(a) When the Torah in Acharei-Mos writes with regard to blood of both the Par and the Sa'ir that it has to be sprinkled "Al ha'Kapores", does it mean it literally?

(b) What was the difference in the way the Kohen Gadol performed the Mitzvah of "Al ha'Kapores", and the way he performed that of "Lifnei ha'Kapores"?

(c) What does the Torah write specifically ...

1. ... by the Par that it does not write by the Sa'ir?

2. ... by the Sa'ir that it does not write by the Par?

(a) Why does the Pasuk "(written by the Sa'ir) "v'Lifnei ha'Kapores" initially appear to be redundant?

(b) Why then, does the Torah write it?

(c) If the Torah does not want the blood to touch the Aron, then why does it write "Al"?

(d) How might we say the opposite with regard to the "Al" of the Par?

(a) We answer the previous Kashya by pointing out that if we use the 'Lematah' of Sa'ir to compare the 'Lema'alah' of Sa'ir to it, we would still need the 'Lema'alah' of Par to teach us something else, whereas if we were to use the 'Lema'alah' of Par to compare the 'Lematah' of Par to it, then we would have no use for the 'Lematah' of Sa'ir. What would we learn from the 'Lema'alah' of Par (i.e. "al Pnei ha'Kapores Keidmah")?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk "v'Asah es Damo Kasher Asah l'Dam ha'Par"?

(c) And why can we not learn that from the comparison of "Damim" by the Sa'ir to "Damim" by the Par - written in both cases by 'Lematah'?

(a) What do we learn from the same Pasuk "v'Asah es Damo Kasher Asah l'Dam ha'Par"?

(b) And why can we not learn that from the comparison of "Damim" written by 'Lema'alah' of Par to "Damim" written by 'Lema'alah' of Sa'ir.

(a) Rebbi Meir cites the text of the wording of the Kohen Gadol as 'Achas, Achas v'Achas, Achas u'Shtayim ... ', like in our Mishnah. What is Rebbi Yehudah's version of the text?

(b) What is the basis of the two versions? Do they really argue?

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar, the purpose of announcing the number each time the Kohen sprinkled was to prevent him from erring. What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(d) What is the Halachic difference between the two opinions?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in Shekalim, holds that there were no collecting boxes for the Kinei Chovah (the obligatory bird-offerings - e.g. that of a Zav or a Zavah), because they might become mixed. How does Rav Yosef initially interpret this?

(b) In that case, why should they not take two boxes, and write on the one 'Chovah', and on the other, 'Nedavah'?

(c) How do we try to prove from the stand in our Mishnah, that Rebbi Yehudah does not rely on the method of writing as a reminder?

(a) Apart from the six boxes marked 'Nedavah', that stood in the Azarah, there were another seven boxes marked 'Tiklin Chadtin', 'Tiklin Atikin', 'Kinim', 'Gozlei Olah', 'Etzim', 'Levonah' and 'Zahav la'Kapores'. What was the difference between ...

1. ... Tiklin Chadtin and Tiklin Atikin?

2. ... Kinin and Gozlei Olah?

(b) Why were there six boxes for Nedavah?

(c) Considering the author of this Mishnah in Shekalim is Rebbi Yehudah, how does this create a problem with what we just wrote above in question 6c?

(a) We just established that, in principle, Rebbi Yehudah does rely on writing. What reason does Rav Dimi from Eretz Yisrael now give for his having said earlier that there were no boxes for Kinei Chovah?

(b) How do we refute this on the basis of a Mishnah in Gitin (with regard to someone who sends his Chatas from overseas)?

(c) So how do we amend Rav Dimi's statement?

(d) Why can the Kohen not just take four Zuzim from the box and throw it into the Yam ha'Melach (in order to fulfill the obligation of 'Chatas l'Misah Azla')?

(a) What is the significance of the 'four Zuzim' in the previous question?