"V'Chilah mi'Kaper Es ha'Kodesh'' - some teach, if he finished, he atoned. And some teach, if he atoned, he finished;

Explanation #1 (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): They argue about the following. The one who says that if he atoned, he finished, holds that Shirayim are not Me'akev. The one who says that if he finished, he atoned, holds that Shirayim are Me'akev.

Explanation #2 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): They argue only about how to expound. All agree that Shirayim are not Me'akev.

(R. Simon citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Shirayim are not Me'akev.

Question: How does he explain [the Tana'im]?

Answer: The one who says that if he finished, he atoned, he makes them four [places of essential] Matanos (between the staves, towards the Paroches, on the inner Mizbe'ach, and Shirayim on the outer Mizbe'ach). The one who says that if he atoned, he finished, he makes them three Matanos (he omits Shirayim). (SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL)

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): Shirayim of Chatas, which are not Mechaper, are put on the Yesod - the initial [Matanah] of Olah, which is Mechaper, all the more so it should be put on the Yesod!

R. Akiva: If Shirayim of Chatas, which are not Mechaper, and are not proper for Kaparah, are put on the Yesod, the initial [Matanah] of Olah, which is Mechaper, and is proper for Kaparah all the more so it should be put on the Yesod!

Inference: The one (R. Yishmael) who says [that Shirayim of Chatas] are not Mechaper, this refers to the rest of the year, but on Yom Kipur, [Shirayim of inner Chata'os are Me'akev, and] they are Mechaper (therefore, he did not say that they are not proper for Kaparah);

The one (R. Akiva) who says [that Shirei Chatas] are not Mechaper and they are not proper for Kaparah, [this is so] the rest of the year, and on Yom Kipur.

Question: How do we establish ["El Yesod Mizbe'ach ha'Olah'']?

If it is for a Mitzvah, also the entire year it is a Mitzvah to put on the Yesod [due to the Kal v'Chomer]!

Answer: Since it is not needed for a Mitzvah, use it to teach that it is Me'akev.

(R. Shamai): A Beraisa teaches that Shirayim are Me'akev!

It teaches "Tachtonim (blood that should be put on the bottom half of the outer Mizbe'ach), if he put it above, it was not Meratzeh, for none of it should be put above. Will you say so about Elyonim (blood that should be put on the top half? [I can say that] if he put it below, it was Meratzeh, for some (Shirayim) is put below!

Objection: Penimiyim (inner Chata'os) refute this. Some [of their blood, i.e. Shirayim] is put outside, and if he put it outside, it was not Meratzeh!

Answer: You cannot learn from Penimiyim - if [their blood] was put outside, it is not Meratzeh, for the [inner] Mizbe'ach is not Memarkan (does not finish their essential Avodah, i.e. Shirayim must be put on the outer Mizbe'ach). Will you say about Elyonim? [I can say that] if he put it below, it was Meratzeh, for the Keranos are Memarkan. Since the Keranos are Memarkan, if he put them below, it is Kosher!

Therefore, it says "Osah'' - [Chatas is Kosher when] he put its blood above, and not if he put its blood below.

Question: What does it mean the inner Mizbe'ach is not Memarkan? (Does it not mean that pouring Shirayim on the outer Mizbe'ach is Me'akev?!)

Rebuttal (and answer - R. Yosi bei R. Bun): The inner Mizbe'ach [alone] is not Memarkan to make them Shirayim. [Rather, also] through [Matanos] between the staves and on the Paroches, they become Shirayim.

(R. Yosah): A Mishnah teaches that Shirayim [even of inner Chata'os] are not Me'akev. It teaches that if he did not put them, they are not Me'akev!

Contradiction (R. Borkai citing R. Yochanan): A Beraisa teaches that Shirayim are Me'akev! "V'Chiper Es Mikdash ha'Kodesh'' - this is inside [Kodesh ha'Kodoshim]; "v'Es Ohel Mo'ed'' is the Heichal; "v'Es ha'Mizbe'ach'' is the gold Mizbe'ach; "Yechaper'' - even for the Azaros;

What Kaparah is in the Azaros? Is it not Shirayim?!

Questions (R. Bun bar Chiya): According to the opinion that Shirayim are Me'akev, is their place Me'akev? May one put [Shirayim] at night? [If the blood spilled after the other Matanos,] does he slaughter [another animal] l'Chatchilah for them (in order to put Shirayim - HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA)?

Question (Talmidim): Does intent [Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo] take effect on them?

Question (R. Yudan): If they were lost, what is their law (are they Me'akev)?

He asks when he did not begin to put [Shirayim on the Mizbe'ach] and they were lost, but if he began to put, all agree that what he leaves over is Shirayim (it is not Me'akev to put all of them).

(Beraisa): Me'ilah applies to the blood. R. Meir and R. Shimon say so. Chachamim say, Me'ilah does not apply to blood.

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): "Ki ha'Dam Hu b'Nefesh Yechaper'' - [blood has only] Kaparah for the Nefesh (but not Me'ilah).

(R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): "Kol Ochlav Yikares'' - there is only Kares of the Nefesh (for eating blood, but no punishment for benefit from it).

(R. Ze'irah): They argue about one who was Makdish blood [to Bedek ha'Bayis]. The one who says there is only Kaparah of the Nefesh, since this has no Kaparah, there is Me'ilah. The one who says there is only Kares of the Nefesh, since this has Kares, there is no Me'ilah.

R. Ba came and taught in the name of R. Yochanan that they argue about one who was Makdish blood to Bedek ha'Bayis. R. Ze'irah was happy. He thought that it was said about the Rabanan (R. Avahu and R. Chiyah, who argued about R. Yochanan's opinion, and like R. Ze'irah taught).

R. Ba (to R. Ze'irah): What is your source (to think that I support you)? It was said about [the argument of Rabanan and] R. Shimon! (However, all agree that Me'ilah does not apply to blood of Kodshei Mizbe'ach.)

(R. Ba brei d'R. Chiyah bar Ba): So Chachamim answer R. Shimon. If he sold [blood of Kodshei Mizbe'ach after Kaparah], perhaps it is not Tofes Damav (put Kedushah on the money paid for it? Surely it is!) What is the difference between it and its money? (If its money has Kedushah, also it has Kedushah, even though its Mitzvah was done, yet you agree that there is no Me'ilah. The same applies to blood of Bedek ha'Bayis. We explained this according to RIDVAZ.)

He argues with R. Elazar, who said that there are places where [Chachamim] said that one may not benefit [mid'Oraisa], and Me'ilah does not apply [since its Mitzvah was done] - therefore, if he sold it, it is not Tofes Damav, and there are places where they said that one may not benefit [mid'Rabanan], and Me'ilah does not apply. Therefore, if he sold it, it is Tofes Damav;

Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach and of the Menorah, one may not benefit [mid'Oraisa], and Me'ilah does not apply - therefore if he sold it, it is Tofes Damav. Blood, one may not benefit [mid'Rabanan], and Me'ilah does not apply. Therefore, if he sold it, it is not Tofes Damav. (We explained like HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA.)