1)

(a)In the Pasuk "Hein Lo Huva es Damah", the Torah continues "Lechaper ba'Kodesh". ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer (in our Mishnah) learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Lechaper" "Lechaper" (from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "ve'Chol Adam Lo Yih'yeh ba'Kodesh be'Vo'o Lechaper ba'Kodesh" [warning everybody to leave the Heichal the moment the Kohen Gadol enters to perform the Avodah]) that - the Korban is Pasul as soon as the Kohen brings the blood into the Heichal, even before he sprinkles it.

2. ... Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk there "ve'es Par ha'Chatas ve'es Se'ir ha'Chatas asher Huva es Damam Lechaper ba'Kodesh" that - he is only Chayav once he sprinkles the blood.

(b)When we explain that Rebbi Eliezer learns Chutz from Chutz, we mean that - he learns Chatas Chitzonah from the Pasuk which warns everyone to remain outside (rather than from the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur, whose blood is brought inside the Heichal Lechatchilah).

(c)Rebbi Shimon - prefers to learn from the latter Pasuk, because it entails learning Beheimah from Beheimah, rather than from the former, which is Beheimah from Adam.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah validates a Chatas whose blood is taken into the Heichal be'Shogeg, implying that be'Meizid, it would be Pasul. We are not initially sure whether he is speaking - specifically when the Kohen sprinkled the blood (like Rebbi Shimon), or even if he didn't (like Rebbi Eliezer).

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah cites a Beraisa which discusses the Pasuk (that we just quoted) "ve'es Par ha'Chatas ve'es Se'ir ha'Chatas ... ". The Tana's question 'Mah Talmud Lomar "ve'ha'Soref osah ... " - makes no sense, since the Pasuk is needed to teach us that both the person who burns the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim and the clothes he is wearing are Tamei.

(c)What therefore concerns the Tana is - the repetition of the word Lashon "Chatas" (when clearly, once would have sufficed) ...

(d)... and he learns from there that - it is not only the Par and the Sa'ir of Yom ha'Kipur that must be burned in the Beis ha'Deshen and that render even the clothes of the one who burns them Tamei, but also the other Chata'os ha'Penimiyos.

3)

(a)Rebbi Meir learns the current Limud from the word "Lechaper" - because it incorporates the blood of all Chata'os that come to atone (in the Heichal).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah cannot learn the other Nisrafin from "Lechaper" - since he needs it for the Gezeirah-Shavah (as we just explained).

(c)We extrapolate from this Beraisa that - the Kohen is only Chayav for taking the blood of Chata'os ha'Chitzoniyos into the Heichal, if he also sprinkles it there (like Rebbi Shimon).

4)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules that the Mizbe'ach sanctifies whatever is fit for it - meaning whatever has reached the stage where it is ready to go on the Mizbe'ach

(b)And what he then means is - Im Alu, Lo Yerdu.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua says Kol ha'Ra'uy le'Ishim; Rabban Gamliel says - Kol ha'Re'uy la'Mizbe'ach.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua precludes - Dam and Nesachim (since they do not go on the fire on the Ma'arachah) from the principle Im Alu, Lo Yerdu, whereas Rabban Gamliel includes them (since they do go on the Mizbe'ach)

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah" that Kol ha'Ra'uy la'Ishim ... Lo Teired - and Rabban Gamliel learns Kol ha'Ra'uy la'Mizbe'ach from the continuation of the same Pasuk "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah al ha'Mizbe'ach".

6)

(a)Rebbi Shimon rules that in a case where the Korban is Kasher and the Nesachim become Pasul, or vice-versa - the Korban remains on the Mizbe'ach, whereas the Nesachim are taken down.

(b)They are taken down even if it is the Korban that becomes Pasul - since the Nesachim are secondary to the Korban (and not vice-versa). And ...

(c)... if they both became Pasul - the same will apply ...

(d)... because the Mizbe'ach sanctifies it.

