1)

(a)The Beraisa just included Matan Sheva in the Din of Ikuv Matanos, because it is Me'akev elsewhere, with reference to the Parah Adumah ("Vehizah el Nochach P'nei Ohel Mo'ed" [Chukas]) and Nega'im ("Ve'hizah min ha'Shemen asher be'Etzba'o" [Metzora]). We know 'Ikuv Matanos' by ...

1. ... Parah Adumah - from the word "Chukah", which always implies Ikuv.

2. ... Nega'im - from the word "Toras", which does too.

(b)The problem with the Tana's inclusion of Matan Arba in this ruling from "Kein Ya'aseh ... " is that - this is not necessary, since the Pasuk specifically refers to Matan Arba too (no less than to Matan Sheva)

(c)To answer the Kashya, we establish the author as Rebbi Shimon, who Darshens in another Beraisa from "Keren, K'ranos" (by the Par He'elam Davar) and "Keren, K'ranos" (by the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) that - each one requires four Matanos (because we add them together).

(d)He Darshens "Keren K'ranos" - on the basis of the Torah's use of the plural (when it could have written 'Keren'). The fact that "K'ranos" by the Par He'elam Davar is written without a 'Vav' does not bother him - because he holds 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra' (we go after the way the word is read, not written).

(e)In any even, this answers the Kashya - because since not all four Matanos are written by the Par He'elam Davar (the Parshah under discussion), "Ve'asah ... ka'asher Asah" will not pertain to them (thereby justifying the independent D'rashah to include them).

2)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah learns from "be'Ohel Mo'ed" that - "Ve'asah ... Ka'asher Asah" refers to everything that is performed in the Ohel Mo'ed (incorporating the Matan Arba)

(b)And from "Kein Ya'aseh" he includes the Par Yom ha'Kipurim in the Din of Semichah and the pouring of the Sheyarei ha'Dam, which we would not otherwise know from "la'Par" 'Zeh Par Yom ha'Kipurim' - because neither of them is crucial to the Avodah.

3)

(a)Rebbi Shimon learns from "be'Ohel Mo'ed" that - if the ceiling of the Heichal broke (in which case it no longer constitutes an Ohel), the Kohen is not permitted to perform the Haza'os.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah concedes to Rebbi Shimon, and he learns "Keren K'ranos" from - the word "asher" (in the Pasuk "asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed") which Rebbi Shimon does not consider a D'rashah.

(c)According to Abaye, the author of our Mishnah could even be Rebbi Yehudah. He too, requires a Pasuk to include Matan Arba, even though it is written explicitly in the Torah - because we might otherwise have compared it to S'michah and Sheyarei ha'Dam, which, we learned earlier, are not crucial to the Avodah.

4)

(a)The Beraisa learned Par Yom ha'Kipurim from "la'Par". The problem with this is that - we already know that whatever is written there is crucial, since the Torah writes "Chukah" with regard to Yom Kipur.

(b)So we establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, who confines "Chukah" to the things that are performed with the Kohen Gadol's white garments inside - the Kodesh Kodshim (the Matanos of the blood of the Par and the Sa'ir between the poles of the Aron).

(c)And when we say that Chukah, according to Rebbi Yehudah, does not pertain to the things that are performed with the Kohen Gadol's white garments outside - we are referring to the Matanos of the blood of the Par and the Sa'ir in the direction of the Paroches, inasmuch as if he sprinkled the blood of the Sa'ir before that of the Par, he is Yotzei).

(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah, had the Torah not written "la'Par" we would have thought that - by the same token, if the Kohen Gadol did not sprinkle all the Matanos in the Heichal, he is Yotzei, too.

5)

(a)Rav Papa asks how we can establish the previous Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, in light of another Beraisa, where Rebbi Akiva Darshens from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh" - Im Kiper, Kilah; ve'Im Lo Kiper, Lo Kilah ...

(b)... by which he means that - as long as the Kohen Gadol has performed the Matanos, he has finished, and pouring the remainder of the blood on to the Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is not crucial.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah asked Rebbi Akiva why he inverts the words "V'echilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh", which he Darshens - Im Kilah, Kiper; ve'Im Lo Kilah, Lo Kiper (the Kaparah is only valid if he finishes the process, by pouring the remains of the blood on to the Y'sod of the Mizbach ha'Chitzon).

(d)In any event, we see from there that - according to Rebbi Yehudah, we learn Ikuv Matanos by the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos from "Ve'chilah", and not from "la'Par", in which case we cannot establish the previous Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah.

6)

(a)Rav Papa answers that, based on the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "Vetaval ha'Kohen es Etzba'o ba'Dam", we learn from "la'Par" three things: 'es', 'be'Dam' and 'Tevilah' (with regard to Yom Kipur [see also Tosfos DH Amud 2 DH 'le'es, be'Dam u'Tevilah']). Rav Acha bar Ya'akov explains the word "es" - to mean something that is secondary to the Kohen Gadol's finger (if he performs Haza'ah with the blood that is on a blister on his finger, he is Yotzei (and it is not considered a Chatzitzah).

