Chomer returns to teach through a Kal v'Chomer;

This is what it explains afterwards. He learns Se'ir Yom Kipur from Se'irei Avodah Zarah, i.e. he already learned Se'ir Yom Kipur, i.e. and it can teach about Par Yom Kipur, like we said. Until here is [the Rashbam's] words.

Note: Tzon Kodoshim says that the following is really part of this Dibur.

Question #1: How does he learn Se'ir Yom Kipur from Se'irei Avodah Zarah and Par Helam? (Both were part of the Kal v'Chomer. Even where the Korbanos are different...) You cannot learn from them, for they atone for transgressing a known Mitzvah!

Question #2: It is written in Seforim [that we learn Se'ir Yom Kipur] "from Par Yom Kipur and Se'irei Avodah Zarah." [We cannot say that this was the Rashbam's text, which would answer Question #1, for] how do we learn from the first Kal v'Chomer Par Yom Kipur from Se'ir Yom Kipur for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah?

Se'ir Yom Kipur itself we know for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah through the latter Kal v'Chomer only from Par Yom Kipur. What is the source for [Par Yom Kipur] itself?

Explanation #3: The first Kal v'Chomer is like (but not exactly) like Rashi said. In a place where the Korbanos are different, i.e. Par Helam and Se'ir Yom Kipur, the actions are equated for what is written about them;

Now, it does not say that they are equated for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah, for we still do not know these regarding Se'ir Yom Kipur. Rather, they are equated that both are [thrown] on (i.e. towards) the Paroches and gold Mizbe'ach;

In a place where the Korbanos are the same, all the more so they should be the same for what is written about them, even for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah. And so the Kal v'Chomer of Se'ir Yom Kipur [from Se'irei Avodah Zarah] is [only for what is written about them].

Question: We must be meticulous [to determine] whether Dayo (it suffices) applies to such a Kal v'Chomer! Regarding Par Helam, "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah applies only to the seven Haza'os. Also for Par Yom Kipur [we should say so], but not for the eighth Haza'ah!

Support: According to Explanation #3, it is fine that Rebbi argues with this Kal v'Chomer, for it is not simple. The initial comparison of Par Helam Davar and Se'ir Yom Kipur in the first Kal v'Chomer, that their actions are equated, is not regarding "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah;

Implied question: What is Rebbi's source for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah regarding Se'ir Yom Kipur, since he disagrees with this Kal v'Chomer?

Answer: According to Rebbi, it is written "l'Par" to expound Par Yom Kipur for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah. If so, we learn Se'ir Yom Kipur through an absolute Kal v'Chomer from Par Yom Kipur and Se'irei Avodah Zarah;

The Korbanos are not the same, but the actions are the same for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah. All the more so for Se'ir Yom Kipur [they are the same as Se'irei Avodah Zarah]! This is from R. Baruch.

Alternative text: Rashi's text says "mi'Par Kohen Mashi'ach", lest we learn from what is learned [from elsewhere].

Question: Rebbi, who does not learn this Kal v'Chomer, what is his source [for Se'ir Yom Kipur]? (Tzon Kodoshim - above in DH v'Kashya, Tosfos explained that it is not difficult that Rebbi does not learn the weak Kal v'Chomer. Here, he challenges Rashi. If Rebbi does not learn even the full Kal v'Chomer, what is his source?)

Suggestion: It is because Par and Se'ir of Yom Kipur are equated to each other.

Rejection #1: We do not find this Hekesh!

Rejection #2: If so, also R. Yishmael should learn from the Hekesh here!

And what is [the Gemara's] source here and below (50a) that R. Yishmael holds that something learned from a Hekesh returns to teach through a Kal v'Chomer?

I could say oppositely, that something learned from a Kal v'Chomer returns to teach through a Hekesh! Par Yom Kipur, which is learned from a Kal v'Chomer from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, returns to teach about Se'ir through a Hekesh!

Below (50a) it connotes that we should sooner say that something learned from a Kal v'Chomer returns to teach through a Hekesh, than to say that something learned from a Hekesh returns to teach through a Kal v'Chomer! (Tosfos does not answer his question. Shitah Mekubetzes edits the text to say that the following is an answer, but the Acharonim did not understand this. Birkas ha'Zevach suggests the answer of R. Baruch at the end of DH Kashya.)

Citation: [We learn] Se'ir Yom Kipur from Se'irei Avodah Zarah.

Note: Most say that this begins a new Dibur.

