1)

(a)We reconcile the current Beraisa (Damim ha'Te'unin Y'sod ... Te'unin Kibus ... ) with another Beraisa, which precludes Shirayim and Haktaras Emurim from Machsheves P'sul - by establishing it by the three Matanos of a Chatas Chitzonah.

(b)And we amend the Tana's statement Te'unin Y'sod - to Nit'anin Y'sod, meaning that the Shirayim will be poured on to the Y'sod (though it is not clear why the Tana did not then say Te'unin Keren).

(c)However, seeing as Rav Papa ruled before (regarding those three Matanos) Lo Sharya, ve'Lo Mefagla ve'Lo Ayla le'Gava'i ke'Sofan - we re-establish the earlier Beraisa by the blood of a Chatas P'nimi (where all four Matanos are crucial).

(d)The problem with the Seifa ve'Damim ha'Nishpachin le'Amah Ein Te'unin Kibus, ve'Ein Machshavah Mo'eles bahen, ve'ha'Ma'aleh bahen ba'Chutz Patur is - why the Tana jumped to Damim ha'Nishpachin le'Amah, bypassing the last three Matanos of the Chatas Chitzonah.

2)

(a)We answer by establishing the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Nechemyah, who holds Sheyarei ha'Dam she'Hikrivan ba'Chutz Chayav in which case, according to the suggestion, the Seifa would not have balanced the Reisha - since he could only have mentioned two of the three Dinim in the Reisha (Ein Te'unin Kibus ve'Ein Machshavah Mo'eles bahen), whereas by Damim ha'Nishpachin le'Amah, he is able to mention all three.

(b)Going back to the Mishnah in Dam Chatas, min ha'Keren u'min ha'Yesod Eino Ta'un Kibus (from which Rav Papa extrapolated Ha min ha'Ra'uy le'Keren, Ta'un Kibus), which we queried from min ha'Yesod ... , where we cannot make the same inference. To answer this Kashya, Ravina establishes min ha'Yesod ... - as min ha'Ra'uy li'Y'sod.

(c)Rav Tachlifa bar Gaza asked Ravina why, by the same token, we cannot interpret the Reisha too, to mean Ra'uy le'Keren - refuting Rav Papa's inference-based proof altogether.

(d)To which Ravina replied that - having taught min ha'Ra'uy le'Keren, Eino Ta'un Kibus, the Tana would not then have needed to add min ha'Ra'uy li'Yesod, which is obvious (finally vindicating Rav Papa).

3)

(a)The Torah writes in Parshas Vayikra (in connection with the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur) "Ve'asah la'Par ka'asher Asah le'Par ha'Chatas" - with reference to the Par Kohen ha'Mashi'ach.

(b)The problem with this Pasuk is that - it is superfluous, since everything that needs to be done to the Par He'elam Davar seems to have been specifically mentioned.

(c)We cannot answer that the Hekesh comes to include the burning of the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys, which the Torah does not mention by the Par He'elam Davar - because the Torah writes Ve'chiper aleihem", and these two items do not impede the Kaparah.

(d)We answer that the Torah writes "Ve'asah la'Par ... " - to teach us that all the Matanos are crucial.

4)

(a)The Tana learns from "Kein Ya'aseh lo" (in the continuation of the Pasuk "Kein Ya'aseh lo, Vechiper aleihem ha'Kohen Venislach lahem") that - the current Chumra pertains not only to the seven Matanos on the Paroches, but also to the four Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav.

(b)From the word "le'Par" (in the earlier phrase), the Tana includes - the Par (of the Chatas ha'Tzibur) of Yom Kipur, whereas from ...

1. ... the word "le'Par" - he includes the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and from ...

2. ... "ha'Chatas" - the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim.

(c)The Tana incorporates the Par Kohen Mashi'ach in the current Din (of Ikuv Matnosav) - and he includes the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim in the initial Din of a Chatas Penimi (regarding sprinkling the blood on the Paroches and on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, and burning it outside the three Machanos), which is not mentioned in the Parshah itself.

(d)On the other hand, from the word "lo", he precludes - the goats of (the Musaf) of Yom-tov and Rosh Chodesh, from the Dinim of Chatas Penimi.

5)

(a)The Tana includes Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim, and precludes the Se'irei Yom-Tov and Rosh Chodesh (and not vice-versa) - because, seeing as the Par He'elam Davar (the source) speaks about a known sin, it is more logical to include a Korban that comes likewise to atone for a known sin (rather than one that comes to atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, of which one was unaware).

(b)The Beraisa goes on to preclude the Semichah from being Me'akev (deterring) the Korbanos in question, from "Vechiper" - whereas from "Ve'nislach" he precludes the pouring of the Shirayim on to the Y'sod.

(c)We might have thought otherwise - because of the Pasuk "ve'Asah ... Ka'asher Asah", which implies that it is Me'akev.

(d)The Tana sees fit to include the Haza'os and to preclude Semichah and Shirayim (and not the other way round) - because elsewhere we find that the Haza'os are crucial, whereas Semichah and Shirayim are not (as we will explain shortly).