Implied question: Why is there no liability for Tum'ah?

Answer #1: This is like it says above (45b, that one is liable for Tum'ah) when it became Huchshar (permitted) to be offered, and [Eimurim] are not proper to offer until after Zerikah (and they already left the Azarah before Zerikah).

Answer #2: Rashi gave a different reason. (Normally, one is liable only for what is permitted to Tehorim. A Drashah includes Eimurim like meat, i.e. only after Zerikah.)

Reference: Rav Papa's teaching is in Menachos (47b) regarding Shtei ha'Lechem that left between Shechitah and Zerikah. We thought that there is no difference between that [and our question about Eimurim that left].

Implied question: Above (89b), regarding Dam Chatas has precedence over Dam Olah, why did we need a verse? The Mishnah explained the reason (Chatas atones)!

Answer: [That was fine,] for there are two verses. One connotes that Chatas has precedence, and one connotes that Olah has precedence.

Question: However, here it is difficult. Why do we need a verse? We should know this already because Chatas ha'Of atones!

Answer: Perhaps because there is no Haktarah [of Chatas ha'Of], this reason does not help.

Question: The Reisha taught this! Dam Chatas has precedence over Dam Olah!

Answer: It needs to teach about even an Olah that comes with the Chatas, like it teaches "and similarly regarding making it Hekdesh."

Question: we say in Pesachim (59a) "this is a Binyan Av for all Chata'os. They have precedence over Olos, and we hold even Chatas ha'Of over Olas Behemah";

The wording is somewhat difficult. Why does it say "and we hold [even Chatas ha'Of over Olas Behemah]"? The Binyan Av teaches only this!

Also, it is difficult why it says all Chata'os! (It teaches only about Chatas ha'Of. Chazon Yechezkel (10:1 DH uvi'Sevara, and cited in Chidushei Basra) - it says all to teach about even Olos that do not come with the Chatas.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is read first in the Parshah.

Objection: What is the Chidush? (Why must he teach that the Torah wrote it first?!)

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): One should be Makdish it first. He is Makdish the Olah before the Chatas. However, the Chatas is offered first.

Implied question: The Mishnah says [that Chatas is first] also for being Makdish it!

Answer: Our Mishnah does not discuss a Yoledes, even though it connotes somewhat that for everything taught in the Mishnah "Chatas has precedence over Olah for Hakravah", for all of them it taught "and similarly to be Makdish it."

Question: We say in Erchin (21a) that we do not take a security from people obligated to bring a Chatas. We do take a security from people obligated to bring an Olah, but sometimes we do not take a security from people obligated to bring an Olah;

[The Gemara] asks 'which are these [Olos]? If you will say that it is Olas Yoledes, i.e. we need not take a security from her because she cannot bring her Chatas until she brings her Olah (and even without a security, she will bring her Chatas - this cannot be, for) Rava taught that the verse puts [Olah] first for Mikra'ah!'

According to R. Chaim's Perush, [what was the rejection?] Since she must be Makdish the Olah before the Chatas, if so there is no need to take a security, for she is forced to bring both of them! (Tzon Kodoshim - R. Chaim agrees that the Olah is not Me'akev the Chatas, just when she will bring both, she must be Makdish the Olah first.)

Question: What was the question? Perhaps we do not discuss blood, rather, limbs of Olah, which have precedence over Eimurei Chatas, like the Mishnah (89a) teaches! (Tzon Kodoshim - the Makshan knew that k'Mishpatam teaches that the Olos are first also for blood. He challenges the Binyan Av that says that Chatas is always first.)

Observation: We can ask like this regarding one's Aveidah, and the Aveidah of his colleague, and Kivud Av v'Em, according to the opinion that it is from the son (he must honor with his own money), in Kidushin (32a). Which has precedence?

[If you will say that] his Aveidah has precedence, Kivud Av v'Em has precedence over it, according to the opinion that it is from the son;

[If you will say that Kivud] Av v'Em has precedence, there is his colleague's Aveidah, which has precedence, like we say in Bava Metzi'a (32a) that even if his father said "do not return", he should not heed him;

[If you will say that] his colleague's Aveidah has precedence, there is his own Aveidah, which has precedence over his colleague's Aveidah!

Question: Chatas ha'Of should have precedence based on a Kal v'Chomer! Olas Behemah is stringent. It is totally Kalil, and it has precedence over Ma'aser, yet Chatas ha'Of has precedence over it;

Ma'aser, which is not Kalil, and Olas Behemah has precedence over it, all the more so Chatas ha'Of should have precedence over it!

Strengthening of question: We say such a Kal v'Chomer in Sanhedrin (35b). Execution should override Shabbos based on a Kal v'Chomer. Avodah overrides Shabbos, and execution overrides [Avodah, i.e. if a Kohen is Chayav Misah and he wants to serve, we execute him]. Shabbos, which Avodah overrides it, all the more so execution should override it!

Answer: It is a Chidush that Chatas ha'Of has precedence over Olah, and we do not learn from it.

Question: Just the contrary, Chatas Metzora should have precedence, for it is Machshir and atones!

Answer #1: Since the blood is put on the Behonos from Dam ha'Asham, it is considered a Machshir more than the Chatas.

Answer #2: "All Chata'os in the Torah" that was taught does not refer to a Chatas that comes with an Asham, rather, to other Chata'os.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is a disgrace to delay [yesterday's Shelamim] so much, for the meat rots.

Objection: There was no need to give this difficult Perush!

Explanation #2: Rather, the reason is because yesterday's Shelamim may be eaten only until the [beginning of the] night, but Chatas and Asham of today may be eaten for a day and a night (mid'Oraisa until dawn, and mid'Rabanan until midnight).

Explanation: The same applies to Asham, for it is Kodesh Kodoshim.

Remark: Even though it taught Shelukin and afterwards Mevushalin (cooked in water, which connotes that Shelukin is less cooked), Shelukah is more [cooked] than [Stam] Bishul.

Source: This is proven in Chulin (111a) regarding the liver. It says that if it was [seasoned with spices or] Shelukah, it forbids and becomes forbidden (because it absorbs. This connotes that without spices, if it is cooked the normal amount, it is not forbidden.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): E.g. blood of Olas Tamid and Dam Chatas (we ask which has precedence).

Question: Above (89a DH Kol), we explained that Milvad Olas ha'Boker discusses Avodas ha'Dam!

Explanation #2 (Rashi): [We ask about] Olah of Musaf Rosh Chodesh and Par Helam Davar of the Tzibur.

Question: We should resolve from our Mishnah, which taught that Musafim of Shabbos have precedence over Musafim of Rosh Chodesh. It connotes that even Olas Musaf of Shabbos has precedence over Chatas Musaf of Shabbos Rosh Chodesh!

Answer: Since Olas Musaf Shabbos has precedence over Olas Musaf Rosh Chodesh, because it is Tadir, it has precedence also over the Chatas, since the verse equates the Olah of Musaf with the Chatas.