Explanation: Above (39b) we expound "ha'Chatas" - these are Se'irei Avodah Zarah, but we do not learn Se'ir Yom Kipur from "ha'Chatas", just like we do not establish it to discuss Se'irei Regalim, like it says above (39b).

Question: We said that "l'Par" makes it as if [Par Helam Davar] was written in the verse itself, to teach to Se'irei Avodah Zarah!

Answer: Perhaps if not for this Hekesh of "Chatasam Al Shigegasam", we would not expound it like this.

Explanation (Rashi): This shows that we learn the entire matter from it, even Ikuv. How can you say that [we learn] only "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah?! This is difficult for Rav Papa above, who did not explain that it comes for Ikuv.

Explanation #1 (cont.): [The Gemara] answers that Tana'im argue this.

Question: This Tana who learns Ikuv from the Hekesh, what is his source that seven [Haza'os] Al Tiharo in [Par] Yom Kipur are Me'akev? These do not apply to Par Helam and Par Kohen Mashi'ach!

Answer: This itself we learn from the Hekesh. Just like there (Par Helam and Par Kohen Mashi'ach) you do not distinguish the Haza'os (all are Me'akev), also in [Par] Yom Kipur, you do not distinguish.

Comment - Question #1: Above (41a) [the Gemara] brought the Beraisa to support Rav Papa, and now it challenges him from it!

Question #2: What was the question against Rav Papa, who does not establish [the Hekesh] for Ikuv? He learns Ikuv [of Haza'os] on Yom Kipur from Chukah, or from v'Chilah mi'Kaper, like [Rav Papa] asked above (41a)!

Answer: [The Gemara] asks as follows. "For everything taught in the matter" connotes even Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys, for it says Ka'asher Yuram regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach. Im Eino Inyan l'Gufei (if it need not teach about itself), we use it to teach about Par Helam, like we expound below (49b);

We expound "l'Par" - this is Par Yom Kipur, both for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah, and also for Yoseres and the two kidneys from one Hekesh;

Likewise, R. Yishmael, who expounds "l'Par" - this is Par Helam for Yoseres and the two kidneys, and does not expound Ka'asher Yuram, for he needs only one Hekesh of "ha'Chatas" to include Se'irei Avodah Zarah;

If so, why do I need Chatasam Al Shigegasam regarding Se'irei Avodah Zarah, and why do we need a second Hekesh?

[The Gemara] answers that Tana'im argue about this.

Answer (cont.): Now, this Tana learns Yoseres and the two kidneys in Par Yom Kipur from the Beraisa in Toras Kohanim "Kol Chelev Par ha'Chatas" - Par includes Par Yom Kipur for Yoseres and the two kidneys.

Question: In the entire Gemara, it mentions Se'irei Avodah Zarah in the plural, and Par Helam in the singular. Why are they different?

The opinion in Horiyos (5a) that each Shevet offers a Sa'ir (for a mistaken Hora'ah about idolatry), he holds that each Shevet offers a Par (for a mistaken Hora'ah about other Aveiros of Kares! Tosfos (Yoma 50a DH Par) answers that [the Gemara] holds that each Shevet offers a Sa'ir. It did not teach Parei Helam in the plural, lest people err to think that it includes the bulls brought for idolatry. They are Olos!)

Inference: Our entire Sugya connotes that even though one cannot be Mefagel in half a Matir, the Korban is Pasul.

Question: In Pesachim (61a), regarding one who slaughtered [Pesach] for circumcised people and Arelim... and we establish it when he slaughtered the first Siman for circumcised people, and R. Meir holds like he taught elsewhere, that one can be Mefagel in half a Matir;

It connotes there that according to Rabanan, it is totally Kosher!

Answer: We can say that they disqualify here, because there is reason to decree, like it says in Menachos (14b) that Rabanan decreed about [Pigul intent just in] the Kometz, due to the Kometz of Minchas Chotei (which has no Levonah, so the Kometz is the only Matir, and they decreed about Pigul intent just in) the Levonah, due to the Levonah in the spoons (which is the only Matir of Lechem ha'Panim);

However, there it is not applicable to decree one Siman due to two Simanim. (There is no Korban for which one Siman suffices. Tosfos (above, 30a DH v'Harei) said that even Chatas ha'Of, which requires Melikah only of one Siman, has a second Matir (the neckbone). Alternatively, intent for Arelim applies only to Korban Pesach, which also has two Simanim.)