Observation: Here, the Gemara connotes that according to the opinion that even the bulls' blood is called Par, this is even after Zerikah, for this verse discusses after Zerikah.

Implied question: Above, we asked about [appointment on and withdrawal from] Korban Pesach, that we should permit until Zerikah. (We should have asked about even after Zerikah!)

Answer: This is not because after Zerikah it is not called Seh;

Rather, after Zerikah the primary Kaparah was already done. How could one be appointed on it? After this, he is not considered the owner!

Implied question: Why can't we say also here, that he removes all that remains from the Par that used to be?

Answer: Here it does not say Kol, like it says regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach.

Implied question: Why don't we ask from "v'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par"? (Also this shows that it is called Par after Shechitah!)

Answer: We need this verse for another Drashah (Zevachim 25b);

Citation: If one nicked the ear of a Korban and then did Kabalah, it is Pasul, due to "v'Lakach... mi'Dam ha'Par" - the bull that was.

This means [that it must be like it was] when alive.

Question: Even if it is Chatas Tzibur, this is difficult. Even though it need not die, it is Ro'eh (grazes until it gets a Mum, and then it is redeemed)!

R. Shimon, who says below that Chatas Tzibur need not die, says that it grazes until it gets a Mum!

Answer: It seems that this law of Ro'eh is only mid'Rabanan. Chachamim decreed only in a case like below, in which the owners received total Kaparah through another animal, since a similar case of a Chatas Yachid must die;

However, here not all the owners died, for his fellow Kohanim are alive.

Also, another Kohen Gadol is appointed in place of him. This is unlike when the owner of a Chatas Yachid died. Therefore, they did not decree.

Question: In every place, the Gemara says Par [Helam Davar] in the singular, and Se'irei Avodah Zarah in the plural. What is the reason?

Suggestion: It is like the opinion (Horiyos 5a) that every Shevet brings a goat for idolatry [if most of Yisrael sinned through a mistaken ruling of the Great Sanhedrin]. Therefore, it says so in the plural.

Rejection: If so, he should say also Parei Helam Davar (plural), for he holds that for [mistaken rulings about] other Mitzvos, every Shevet brings a bull!

Answer: He holds that every Shevet brings a goat;

Implied question: If so, why doesn't he say Parei Helam Davar?

Answer: He could not simply say so, lest people err and think that this includes the bull that the Tzibur brings for [a mistaken ruling about] idolatry;

This is wrong, for that bull is an Olah. Therefore, he said Par, so we will not err.

Alternative texts: This is Rashi's text. In old texts it says "v'Ha Ketani" (it was taught).

Explanation: Rashi does not accept the old text, for v'Ha Ketani connotes the Beraisa that we brought already, and this is not true.

Proof: If it was taught "Par Shel Yom ha'Kipurim v'Se'ir Shel Yom ha'Kipurim", how did he initially err to say that "Shel Yom ha'Kipurim" refers [only] to Se'ir?!

Rather, the text must say veha'Tanya. It is a different Beraisa that says so. It is not the same Beraisa as above.

Implied question: Why didn't we say that this affects whether or not we must pursue Tehorim [to offer it]?

If it is considered a Korban Tzibur, we need not pursue Tehorim according to the opinion that Tum'ah is Hutrah (totally permitted) b'Tzibur;

If they are partners, we must pursue Tehorim.

Above (6b) connotes like this, that Heter is only b'Tzibur, but not for the Korban of an individual or partners.

Rava [who answered here that whatever has a fixed time is Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah] holds there that Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur!

Answer: It is because R. Shimon said here that the Chatas of a Tzibur does not die, and we needed to alter his words to say "the Chatas of partners does not die;

According to him, there is no difference regarding Tum'ah, for he holds (6b) that Tum'ah is Nidcheh b'Tzibur.

