Answer: Shmuel holds like R. Shimon regarding Davar she'Eino Miskaven. He holds like R. Yehudah regarding Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. (Rashi - he does not gain from the Melachah; at most, he avoids a loss. Tosfos - it is not done for a purpose similar to the use of the Melachah in the Mishkan.)

(Rav Huna): If Nesachim became Teme'im, we make a separate Ma'arachah for them and burn them (Rambam - on the Mizbe'ach; Rashi - on the floor of the Azarah) - "ba'Kodesh... ba'Esh Tisaref."

Support (Beraisa): If blood, oil, Menachos or Nesachim became Tamei, we make a separate Ma'arachah for them and burn them:

Shmuel gathered 10 people and taught Rav Huna's law (to publicize it).

(Mishnah): If Dam Chatas splashed on a garment, it must be laundered (in the Azarah);

The Parshah (that teaches this) discusses Chata'os that are eaten - "b'Makom Kadosh Te'achel." Even so, it applies to those that are eaten (outer Chata'os) and those that are not eaten (inner Chata'os).

We learn from "Toras ha'Chatas" - there is one law for all Chata'os.

Dam of a Pasul Chatas need not be laundered (i.e. from a garment it splashed onto), whether or not it had Sha'as ha'Kosher (was once Kosher for Zerikah):

Cases of Sha'as ha'Kosher are when (after Kabalah,) the blood became Pasul due to Linah, Tum'ah or Yotzei (it left the Azarah);

Cases when there was not Sha'as ha'Kosher are when it was slaughtered (with intent) Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo, or Pesulim received (or threw - Rashi deletes this from the text, but Tosfos defends it) its blood.

(Gemara) Question: If "Toras ha'Chatas" teaches that there is one law for all Chata'os, even Chatas ha'Of should be included (but it is not)!

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps blood of Chatas ha'Of must be laundered!

Rejection: "Zos (Toras ha'Chatas)" excludes Chatas ha'Of.

Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): In the Parshah it says "Tishachet". This shows that it discusses a Behemah.

Question: In the Parshah it also says "b'Makom Kadosh Te'achel." This should exclude inner Chata'os (they are not eaten!)

Answer: "Toras" includes them.

Question: We should say that it also includes Chatas ha'Of!

Answer: "Zos" excludes it.

Question: (The verse that includes does not specify what to include.) Why do we include inner Chata'os and heed the verse excluding Chatas ha'Of? Perhaps we should include Chatas ha'Of and heed the verse excluding inner Chata'os!

Answer: It is more reasonable to learn the first way, for inner Chata'os resemble outer Chata'os in the following ways:

Both are Behemos, they are slaughtered, they require (Shechitah and Kabalah) in the north, Kabalas Dam must be in a Kli Shares, the blood must be put on the Keren (according to R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - Rebbi says that it is put on the edge of the Mizbe'ach), the blood is put with the finger, and part is Huktar.

Question: Perhaps we should include Chatas ha'Of, for it resembles outer Chata'os in two ways. Both are offered on the outer Mizbe'ach, and both are eaten!

Answer: There are more similarities to inner Chata'os.

Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): "Yochlenah (they will eat it)" excludes another Chatas that is eaten, i.e. Ofos.

Question: What does "Zos" exclude?

Answer: Had it not said "Zos", we would not have expounded "Yochlenah", for the whole Parshah is written in the singular.

Answer #3 (Rabah): "Asher Yizeh" discusses a Chatas whose blood is sprinkled, i.e. an inner Chatas.

Support (Beraisa): Even though regarding Merikah u'Shtifah (scouring and rinsing), the Parshah discusses Chata'os that are eaten, regarding laundering blood from a garment, it says "Asher Yizeh." (Blood of inner Chata'os is sprinkled.)

("Toras ha'Chatas" includes outer Chata'os.)

Question: If so, why does the Mishnah say 'it applies to outer Chata'os and inner Chata'os'? Rather, it should say 'inner Chata'os and outer Chata'os' (since we learn outer from inner)!

Answer: Indeed, the text should say inner Chata'os and outer Chata'os.

Question: "Toras ha'Chatas" should include also Chatas ha'Of!

Answer: "Zos" excludes Chatas ha'Of.

Question: It should also exclude outer Chata'os!

Answer: "Toras" includes them.

Question: Why do we include outer Chata'os and exclude Chatas ha'Of, and not vice-versa?

Answer: We learn this way due to the many similarities of inner and outer Chata'os (listed above) - Behemos, Shechitah, Tzafon, Kli, Keren or the edge of the Mizbe'ach, the finger, and Haktarah.

Question: We should include Chatas ha'Of, for we are Mazeh its blood, like inner Chata'os!

Answer: There are more similarities to outer Chata'os.

Question (R. Avin): If blood inside the neck of Chatas ha'Of entered the Heichal (after Melikah), what is the law?

If its neck is like a Kli Shares (since the Torah did not require 'another' Kli for Kabalah), this is like Dam Chatas (Behemah) that entered the Heichal in a Kli. It is Pasul;

Or, perhaps the Torah forbids "mi'Damah" only when Dam enters by itself, but not when it enters inside the flesh!

Answer (Beraisa): If Chatas ha'Of quivered after Melikah and entered the Heichal and came back out, the blood is Kosher (for Haza'ah).

Inference: Had one brought it in (in order to atone), it would be Pasul!

Counter-question (Beraisa): If Kodshei Kodoshim quivered after Shechitah and moved to the south and returned to the north, it is Kosher.

Will you infer that had one brought it to the south, it would be Pasul?! (Surely it is not, for it did not cross a Mechitzah. As long as Kabalah is in the north, it is Kosher!)

Answer: You must say that the inference is not true. The Beraisa merely teaches that a Korban is not Nifsal if it left.

Rejection: Here also, the inference is not true. The Beraisa merely teaches that Chatas ha'Of is not Nifsal if it entered the Heichal!

Question (R. Avin): If blood spilled from the neck of Chatas ha'Of (after Melikah) to the floor and it was gathered in a Kli, what is the law?

The Torah did not require a Kli for Kabalah (the neck is in place of a Kli). This is like Dam of a Zevach that spilled after Kabalah in a Kli (which is Kosher for Zerikah);

Or, perhaps the Torah forbids using a Kli for Kabalah. The blood must come straight from the neck to the Mizbe'ach, it is Pasul!

Answer (Rava - Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps blood of Chatas ha'Of must be laundered!

Rejection: "Zos" excludes Chatas ha'Of.

If the blood must come straight from the neck, once it splashed into the airspace of the garment it became Pasul. We would not need a verse to exempt from laundering!

Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): We need a verse to teach about a garment that was right next to the neck. (The blood went straight from the neck to the garment.)

Question (Levi): If blood splashed onto a garment, and from that garment to another garment, what is the law?

From the moment it splashed onto the first garment, we were obligated to launder it. The blood was Nidcheh (permanently disqualified for Zerikah, therefore we need not launder the second garment);

Or, perhaps it is not Nidcheh (and the second garment must be laundered)!

Answer (Rebbi): This is a good question. Either way you say, it must be laundered!

If the blood is still Kosher (it could be gathered and sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach), surely the garment must be laundered;

Even if you will say that the blood is Pasul, I hold like R. Akiva (Shitah Mekubetzes, based on Tosefta - R. Yakov), who says (93a) that blood that had Sha'as ha'Kosher and became Pasul (and splashed on a garment) must be laundered.