The Mishnah had taught: Cutting off a wart (from the Korban does not override Shabbos).

Another Mishnah taught: One may cut off a wart in the Beis HaMikdash but not outside; if done using an instrument, in both places it is prohibited.

Question: That Mishnah teaches that it overrides Shabbos and here the Mishnah teaches that it does not?

Answer #1 (R' Simon/ R' Yehoshua B''L quoting Bar Pedaya): The Mishnah there allowed it to prevent the Korban Tamid from being disqualified, which would cause a need for a new lottery between the Kohanim.

R' Yosa: Therefore, the permission to remove the wart there only applied when the lottery had already been made.

Answer #2 (R''SBL quoting R' Sovaya): If the wart was flaky, it was permitted; if not, it was prohibited.

Answer #3 (R''S ben Yakim): If the wart was moist it was prohibited; if dry, it was permitted.

Answer #4 (R' Yosi bei R' Chanina): If removed by hand it was permitted; if removed with an instrument, it was prohibited.

R''SBL follows the opinion of Bar Kafra and R' Yosi bar Chanina follows the opinion of R' Yochanan, as the Beraisa teaches - One who does any destructive act is exempt, except for igniting and making a wound.

Bar Kafra: Even if he does not need the blood and even if he does not need the ashes.

R' Yochanan: As long as he needs the blood and as long as he needs the ashes.

Answer #5 (R' Acha/ R' Chanina quoting R' Yochanan): In both cases the wart is moist -it is only prohibited if he needs the blood.

Question: If the prohibition of bringing an item from outside of the Techum on Shabbos is Rabbinic, why is it prohibited when bringing the Korban Pesach?

Answer: This supports R' Yonasan's statement before R' Chiya Rabbah quoting R''S bar Yosi bar Lekunya - One receives lashes for transgressing the Torah prohibition of Techum Shabbos.

R' Chiya Rabbah replied: Surely desecrating Shabbos only involves stoning and Kares (but not a mere negative prohibition)?

Question (R' Yonasan): (Note: According to the Korban HaEidah, the order of the next two questions and responses should be reversed and slightly adjusted. This explanation therefore follows his text.) The pasuk states (Shemos 16, 29), "...every man must remain in his place; no man may leave his place on the seventh day'' - this shows that the Torah speaks of a mere negative prohibition on Shabbos?

Answer (R' Chiya): The pasuk says 'Al' (do not) rather than 'Lo', so it is not punishable with lashes.

Question (R. Yonasan): The pasuk states (Shemos 12, 9), " 'Al' - Do not eat from it (the Pesach) if it is semi-cooked'' - the term 'Al' is used and this prohibition is certainly punishable with lashes?

R' Yosi bei R' Bun: Nevertheless, each of these two Chachamim stood their ground.

Question: Even cutting off a wart with an instrument is only a Rabbinic prohibition (as it is a Melachah She'ina Tzricha Legufa), so why does it not override Shabbos?

Answer (R' Abahu): This is the reason that R' Yosi bar Chanina only taught (in the Beraisa) that carrying it and bringing it does not override Shabbos, but he did apply it to cutting off a wart.

Question: Are you suggesting that the reason he did not teach it in the Beraisa is because he holds that even using an instrument is merely Rabbinically prohibited?

Did R' Abahu quoting R' Yosi bar Chanina not say that (the Chachamim and R' Eliezer argue in Maseches Shabbos about picking off one's nails; R' Eliezer says he is liable and the Chachamim say that he is exempt), they disagree when removing one's own nails; but if another person removed them, it is repulsive (and not removed accurately) and certainly not considered a full Melachah. The case of removing a wart from a sacrifice is certainly similar to removing another person's nails, which would only be Rabbinic even with an instrument.

Answer (R' Yosa): The pasuk refers to the Korban Pesach as (My) sacrifice. (If it is the sacrifice of Hash-m, it could never be considered repulsive.)

R' Mana: Sprinkling (the ashes of the Red Heifer) is Rabbinically prohibited and so is carrying and bringing the Pesach from outside the Techum - why then does the sprinkling override Shabbos but these do not? Rather, one decree benefits the sacrifice and one benefits the one who brings it.

From R' Zeira we learn that there is no difference between a decree for the sacrifice and a decree for the one who brings it, as follows

R' Yuda bar Pazi quoted the teaching of Bar Kafra to R' Zeira, that R' Eliezer permits for the sacrifice, and the case of Melachah on Yom Tov is for the one who brings it, and they cannot be compared.

R' Zeira responded: Bar Kafra was surprised but R' Eliezer was not (as he holds that there is no difference between a decree for the sacrifice and a decree for the one who brings it).

(Mishnah - R' Eliezer): If slaughtering which is a full melachah overrides Shabbos, these acts which are only Rabbinically prohibited should certainly override Shabbos.

R' Yehoshua responds: Yom Tov can prove it - full melachah is permitted (such as slaughtering and cooking food) but there is a Rabbinic prohibition (against bringing from outside the Techum, since it could have been done before Yom Tov)!

R' Eliezer responds: Why do you compare an optional act (eating food on Yom Tov) to a Mitzvah (sprinkling the ashes)?

(Gemara-Question): Why does R' Eliezer refer to eating on Yom Tov as an optional act? Surely the Mishnah (in Pirkei Avos) teaches - One who profanes Kodshim, one who disgraces the Mo'adim, one who annuls the Bris of Avraham Avinu and one who distorts the Torah, even if he has Torah and good deeds, he has no portion in the world to come. (This shows that it is obligatory to eat special festive meals on Yom Tov.)

Answer (R' Yirmiyah): It is optional whether to cook or not.

Question (R' Yosa): In response to R' Eliezer's ridicule, R' Yehoshua should have said that even according to your opinion, the Mitzvah of the Korban Chagigah of Yom Tov will prove it, as they permitted Melachah (slaughtering) but applied the Rabbinic prohibition against carrying and bringing from outside of the Techum?!

Answer: R' Eliezer could have responded that the Chagigah is different as it does not involve a punishment of Kares.

Question: If so, R' Eliezer should have responded in this way in the Mishnah!

Answer: As R' Imi said, that the earlier Chachamim were rich with answers - but he only gave one answer in order to keep his words brief. And as R' Nasa said, that it is like a person who has two answers to give but only gives one of them.