Implied question: Above (16a), we said that there were tables in the Azarah to rinse Kodshim on them, like it explicitly says in Yechezkeil!

Answer: We rinse meat of Kodshei Kodoshim on the tables. The innards of Kodshim, which have excrement and are repulsive, are rinsed in Lishkas ha'Madichin.

Question: Why in the Reisha, the Mishnah lists Lishkas ha'Melach, Lishkas Beis ha'Parvah and Lishkas ha'Madichin, but it explains Lishkas ha'Madichin before Lishkas Beis ha'Parvah?

Note: Tosfos asks based on what he considered to be the primary text. Later he acknowledges that in some texts (e.g. ours), it explains them in the same order.

Answer: Had it explained Lishkas Beis ha'Parvah first, how could it teach "the Kohen Gadol immerses on its roof"? It did not yet teach how he gets to there!

Therefore, it needed to teach first Lishkas ha'Madichin, and that from there was a path to the roof of Lishkas Beis ha'Parvah.

Alternate text: However, I saw in Midos that it explains Lishkas Beis ha'Parvah first, like the order in the Reisha, and some texts of our Gemara are like this.

Question: In Nedarim (35b), we asked whether Kohanim are Sheluchim of Hash-m, or of Yisrael. The Gemara brought several attempted proofs, but did not resolve the question in the end;

Why didn't the Gemara settle the question from Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua here?

Answer #1: The Gemara [there] did not want to resolve it from Amora'im, rather, only from a Mishnah or Beraisa.

Support: We must say so in Bava Metzi'a (17b) and Kesuvos (89b), which asked whether a widow from Eirusin has a Kesuvah, and did not resolve this;

In several places in the Gemara (Nedarim 44a, Kidushin 65a), it seems that she has a Kesuvah. The Ri proved so there;

Rather, the Gemara wanted to resolve the question only from a Mishnah or Beraisa.

Answer #2: I say that it is clear from Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua that they are Sheluchim of Hash-m;

If you would say that they are specifically our Sheluchim, and not Hash-m's, do we ever find [that a Shali'ach can do something that the Meshale'ach cannot do]?

There (in Nedarim), the question was whether they are also partially our Sheluchim, in addition to being Sheluchim of Hash-m, or are they purely Sheluchim of Hash-m.

We cannot resolve this from Rav Huna. Even if they are also our Sheluchim, they may offer even though we cannot, since they are also Hash-m's Sheluchim.

Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua's teaching, that they are not [exclusively] our Sheluchim, does not teach anything about Mudar Hana'ah;

Whether they would be exclusively our Sheluchim, or also Sheluchim of Hash-m, it is forbidden regarding Mudar Hana'ah, for he benefits the Mudar.

Rather, [Rav Huna's teaching] is relevant for one who said "I do not want a Kohen in the Mishmar to offer my Korban, rather, another Kohen";

If we would say that they are exclusively our Sheluchim, he said that he does not want [Kohanim of this Mishmar]. Such a Kohen cannot offer for him against his will;

If we say that they are Sheluchim of Hash-m, even though we explain that they are Sheluchim also of Hash-m, they are primarily Hash-m's Sheluchim, so he cannot stop Kohanim of the Mishmar from offering his Korban.

Assertion: It seems that in them one may greet one whom he fears, and answer one whom he must honor, but not in Tefilah;

We say (Berachos 30b) that even if a Melech Yisrael greets one [in Shemoneh Esre], he does not answer. Even if a (non-poisonous) snake is around his heel, he does not interrupt.