7)

(a)We already explained that when the Tana refers to 'whatever is fit for the Mizbe'ach', he means that it where it is ready to go on the Mizbe'ach. According to Rav Papa, this precludes - Kematzim (the fistfuls of Kemitzah from a Minchah) which the Kohen has not yet sanctified in a K'li Shareis.

(b)Ula rules that Emurei Kodshim Kalim that the Kohen brings on the Mizbe'ach before the Zerikas Dam - Lo Yerdu.

(c)When Ravina queried Rav Papa from Ula's ruling, the latter reconciled the two - by explaining that, the Din by ...

1. ... the Kematzim is Yerdu - because they are lacking the act of placing them in a K'li Shareis (and are therefore not fit for the Mizbe'ach).

2. ... the Emurei Kodshim Kalim is Lo Yerdu - because they are only lacking an act that is performed with an external body (the Z'rikah of the blood); the Emurim themselves are fit, and therefore they are considered Lachmo shel Mizbe'ach.

8)

(a)Raban Gamliel in our Mishnah learns Kol ha'Ra'uy la'Mizbe'ach from the Pasuk in Tzav "Hi ha'Olah ... al ha'Mizbe'ach", whereas from "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah" he learns Pok'in - the obligation to return limbs that fall off the Mizbe'ach during the night, back on to the Mizbe'ach (since "Mokdah" implies Kesheirim rather than P'sulim).

(b)Whereas Rebbi Yehoshua learns Pok'in from - "asher Tochal ha'Eish".

(c)Rabban Gamliel Darshens "asher Tochal ha'Eish es ha'Olah al ha'Mizbe'ach" like the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chanina bar Minyumi, who extrapolates from there that - one only needs to return the burnt limbs that fall off the Mizbe'ach, but not the burnt Ketores.

(d)Rebbi Yehoshua - actually agrees with this inference, which automatically teaches us that the Kohanim must return the burnt limbs exclusively.

9)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehoshua, the Torah adds the words "al ha'Mizbe'ach" - to teach us that Im Alah, Lo Yeired is due to the Kedushah of the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Rabban Gamliel learns that - from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash".

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua needs both Pesukim - one to teach us that - Im Alah, Lo Yeired applies both to an animal that was Shechted be'Kashrus (and that only became Pasul after it was then Lan [on the Mizbe'ach], Yotzei or Tamei), the other to teach that an animal that is Shechted after its time has expired or in the wrong location (even though is not fit for the Mizbe'ach at all).

(d)Rabban Gamliel holds that - since they became Pasul, what difference does it make whether they were initially Kasher to bring on the Mizbe'ach or not?

10)

(a)extrapolate that the Korban remains on the Mizbe'ach (even when it is Pasul), but not the Nesachim, from "Hi ha'Olah" - which implies that whatever is brought independently, like an Olah, remains on the Mizbe'ach (even when it is Pasul), but not Nesachim, which come together with the Korban (and which are secondary to it).

(b)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili in a Beraisa learns what 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu', from the Pasuk "ve'Zeh asher Ta'aseh al ha'Mizbe'ach, Kevasim ... "; Rebbi Akiva learns it from "Hi ha'Olah" (that we discussed earlier). According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, the ramifications of their Machlokes are - an Olas ha'Of, which Rebbi Akiva will include, but which Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili will not.

(c)Rebbi ...

1. ... Yossi ha'Gelili learns from "ha'Olah" that - Lo Yerdu only applies if it is brought on the Mizbe'ach after the animal has been Shechted (like the Olah in the Pasuk), but not if it was brought up during its lifetime (see Shitah Mekubetzes).

2. ... Akiva learns from "Kevasim" - to preclude bird sacrifices from the Din of Im Alu, Lo Yerdu.

(d)And the Tana'im of the Beraisa (Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili and Rebbi Akiva) argue with the Tana'im in our Mishnah (Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua) - regarding Kematzim that were sanctified, which the former preclude from ... Lo Yerdu (since it is not included in "ha'Olah"), whilst the latter include it (seeing as both "Mokdah" and "Mizbe'ach" incorporate them.