The as-yet-unanswered Question: Why may the Sa'ir not be used for the following year, rather than pastured or left to die?

Answer (Rava): We may not re-use the Sa'ir owing to a Gezeirah of Takalah (as taught in the Beraisa).

Answer: Fear that the owner will be Makriv the animals at the improper time.

Question: The same should apply to all Korbanos (none should be put out to pasture)!?

Answer: The Takalah is the concern over accidentally deriving benefit from them.

Question: Again, that should not only apply to the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kippur!?

Answer: Our concern is that he will offer them improperly, which only applies to animals which, by themselves, are able to be offered, but for the timing.

The Gezeirah over Takalah is, apparently, a Machlokes in the Beraisos:

One Beraisa allows an animal designated as a Korban Pesach to be brought for Pesach Sheini on the following year, while one Beraisa forbids its subsequent use.

No, the Beraisos argue over how to calculate the year (like Rebbi and Rabanan) and hence if it is possible to use this animal next Pesach.

Question: But the Beraisos add that the same Din will apply to money designated for a Korban Pesach (which does not have an age limit)?

Answer: They must, indeed, be arguing about Takalah.

The Kohen Gadol stood next to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtalei'ach, placed his hands on it and said the following Vidui:

"Hash-m, your nation Yisrael have trangressed before you; please atone for their transgressions, as it says in the Torah."

Upon hearing the Holy Name of Hash-m recited by the Kohen Gadol, the Kohanim and the people in the Azarah would bow and prostrate themselves and say "Boruch Shem Kevod..."

They gave it to the one who would take it (to the wilderness).

All are fit to take it, but the Kohanim would take it themselves.

R. Yosi said that that once Arsala, who was a Yisrael, took it; they made a special ramp for him to avoid the Bablyonians who accosted him saying "take it and go!".

Inference: The Kohen Gadol's Vidui did not include the transgressions of the Kohanim.

Question: According to which Tana are the Kohanim omitted?

Answer (R. Yirmiyah): It is not R. Yehudah who taught (61b) that all, including Kohanim, gain Kaparah through the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.

Alternate Answer (Abaye): It could even be R. Yehudah, and the Kohanim are certainly part of 'Your nation, Yisrael!'

The Beraisa derives from "Ish" and "Iti" some of the details of this usher.

"Ish" - he may be a Zar

"Iti" - he must have been previously designated.

"Iti" - even when Yom Kipur falls on Shabbos.

"Iti" - even if Tamei.

Question: Why might we have invalidated a Zar?

Answer: It is an aspect of Kaparah.

Question: What activity on Shabbos does "Iti" permit?

Answer: That if the Sa'ir is ill the usher may carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question: According to whom is this Din?

Answer: It is not like R. Noson who holds that carrying a living being is not an Isur Torah (as it 'carries itself').

Alternate Answer: It could even be the opinion of R. Noson, but being sick may take it out of consideration as 'carrying itself.'

(Rafram): The Beraisa just cited seems to imply that it is permitted to carry on Yom Kipur, as we need to be taught that it is permitted to carry if Yom Kipur falls on Shabbos.

Question: How is Tum'ah relevant to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach?

Answer (R. Sheishes): If the designated usher becomes Tamei, he enters the Azarah to usher out the Sa'ir.

R. Eliezer was asked if the Sa'ir, if ill, could be carried.

He avoided the question by asserting that the Sa'ir was healthy and strong.

He was further asked the Din if the usher becomes ill, might he send it with someone else, and he avoided this question, as well.

They further asked him for the Din if he pushed the animal off the cliff and it did not die, and, again, he avoided the question by asserting that it surely died.

The Chachamim answered the above three questions.

He may carry it; he may send a substitute; and, he must go down and kill it.

R. Eliezer was asked if a certain person would merit Olam ha'Ba and he redirected their question onto a different person.

He was asked if it is permitted for the shepherd to save the sheep from the lion (see Rishonim) and he responded that they might ask if it is permitted to save the shepherd.

The asked if it is proper to save the shepherd and he responded that perhaps they meant the sheep.

They asked if a Mamzer inherits, and he responded regarding the Mamzer and Yibum.

They asked about an unpainted spot (for the Churban) in a Mamzer's house and he responded regarding painting the grave marking of a Mamzer.

R. Eliezer did these things because he did not wish to say anything that he had not heard from his Rebbi.

A wise woman asked him why different members of Klal Yisrael received different death penalties for the Eigel, and R. Eliezer redirected her wisdom to the loom.

Rav and Levi disputed the answer to this question:

One opinion was that it varied on the degree of involvement in the transgression (active worship, embracing, private pleasure).

One opinion was that it varied on the level of warning given (warning plus witnesses, witnesses alone, or neither).

(R. Yehudah): The tribe of Levi did not worship the Eigel (proof text).

Question: Ravina recited the above teaching and the sons of R. Papa b. Aba asked how there could have been parents, children and siblings of B'nei Levi who worshipped?

Answer: They were all non-Levi'im.

Father- his maternal grandfather.

Brother- the son of his mother.

Sons- his grandchildren from his daughter.

They were not actually Babylonians but Alexandrians.

The term Babylonian was used derogatorily owing to the Jews' hatred of that people.

This was comforting to R. Yosi in the supporting Beraisa.

(Mishnah): "Take it and go!"

Beraisa: "Why are you tarrying - the sins of the generation are many?!"