MATANOS OF THE PAR BEFORE THE SA'IR
(Ula): If he slaughtered the Sa'ir before completing the Matanos of the Par in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, it is ineffective.
Question: If so, then our Mishnah should insist that he slaughter a new Sa'ir in the event that he brought the Dam Sa'ir before the Dam Par!?
Answer: The Mishnah is speaking of the Matanos in the Heichal (and the Sa'ir was certainly slaughtered after the Matnos Dam Par in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim).
The understanding of the Mishnah is supported by R. Afas.
EACH KAPARAH IS INDEPENDENT
The Beraisa cites a Machlokes regarding which parts of the Avodah bring atonement for Tum'as Mikdash and which parts atone for other Aveiros; similarly the dispute applies to whether the Kohanim and Yisre'elim are atoned through the same Avodah.
R. Yehudah holds that Tum'as Mikdash is atoned for by the Sa'ir within, and the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach atones for other Aveiros, Kohanim and Yisre'elim alike.
R. Shimon holds that the Kaparah for Tum'as Mikdash is accomplished by the Haza'os alone (the Sa'ir for Yisre'elim and the Par for the Kohanim) and the Viduyim (on the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach for Yisre'elim and on the Par for the Kohanim) atone for the other Aveiros (hence the Kaparah for each is not the same for any Aveiros.
EACH HAZA'AH SEPARATELY, OR EACH SET OF HAZAOS
A second Beraisa affirms that each Haza'ah is a separate Kaparah. [Note: this Machlokes forms the basis for several subsequent sections]
According to R. Meir (the Tana Kama) each set of Haza'os must be complete before the invalidation takes place or else he must repeat that set from the beginning.
R. Elazar and R. Shimon hold that each Haza'ah which was done is not repeated, even within a set.
R. Yochanan teaches that the above positions are based on different understandings of the Pasuk "ve'Chiper":
R. Meir says that it means one Kaparah for each set.
R. Elazar and R. Shimon understand it to mean only one Chitui, meaning that no Haza'ah may be repeated.
THE LOG SHEMEN OF THE METZORA
Rebbi reported R. Ya'akov clarified that the above Machlokes does not apply to the Log Metzora (which must be Echad) and all would agree that the whole Kaparah must come from the one Log.
Question: But we find in the Beraisa that R. Elazar and R. Shimon argue with R. Meir there exactly the same way!?
Answer: Rather, Rebbi reported R. Ya'akov as teaching that the same Machlokes applies there.
The Beraisa cited above (4.b.) taught that the Matanos ha'Rosh are not Me'akev on the Metzora (like the Shefichas Shirayim on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach).
Question: What is the source for this Din?
Answer: Since the Torah calls it Nosar (makes it like Shirayim).
Question: On the basis of Nosar, then the Kometz (where we find "ve'ha'Noseres... ") should also not be Me'akev (and we know that is not the case)!?
Answer: That Pasuk speaks of what remains (Shirayim, which may, indeed, be Me'akev) while we are speaking of Shiyarei Shirayim, which are not Me'akev.
ASHAM METZORA AS TAUGHT BY R. YOCHANAN [Note: The following is according to Rashi]
(R. Meir): If an Asham Metzora which was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo (even though the Avodah went on to Matnas Behonos) he must slaughter a new Asham.
(R. Elazar and R. Shimon): In that case he is stuck, since this aspect of the Avodah would have to be done with a second Asham, and would violate Asham Echad.
Question: But even according to R. Meir, the restrictive word "Oso" should require that the same animal which was used for the Tenufah be the one offered as his Asham.
Answer: Good question.
A Beraisa supports R. Yochanan in its report that a replacement Asham must be brought in the event that the first was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo [or its blood was not placed on the Behonos] and he is not restricted by "Oso" to prevent such replacement.
R. Chisda understands that Beraisa to the contrary, teaching that he must bring another, and that he is stuck owing to his inability to do so!
Question: Does a Tana use the word must (Tzarich) when he means, by implication, that the person is stuck?
Answer: Indeed, we find such a use in the Beraisa regarding a hairless Nazir where Beis Shamai say that he must use a razor.
Ravina understands Beis Shamai to use the word 'Tzarich' as implying that he needs to - but is unable to - use the Ta'ar and hence he is stuck in his Tum'ah.
R. P'das disagrees and holds that he must, and it is effective for him to pass the Ta'ar over his hairless head, comparable to R. Elazar's position regarding the Matnos Dam on a Metzora with no right thumb.
The Beraisa teaches that (owing to the link between Nesinah and Kabalah) that the Kabalas ha'Dam from the Asham Metzora must be done into the hands of the Kohen (just as he must place the Dam on the thumbs by hand, not with a K'li); but that the Kabalas ha'Dam for the Mizbe'ach must be done into a K'li (as that is linked to other Chata'os and Ashamos).
It emerges that two Kohanim are needed for the Kabalas ha'Dam of the Asham Metzora (one fills his hands and goes to the Metzora and one fills his K'li and goes to the Mizbe'ach).