Question: We know the law of Se'ir Avodah Zarah only from a Hekesh (39b. "Ha'Chatas" refers to Se'ir Avodah Zarah.) Can this then teach another law through a Kal va'Chomer?! (Regarding Kodshim, we cannot learn from a Hekesh to something learned from a Hekesh - 49b.)

Answer (Rav Papa): Indeed, R. Yishmael holds that something learned from a Hekesh can teach something else through a Kal va'Chomer.

(Beraisa): "La'Par" refers to Par He'elem Davar.

Question: The verse discusses Par He'elem Davar! (An extra word should be used to expound something else!)

Answer (Rav Papa): We learn from Par He'elem Davar to Se'ir Avodah Zarah that Yoseres ha'Kaved (flesh that separates the liver from the lungs) and both kidneys are offered (with the Chelev);

We learned this regarding Par He'elem Davar from a Hekesh to Par Mashu'ach. It cannot teach through another Hekesh;

Therefore, it says "la'Par". It is as if Yoseres ha'Kaved and both kidneys are written regarding Par He'elem Davar itself.

Support (for Rav Papa - Beraisa) Question: "V'Asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah" - what do we learn from this?

Answer: "V'Hem Hevi'u... v'Chatasam" teaches (that we offer the Eimurim of) Se'ir Avodah Zarah;

"Shigegasam" refers to Par He'elem Davar;

"Chatasam... Al Shigegasam" teaches that the law of Chatasam (Se'ir Avodah Zarah) is like Shigegasam (Par He'elem Davar).

Question: We learned Par He'elem Davar from a Hekesh to Par Mashu'ach. How can it teach through another Hekesh?!

Answer "La'Par" is Par He'elem Davar. It is like 'la'Par", i.e. Par Mashu'ach. (It is as if the Eimurim were written regarding Par He'elem Davar itself).

(Beraisa): "V'Chatasam" teaches (that we offer the Eimurim of) Se'ir Avodah Zarah.

Question: Why don't we learn like above (39b), that "ha'Chatas" refers to Se'ir Avodah Zarah?

Answer (Rav Papa): If that were the only source, we would only learn the Haza'os, for they are written regarding Par He'elem Davar. We would not learn Yoseres ha'Kaved and the kidneys, which are learned from a Hekesh to Par Mashu'ach;

"V'Chatasam" teaches the Eimurim of Se'ir Avodah Zarah.

Question (against Rav Papa - Rav Huna brei d'Rav Noson): The Tana learns everything about Par Yom Kipur from the Hekesh. Why do you say (40a) that we learn only Es, ba'Dam and v'Taval?

Answer (Rav Papa): Tana'im argue about what we learn from the Hekesh. I discussed Tana d'Vei Rav (a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim). This Beraisa is like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael;

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) Question: Why does the Torah explicitly mention Yoseres ha'Kaved and the kidneys regarding Par Mashu'ach, but not regarding Par He'elem Davar?

Answer: A parable explains this. A king was angry at his close friend. Due to his love, he minimized (the record of) his friend's wrongdoing. (Rashi - the congregation of Yisrael sinned, so Hash-m discusses the Korban briefly; Maharsha - the Kohen Gadol sinned, so Hash-m describes the beauty of the Korban);

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) Question: Regarding Par Mashu'ach it says "Paroches ha'Kodesh." Regarding Par He'elem Davar it is called only "Paroches". What is the reason?

Answer: A parable explains this. A province rebelled against the king:

If the minority rebelled, his cabinet of confidants is intact;

If the majority rebelled, he does not retain his closeness with his confidants.

(Our Mishnah): (Only one Matanah of an outer Korban is Me'akev according to Beis Hillel. Beis Shamai agree regarding Korbanos other than Chatas.) Therefore, if Zerikah was done properly...

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If a Kohen was Mefagel in the Kometz (of a Minchah) but not the frankincense, or vice-versa, the Minchah is Pigul, and one (who eats it) is Chayav Kares;

Chachamim say, there is no Kares unless he was Mefagel in all the Matirim (things that permit it, in this case, the Kometz and frankincense).

(Reish Lakish): R. Meir does not say that intent to be Mefagel in one of the Matirim makes Pigul. He agrees that one must be Mefagel in all the Matirim;

The case is, the Kohen verbalized his intent (Chutz li'Zmano) in the Kometz, then offered the frankincense silently;

R. Meir says that we assume that (unless he specifies otherwise,) he does all Avodos according to his initial intent.

Question: What is Reish Lakish's source to say this?

Answer: He derives this from our Mishnah.

(Mishnah): ...Therefore, if all the Zerikos were done k'Tiknan (like required) and one was done Lo k'Tiknan, it is Pasul, and there is no Kares;

Inference: If the first Zerikah was done Lo k'Tiknan and the rest were done k'Tiknan, it is Pigul.

Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?

It cannot be Chachamim. They say that Kares applies only if he was Mefagel in all the Matirim!

Answer #1: The Mishnah must be R. Meir.

Suggestion: If R. Meir held that intent to be Mefagel in one of the Matirim makes Pigul, he would Mechayev Kares also in the case of the Mishnah (when the last Avodah was Lo k'Tiknan)!

Conclusion: R. Meir holds that all Avodos are done like the initial intent.

Rejection #1 (and Answer #2 to Question 3 - Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak): Really, the Mishnah is Chachamim;

'K'Tiknan' means in the way required to make Pigul, i.e. with intent Chutz li'Zmano.

Objection (Mishnah): ...Therefore, if all the Zerikos were done k'Tiknan and one was done Lo k'Tiknan, it is Pasul, and there is no Kares;

Inference: If all were done k'Tiknan, the Korban is Kosher. (This shows that 'k'Tiknan' means with proper intent!)

Rejection #2A (of the source for Reish Lakish - Rava): (The Mishnah is Chachamim. K'Tiknan means with intent Chutz li'Zmano.) Lo k'Tiknan means with intent Chutz li'Mkomo, for this prevents the Korban from becoming Pigul, i.e. with intent Chutz li'Zmano;

Rejection #2B (Rav Ashi): Rava could also explain Lo k'Tiknan to mean Lo Lishmah, for this disqualifies a Chatas and prevents it from becoming Pigul.

Question (against Rava and Rav Ashi): Above (f:2), we derived from the Mishnah that if the first Matanah was (with intent) Chutz li'Zmano and the rest were proper, there is Kares. This is like R. Meir according to Reish Lakish!

Answer: The inference is wrong. There is no Kares;

The Mishnah teaches that (even) if all the Zerikos were done k'Tiknan and one was done Lo k'Tiknan, it is Pasul;

The words 'there is no Kares' are only for parallel structure to the Reisha, but not to make inferences.