Clarification: This refers specifically to 'Avrah Shenasah' ...

Reason: Because as far as 'Avdah ve'Nimtzeis Ba'alas-Mum is concerned, it is already blemished.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that he must guard it, perhaps it will become a permanent blemish.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because in that case, that is the 'Tir'eh' which the Tana mentions?

Reason: Because 'Tir'eh ad she'Tista'ev implies - whether it is via that blemish or via a different one.

Authentic Explanation: The correct explanation is therefore - that he should guard it - perhaps it will be healed and it will be fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach.

Authentic Explanation (cont.): And even according to Rebbi who says that even it is found before the Kaparah it must die

Authentic Explanation (concl.): That is if he is atoned for afterwards, but as long as he has not yet been atoned for, he can deefinitely be atoned for with whichever one he pleases.

Proof: That goes according to the opinion of the Ri (See first Tosfos in the Perek) who holds that more detriments result in the animal being sent to graze.

Clarification: That if it became Pasul before it got lost, the fact that it got lost is cause for it to have to die.

Question: We can ask from the Mishnah, which says that 'If it, after it gets lost it is found with a blemish, it must die' - even though there is another detriment together with the fact that it was lost?

Answer: One cannot ask on the Mishnah, which is different - because it got lost before the other detriment occurred and which is therefore not comparable with where it got lost at nighttime, where the detriment of nighttime preceded the getting lost ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas the Kashya on Rava is justified, since the loss of before it getting lost

Answer (concl.): Hence the Gemara asks from 'Avudas Laylah' and answers - 'It is not comparable, because 'Avudas Laylah' is intrinsically not fit, and not because just its value.

Repeated Proof: From here there is proof for the opinion of the Ri (See first Tosfos in the Perek)- that more detriments cause the animal to have to graze and not to have to die.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - There where there is a detriment, and he is atoned with another animal, it definitely must die even if it was not lost ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And it is certainly a Kashya on Resh Lakish ...

Implied Question: Because when I (Rava) answered earlier 'Avrah Shenasah ve'Avdah' ...

Answer: That was according to Resh Lakish, but I do not hold like him.

Implied Question: And if you will ask from 'Avudah ve'Nimtza Ba'alas-Mum' - why does it mention 'Ba'alas-Mum', why should it not die because of Avudah alone, seeing as he was then atoned for with another animal? ...

Answer: This is not a problem - because 'Dechyin (rejected) and 'Avudin' are independent of each other, and even though it was lost, it requires another detriment (until here is the wording of Rashi).

Question #1: It is not correct however, to say that a Kashya remains on Resh Lakish, seeing as his ruling is quoted in a number of places in Shas?

Question #2: Moreover, Rava leaves the questions that he asked unanswered?

Explanation #2: Therefore the Ri explains that just as it needed to answer on the Mishnah, that two things are needed, Avudah and Ba'alas-Mum (See Tzon Kodshim) ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): For which reason it was necessary to say that Dechuyin and Avudin are two independent issues ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): So too, will we answer according to Resh Lakish that Dechuyin and Avudin are two independent issues - that Dechuyin are not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, whereas Avrah Shenasah is fit to be brought just like other Korbanos (See Shitah Mekubetzes Hashmatos).

Introduction to Question: Why does the Gemara not say that we need it for the Din of Rebbi Aba, who will later state 'Everyone agrees that if he was atoned for with the one that is not lost, the one that is lost must die ...

Question: And the Rabbanan therefore need to teach us that if by Avudas Laylah, he was atoned for with the one that is not lost, the one that is does not die

Question (cont.): implying that, in the equivalent case of Avudas Yom, it dies?

Answer: We must therefore say that this Sugya does not hold like Rebbi Aba, and that Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue in all cases.

Support: Indeed, there are Sugyos in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei (See also Daf above 21b, Tosfos DH 'V'lad Chatas') - See Seifer Rashak.