Previous daf

1)

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

1. ... Parah Adumah?
2. ... Nega'im?

(b) The Tana also included Matan Arba from "Kein Ya'aseh". We answer the Kashya that the Pasuk specifically refers to Matan Arba too (no less than to Matan Sheva) by establishing the author as Rebbi Shimon.
What does he Darshen in another Beraisa from "Keren, K'ranos" (by the Par He'elam Davar), "Keren, K'ranos" (by the Par Kohen Mashi'ach)?

(c) On what basis does he Darshen "Keren K'ranos"? What does he do with the fact that "K'ranos" by the Par He'elam Davar is written minus a 'Vav'?

(d) How does this answer the Kashya?

(a) What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from "be'Ohel Mo'ed"?

(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.
But did the Beraisa not learn earlier from "la'Par" 'Zeh Par Yom ha'Kipurim'?

(a) And what does Rebbi Shimon learn from "be'Ohel Mo'ed"?

(b) What will he say to Rebbi Yehudah, who learns this from ''Asher (Pesach Ohel Mo'ed)"?

(c) According to Abaye, the author of our Mishnah could even be Rebbi Yehudah, because he too, requires a Pasuk to include Matan Arba, even though it is written explicitly in the Pasuk.
How is that? Why might we have thought otherwise?

(a) The Beraisa learned Par Yom ha'Kipurim from "la'Par".
What is the problem with this? What makes us think that we ought not to need it?

(b) We establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, who learns "Chukah" on the things that were performed with the Kohen Gadol's white garments inside. What does 'inside' mean in this context?

(c) To what are we then referring when we say that Chukah, according to Rebbi Yehudah, does not pertain to the things that were performed with the Kohen Gadol's white garments outside?

(d) What would we now have thought, according to Rebbi Yehudah, had the Torah not written "la'Par"?

(a) Rav Papa asks how we can establish the previous Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, in light of another Beraisa.
What does Rebbi Akiva mean when he Darshens from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh" (which is otherwise superfluous) 'Im Kiper Kilah, ve'Im Lo Kiper, Lo Kilah'?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah asks Rebbi Akiva why he inverts the words "V'echilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh".
So how does he Darshen it?

(c) In any event, what do we see from there that clashes with the previous Beraisa (assuming the author to be Rebbi Yehudah)?

(a) Rav Papa answers that, based on the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "Ve'taval ha'Kohen es Etzba'o ba'Dam", we learn from "la'Par" 'es', 'be'Dam' and 'Tevilah' (with regard to Yom Kipur). How does Rav Acha bar Ya'akov explain "es Etzba'o"?

(b) We explain 'be'Dam' to mean 'she'Yehei be'Dam Shi'ur Tevilah Lechatchilah.
What do we mean by that?

(c) And what do we learn from "Ve'taval"?

(d) How do we reconcile the fact that we are learning the Par Yom Kipur from the Pasuk of the Par He'elam Davar, whereas the Pasuk ("Ve'taval ha'Kohen es Etzba'o ba'Dam") is written by Kohen Mashi'ach?

7)

(a) Why does the Torah need to write both "be'Dam" and "Ve'taval"? What might we have thought had it written ...

1. ... "Ve'taval" and not "be'Dam"?
2. ... "be'Dam" and not "Ve'taval"?

(b) Having written "Mizbach ... Asher Lifnei Hashem", why does the Torah need to add "(Mizbach) Ketores Samim ... "?

(a) What does Rebbi (or Rebbi Akiva) in a Beraisa mean when he learns from "la'Par", 'Le'rabos Par Yom ha'Kipurim, le'Chol Mah she'Amur ba'Inyan'?

(b) How does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from where the animals are not the same?

(c) So he Darshens "la'Par" to include Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur (which we will explain later).
How does he Darshen "le'Par"?

(d) What Pircha can we ask on Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, assuming he is trying to learn Par Yom ha'Kipurim from Par He'elam Davar (regarding 'es', 'be'Dam 've'Taval') via a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from the fact that ...

1. ... it is similar to the Sa'ir Yom ha'Kipurim (regarding the Avodos)?
2. ... the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur is similar to the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim (regarding the Avodos)?

(a) So what is Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael referring to when he says ''u'Mah be'Makom she'Lo Hushvah Korban le'Korban'?

(b) Seeing as there are differences between them (as we shall see), what did Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael have in mind when he said 'Hushvu Ma'asim le'Ma'asim'?

(c) What are the two major differences between the Avodah of the Par He'elam Davar and the Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim?

(d) And 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.
From where do we learn Sa'ir Yom ha'Kipurim, in this regard?

(a) From where did we learn 'es', 'be'Dam' and 'Taval' by Se'irei Avodas Kochavim?

(b) What problem does that create with the previous D'rashah?

(c) How does Rav Papa resolve the problem?

Next daf