(b)We explain 'be'Dam' to mean she'Yehei be'Dam Shi'ur Tevilah Lechatchilah - the Kohen must receive sufficient blood in one K'li for the Kohen Gadol to make Tevilah and Haza'ah (and not that he receives it in two Keilim, one of which he then pours into the other).

(c)And we learn from "Vetaval" that - the Shi'ur Tevilah must be contained inside the K'li, so that the Kohen only needs to dip his finger into it, without having to wipe some of it from the wall of the K'li.

(d)We reconcile the fact that we are learning the Par Yom Kipur from the Pasuk of the Par He'elam Davar, whereas the Pasuk ("Vetaval ha'Kohen es Etzba'o ba'Dam") is written by Kohen Mashi'ach - by pointing out that we learn the Par Kohen Mashi'ach too, from the Par He'elam Davar (via the word "la'Par").

7)

(a)The Torah needs to write both "be'Dam" and "Vetaval", because had it written only ...

1. ... "Vetaval" and not "be'Dam" - we would have thought that although the Kohen Gadol needs to dip his finger in the bowl, it is not necessary to initially receive the full amount in one bowl.

2. ... "be'Dam" and not "Ve'taval" - we would have thought that even though the Kohen Gadol must receive the full amount initially, it doesn't matter if he needs to wipe it from the wall of the bowl to make up the Shi'ur.

(b)In spite of having written "Mizbach ... asher Lifnei Hash-m", the Torah nevertheless needs to add "Ketores Samim" - to teach us that the Kohen Gadol is not permitted to make any Ha'za'os in the Heichal before the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores has been consecrated, by having the Ketores brought on it at least once.

8)

(a)When Rebbi (or Rebbi Akiva) in a Beraisa learns from "la'Par", Lerabos Par Yom ha'Kipurim le'Chol Mah she'Amur ba'Inyan, he means - to include 'es', 'be'Dam' and 've'Taval'.

(b)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns this from a Kal va'Chomer from where the animals are not the same - yet in their context, they are compared, how much more so there where they are the same.

(c)He therefore Darshens "la'Par" to include Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur (which we will explain later), and "le'Par" " (in the following phrase "ka'asher Asah le'Par ha'Chatas") - to include Par Kohen Mashi'ach (like the Tana did earlier).

(d)We can query Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, assuming he is trying to learn Par Yom ha'Kipurim from Par He'elam Davar (regarding 'es', 'be'Dam u'Tevilah') via a Kal-va'Chomer from the fact that ...

1. ... it is similar to the Sa'ir Yom ha'Kipurim (with regard to the Avodos) inasmuch as - in the latter case, the blood of both animals is brought into the Kodesh Kodashim (which that of the Par He'elam Davar is not [so it does not follow that we learn the Par Yom ha'Kipurim from it).

2. ... the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur is similar to the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim inasmuch as - in the latter case, both Korbanos come to atone for known sins (whereas the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim atones for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav where there was a Yedi'ah at the beginning but not at the end [so it does not follow that we will learn it from the Par He'elam Davar]).

9)

(a)We therefore conclude that, when Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael says 'u'Mah be'Makom she'Lo Hushvah Korban le'Korban', he is referring to - the Par He'elam Davar and the Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim (which have neither of the two points mentioned earlier in common).

(b)Bearing in mind that there are differences between them, when Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael said 'Hushvu Ma'asim le'Ma'asim' - he had in mind the two major points that they have in common (that the blood of both is sprinkled on the Paroches, and that they are placed with the finger on the K'ranos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav).

(c)The two major differences between the Avodah of the Par He'elam Davar and the Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim are that - the blood of the latter is sprinkled eight times inside the Kodesh Kodshim (as well as in the Heichal), whereas the blood of the former is only sprinkled seven times in the Heichal exclusively.

(d)We learn the Par Yom ha'Kipurim (with regard to 'es', 'be'Dam' and 'Tevilah') with a Kal va'Chomer from the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, and Sa'ir Yom ha'Kipurim in this regard - with the same Kal va'Chomer from the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim.

10)

(a)We learned 'es', 'be'Dam' and 'Taval' by Se'irei Avodas Kochavim - from a Hekesh to Par He'elam Davar (where the Torah writes "Chatas").

(b)The problem this creates with the previous D'rashah is that - in the realm of Kodshim, we do not learn one Lameid from another (such as a Kal va'Chomer from a Hekesh, as we are doing here).

(c)Rav Papa resolves the problem - by establishing that Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael holds Davar ha'Lameid be'Hekesh Chozer u'Melameid be'Kal va'Chomer.