Implied question: We could say that R. Meir calls it a Korban Yachid only to exclude the opinion of the first Tana, who said Stam that Korbanos Tzibur are Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah;

R. Meir says to him "you should not use these words, for it does not depend on this, like he said above. However, he admits that it is a Korban of partners, and it cannot make Temurah according to him, just like according to the first Tana. (If so, the question of R. Elazar (ben Pedas, an Amora) does not apply to anyone!)

Answer: R. Elazar holds that R. Meir holds that it is truly a Korban Yachid, for he calls it a Korban Yachid;

If R. Meir merely came to exclude the opinion of the first Tana, he should have said "Par Yom Kipur, Chavitei Kohen Gadol and Pesach are not Korbanos Tzibur, yet they are Docheh Shabbos..."

Conclusion: We conclude that R. Elazar asked whether it is Mechaper for the [other] Kohanim directly, or only along with the Kohen Gadol.

This is the Safek that R. Elazar had, whether R. Meir truly calls it a Korban Yachid, or not really, and he merely comes to argue with the first Tana, like I explained.

Observation: Here, the Gemara connotes that if b'Kufya Mechaprei (along with the Kohen Gadol), it makes Temurah;

Even though many get Kaparah through it mi'Kufya, it is not considered a Korban of partners, and it makes Temurah.

Question: In Zevachim (5b), we say that if one left an animal to his two sons and died, it is offered, but they cannot make Temurah on it, for partners cannot make Temurah, even though we conclude their that heirs get Kaparah only mi'Kufya!

Answer: There, there are only heirs who get Kaparah mi'Kufya, therefore it is considered a Korban of partners;

Here, the Kohen Gadol gets Kaparah directly. Therefore, their (the other Kohanim's) Kaparah has no significance.

It is as if it is nothing, so it is not considered a Korban of partners, and it makes Temurah.

Assertion: Also the Kohen Gadol's wife gets Kaparah mi'Kufya.

Proof: If not, it is a Korban of partners, and it does not make Temurah!

Question: Why don't we consider the stringency that Temurah takes effect even through a mistake?

We expound "Yihyeh" to include Shogeg like Mezid;

This does not apply to the Zevach. Mistaken Hekdesh is not Hekdesh regarding the Zevach that is Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah.

Suggestion: We find regarding Ma'aser Behemah that mistaken Hekdesh works [even for initial Hekdesh]!

If one [mistakenly] called the ninth [animal to leave the pen] "10th", and called the 10th "ninth", and called the 11th "10th", all three of them are Hekdesh!

Rejection: Here we do not discuss Ma'aser Behemah, for it is not Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah.

Answer #1: Perhaps the Tana taught [some stringencies] and left over. There are also other stringencies [that he did not teach].

Answer #2: The Tana lists only matters that take effect in both of them, just one of them is preferable and more stringent than the other;

A mistake, which takes effect in Temurah, but does not take effect at all in the Zevach, he does not list.

Observation: We could not answer that it is like R. Shimon, who holds that a Chatas of partners need not die, for in any case he holds that it is Ro'eh. (It itself may not be offered.)

Implied question: Why don't we establish it to discuss Shelamim?

Shelamim applies to the Tzibur and to individuals, for there are Shelamim of the Tzibur, and there are Shelamim that are Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah, i.e. the lambs of [the Tzibur offered with Shtei ha'Lechem on] Shavu'os;

There are Shelamim that make Temurah, e.g. of an individual!

Answer: Because they are not the same...

Shalmei Tzibur may be eaten [only] for one day and the following night, within the curtains (i.e. the Azarah), [only] male Kohanim may eat it, and they are Kodshei Kodoshim;

Shalmei Yachid may be eaten for two days and the night [in between], in the entire city (Yerushalayim), anyone may eat it, and it is Kodshim Kalim.

Therefore, the Tana would not include both of them in the generic word "Zevach".

Implied question: Why don't we establish it to discuss Olah or Chatas?

Both the Tzibur and individuals bring them, and there are Olos and Chata'os that are Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah, and some make Temurah!

Answer: Since all of these matters do not apply to all Olos, he would not call it Zevach Stam.