Suggestion: This means from the end of Trei Asar to its beginning.

Rejection: If so, even from the beginning to the end is forbidden, for this is so much that the translator will need to pause!

Explanation: Rather, one may not skip from [towards] the end of the Sefer towards the beginning at all.

Question: How could [the Sho'el] be unsure about this?

If only the outer goat was offered with the afternoon Tamid, the Mishnah should not have said they are offered with the afternoon Tamid, in the plural, rather, it is offered...!

Answer: The Mishnah omitted the Eimurim of the Chatas. Perhaps also the Eimurim were offered with the afternoon Tamid, therefore it says they were.

Tosfos' text: R. Eliezer says "Yatza v'Asah" his ram, the Tzibur's ram, and the Eimurim of the Chatas. However, Par ha'Olah, the seven Tam lambs and the outer goat were offered with the afternoon Tamid.

Alternative text: Some texts do not say "however, Par ha'Olah." Rather, they say "Yatza v'Asah" his ram, the Tzibur's ram, and the Eimurim of the Chatas, Par ha'Olah, the seven Tam lambs and the outer goat...

Rejection: If so, also Tana d'Vei Shmuel is not Metakanta (like it should be). There is the same Safek [about how to explain it] like there is in the Mishnah!

Rashi's opinion: All of these are done in [the garments put on after] the third Tevilah.

Rejection: Granted, we said above that the Mishnah is not Metakanta. However, it is not mistaken!

It is called not Metakanta because the order is not explicit in it.

Difficulty #1: According to Rashi, we must say that the Beraisa argues with the Mishnah, for the Mishnah says that they were offered with the afternoon Tamid.

According to Rashi, [the Beraisa holds that] nothing was offered with the afternoon Tamid.

Difficulty #2: Below, we ask "perhaps the outer goat interrupts them." We cannot say that we ask according to R. Eliezer;

Since he holds that we do like it is written, we must say that his ram and the Tzibur's ram, which are written before the goat, interrupt them, like the Beraisa says;

Rather, we ask according to R. Akiva. Perhaps only the goat interrupts them. What is the source that also his ram and the Tzibur's ram interrupt?

Perhaps his ram and the Tzibur's ram are offered with the afternoon Tamid!

Now, according to Rashi, when we answer "v'Yatza v'Asah Es Olaso v'Es Olas ha'Am..." we can still ask!

Perhaps only the goat, his ram and the Tzibur's ram interrupt. What is the source that also Eimurim of the Chatas interrupt?

Difficulty #3: Why do we call this Metakanta? We can ask just like regarding the Mishnah, whether Eimurei Chatas are offered in the third Tevilah, with his ram and the Tzibur's ram, or with the afternoon Tamid!

Tosfos' opinion: Eimurei Chatas are offered with the afternoon Tamid. R. Akiva in the Mishnah means as follows:

With the morning Tamid they offered the lambs, Par ha'Olah, and the outer goat was offered afterwards in its time, with his ram and the Tzibur's ram.

Implied question: Why didn't the Mishnah teach his ram and the Tzibur's ram?

Answer: It is because R. Eliezer agrees that they were offered in the third Tevilah.

Implied question: It says that they were offered with the afternoon Tamid!

Answer: It means that other Korbanos were offered with the afternoon Tamid.

Implied question: Why weren't they taught in the words of R. Eliezer or R. Akiva?

Answer: Perhaps because it is not a full Korban, for the blood was already thrown in the second Tevilah, we are not concerned to teach it;

It is merely the completion of a Korban, and not an Avodah that is Me'akev Kaparah. If they are not Maktir the Eimurim, it is Kosher.

We can explain that R. Eliezer in the Mishnah does not argue with Tana d'Vei Shmuel. He means as follows;

"V'Yatza v'Asah" his ram and the Tzibur's ram, and the same applies to Eimurei Chatas. The Mishnah omitted it, for the reason I gave above.

Implied question: Why did it teach seven Tam lambs, but omitted Par ha'Olah and the outer goat?

Answer: Because R. Akiva holds that they are offered with the morning Tamid, R. Eliezer comes to say "you make them as early as possible. I delay them as much as possible!

Automatically, we know that the reason is because they are written at the end of Parshas Pinchas. If so, the same applies to Par ha'Olah and the outer goat, which are written at the end.

[The Gemara] preferred to mention lambs, for there is a big argument about them;

R. Akiva holds that all are offered [with the Tamid] in the morning. R. Yehudah says that R. Akiva holds that one is in the morning, and six are with the afternoon Tamid, and R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds oppositely (six in the morning, and one with the afternoon Tamid).

Implied question: It says "v'Yatza v'Asah Es Olaso v'Es Olas ha'Am", and below we derive that this is his first exit. This connotes that he offers them immediately after the first time he leaves;

Here we say that he offers first the outer goat!

Answer: Here we mean that from everything written in Parshas Acharei Mos, nothing preceded his ram and the Tzibur's ram in his first exit;

The outer goat is not written there.

Question: Why does he interrupt in the lambs, and offers some in the morning and some in the afternoon?

He should offer all in the morning, for it says "Milvad" (which connotes that he already offered them)!

Implied question: They are written at the end. This obligates offering some of them in the afternoon!

Answer: Also Par ha'Olah is written at the end, and even so, we offer it in the morning. We do not say that we throw its blood [in the morning] and burn it in the afternoon;

Summation of Question (a): If so, we should say that Par ha'Olah is in the morning, and all the lambs are in the afternoon!

Answer: The verse "Milvad" from which we learn to offer the Musafim in the morning, is primary. Therefore, we offer as many of the Musafim in the morning as possible;

Because Musafim are written at the end, we should leave some of the Musafim to offer in the afternoon. Since we leave from the lambs for the afternoon, according to one opinion six, and according to one opinion one, this suffices.

Implied question: Also R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon [who holds that the Tzibur's ram is not the ram of Musaf] is in the Beraisa above;

It connotes that he agrees to the first Tana, who says "his ram and the Tzibur's ram", which implies that there is only one ram! (The Tzibur's ram is the ram of Musaf.)

Answer: Surely, he agrees with the first Tana that according to R. Akiva, that there is only one ram. In the Beraisa, R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon connotes that he speaks according to R. Akiva;

However, R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon himself holds that there are two rams.