We are taught that even when we are Tamei the Shechinah is with us.

The blasphemer challenged R. Chanina by calling us Tamei (based on the Pasuk indicating that such will be the case in the end).

R. Chanina responded that the Shechinah is with us even so.

The Beraisa uses this Pasuk as a Hekesh (to connect Par-Sa'ir and Heichal-Kodesh ha'Kodoshim).

Question: Can something which is, itself, derived from a Hekesh (Par from Sa'ir) in turn teach a Hekesh (Heichal from Lifnim)?!

Answer: This is not called a Hekesh (but rather Heimenu ve'Davar Acher).

Question: But what according to the opinion that considers Heimenu as a Hekesh?

Answer: The place is learned from one another (such that each Hekesh deals with its own issues and no Lamed is being Melamed).

Alternate Answer: The Limudim can both be learned as one (Chutz from P'nim).

R. Elazar b. R. Yosi reported seeing drops of Dam (from the Sa'ir on Yom Kipur) on the Paroches in Rome, contrary to the Tana Kama who teaches that the Haza'ah is not on the Paroches itself.

Question: Perhaps those drops were from other Korbanos (e.g. the Par He'elam Davar)?

Answer: R. Elazar saw the (eight) drops in line.

The Beraisa teaches the same sequence regarding the other Korbanos:

R. Elazar reported seeing those drops (and while those are not done on the Paroches, it is not Me'akev is some drops fall on it).

Question: Perhaps those were from Yom Kipur?

Answer: He saw they were not in line.

If they became mixed before the Haza'ah bi'Fenim:

(Rava): He does one set of Haza'os and it counts for both.

R. Yirmiyah sharply put down Rava's suggestion.

Rava ends up with the Sa'ir le'Ma'alah being sprinkled before the Par le'Matah, which is Pasul.

Rather, he must sprinkle one sent for Par and another set for Sa'ir.

If they became mixed after the Par le'Ma'alah:

R. Papa suggested to do one Haza'ah le'Matah for both and then a Sa'ir le'Ma'alah.

Rava told R. Papa that the insult leveled by R. Yirmiyah would apply doubly to this suggestion which repeated the earlier error.

Rather, he must sprinkle for Par le'Matah and then offer a full set for Sa'ir.

If the cups of the Par and Sa'ir became confused:

He sprinkles two sets from each cup.

If only some of each of the Damim became mixed:

It seems obvious that he would use the non-mixed Dam!

The question is whether the mixed Dam would be considered Shirayim (and placed on the Yesod) or it is Dechuyah (and spilt into the Amah).

(R. Papa): It is clearly Dechuyah.

Even the opinion (R. Elazar b. R. Shimon, below) which maintains that one cup makes the others Shirayim would say so only if the contents of the cups could be, but were not, sprinkled.

Here, however, they could not be sprinkled and would be Dechuyah.

(R. Huna b. R. Yehoshua): It is clearly Shirayim.

Even the opinion (Tana Kama, below) which maintains that one cup makes the other Dechuyah would say so only when nothing was offered from those cups.

In our case, parts of each cup were sprinkled.

The Machlokes (referred to above) is reported in the Beraisa which deals with a Chatas whose Dam was collected in four cups.

If the Matanos were offered partially from each cup:

(Tana Kama): The remaining Dam in each cup is Shirayim.

If, however, the Matanos were offered from only one cup, then the Dam in the remaining cups is Dechuyah.

(R. Elazar b. R. Shimon): This second case would still make the rest Shirayim.

Question: How will R. Elazar learn the limitation of "ve'Es Damo (even partial Dam) Yishpoch"?

Answer: It will preclude the Shirayim remaining in the animal.