In light of the placement of blood on the inner altar - either one or two placements - preserving the atonement capacity of the offering, even without blood placed on all four corners, the question of blood on the curtain (parokhet) must be asked. The Gemara establishes that all seven placements must be made on the curtain - but it asks also about four placements, because of a verse with a plural term and R. Shimon's opinion. Also, why does the Torah specify the need for incense on the inner altar (which was the incense altar), as the terms are redundant? Plus, the focus on the verses as source material for the halakhic details.

What happens to the clothing that is sprayed by the blood that is being sprinkled on the altar? With implications regarding laundering the garments worn by the kohanim. Also, regarding the blood that is placed on the inner altar -- which is specifically the sin-offering (goat) of Yom Kippur and the bull offering as well. The placement of this blood is essential to the atonement.

More on Beit Hillel's understanding that one placement of blood on the altar is sufficient - as derived from the "atonement" as stated in each verse about the sin-offering. The Gemara probes whether the law can be derived via logic, which sounds plausible, and not only from the verses - for example, an inference about the outer altar placement of blood because of the placement of blood on the inner altar. Also, not the shift in the cases, where Beit Hillel's position ends up being more stringent, and Beit Shammai more lenient, which is not their usual way. But look to Tractate Eduyot - as early mishnah! Note also more details of the placement of the blood, with details of what makes the placement acceptable to qualify the offering for atonement.

A new mishnah - starting chapter 4! A dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: How many placements of blood on the altar are required for atonement? Beit Shammai says two places on the altar are necessary, while Beit Hillel says one placement is sufficient. Both of which depend on respective differences in reading verses from the Torah. Plus, what about leftover blood from previous offerings? And can sprinkling of the blood be done via pouring, or are they considered separate acts altogether? The different readings of the Torah's verses are understood to be based on words that are written differently than the way they are vocalized - specifically, "kranot" vs. "kranat" (meaning, corners or corner). With comparable examples from tefillin and sukkah.

A new mishnah! If one slaughters an offering with intent to leave part of it for the next day - whether blood or parts of the animal - or to remove them from the Temple, the offering is subject to a dispute whether it is valid or not. There's no verse to disqualify this case, for example. Plus, when two verses appear to teach the same thing - in terms of not leaving the offering overnight. Also, one who slaughters an offering with intent that people who are ritually impure would eat from it - that offering is invalid, especially because this intent kicks in before the blood is even sprinkled for the offering. Which leads to the question of pigul vs. other invalidating concerns, such as the given person's impurity.

A new mishnah! One who has intent to handle the food of an offering to be eaten at the wrong time or wrong location - or parts of the animal that are not customarily eaten - with a measurement of a kezayit, an olive's worth. But note that less than an olive's worth of something eaten does not combine with less than an olive's worth that is burned in the wrong place or the wrong way. Plus, many other cases, including a fetus or eggs in a female animal at the time of slaughter. The Gemara on the mishnah begins with a statement from the amora R. Elazar, which is unusual. Also, further discussion of intent in such a way that the result is pigul - and pigul itself carries a karet punishment.

More on the debates between Resh Lakish and R. Yochanan: One who has eaten meat from the sacrifices before the blood has been sprinkled... Resh Lakish says this person deserves lashes; R. Yochanan says no. But if the meat itself had become impure, everyone agrees that the one who eats it would be rendered impure - quite different from the individual becoming impure. Also, what happens if the person who is impure who received the blood also conveys it? To what extent and when is the remnants of blood sufficient to render the practice fit? And what about the pouring of the blood? A baraita clarifies. With specific exclusions of remnants from the neck of an animal. With some gory details.

More on Ulla's opinion (based on Resh Lakish) that partial entry is akin to a complete entry - when it comes to an impure person and the Temple. In the context of "semihah" - laying hands on the animal - needing to be done in the same place as the slaughtering of the animal, usually without interruption (though of course our case is an exception). Note the distance between the gate of Nikanor and its relevance for the person with tzara'at. And note the effort involved for this laying on off hands - beyond just reaching out one's hand and touching the animal. Also, the impure person who handles the sacrificial, consecrated food - will he get lashes or not? (that's the ongoing machloket between Resh Lakish and R. Yochanan)

A new chapter (3)! With a new mishnah. Which continues the topics of chapter 2. If those who are disqualified from doing the Temple service do the slaughter of the offering, the offering is still valid. That is, assuming their intentions are correct, and so on, throughout their practice. What if collecting/receiving the blood is done by someone who is qualified, but hands it off to the disqualified person? What if blood spills to the floor? What if the blood was conveyed to the wrong place? The key element to making sure that the worship is valid is the capacity to revisit it and fix what has gone wrong - as long as there is "dam ha-nefesh." Also, the case of a ritually impure person who places his hand into the courtyard of the Temple - even though he hasn't entered fully - may require lashes (it's a machloket). In the case of the person who has had tzara'at and isn't yet purified, there may be leniency. Of course, the Gemara counters with examples why the leniency would not apply (until the Gemara specifies this impurity as being different).

What happens if the olive's measure of the offering was eaten in combination by 2 people? Is the concern that an olive's measure is eaten, or that the given person ate the olive measure? Or what if the olive's measure was eaten over a long, slower period of time than the usual "half a loaf of bread" time frame? Plus, even if the olive's measure was divided or slow, etc., it would not invalidate the offering - because those same actions don't combine.