Inference: If he brought it before [Bein ha'Shemashos], it atoned, even though he offered it after the afternoon Tamid.

Question #1: The Tosefta (Pesachim 4:2) connotes that [Korbanos offered then are] Pesulim!

Question #2: It connotes like this in Pesachim (59b). It asks a contradiction. It says "Lo Yalin Ad Boker" - this connotes that he may leave [Chelev of Shelamim] the entire night. It says also [about the afternoon Tamid, "v'Hiktir Aleha Chelvei] ha'Shelamim" - Aleha Hashlem all the Korbanos (everything must be offered before the afternoon Tamid)!

We do not answer that this (the latter Drashah, that everything must be offered before the afternoon Tamid) is l'Chatchilah, and this (the Chelev maybe offered the entire night) is b'Di'eved. This implies that b'Di'eved it is Pasul!

Answer: Perhaps also here we discuss a Mechusar Kipurim on Erev Pesach;

This is like we say there, that the only matters offered after the afternoon Tamid are Ketores, Neros (Hadlakas ha'Menorah) and a Mechusar Kipurim on Erev Pesach.

Explanation: The "Mem" of "v'Nelam" applies here and here (v'Nelam, and we prefix it to "Davar" to expound mi'Davar).

Citation (Yerushalmi): Some say that we diminish (remove letters from words) and expound from the beginning of the Parshah to the end;

Citation (cont.): Some say so even in the middle of a Parshah - "v'Yatzakta Aleha Shamen [Minchah]" - [we read this like] Hatzekes Shemen ha'Minchah, to teach that all Menachos have oil poured on them.

Question (Rivak b'Ribi Meir): What is it different here, that we expound v'Nelam mi'Davar (part of a matter), and regarding testimony "Yakum Davar", all agree (Bava Kama 70b) that we expound "Davar", and not half a matter?

Answer: Surely, "Davar" connotes the entire matter. Here, we expound based on the context;

It is written "Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m", which connotes a full Mitzvah. Why did it write "Davar"? You are forced to say that it is to expound v'Nelam mi'Davar, even one matter of a Mitzvah.

Similarly, everywhere that we diminish and add and expound due to a difficulty in the verse, which forces [us to do so and bear the difficulty];

E.g. in Bava Metzi'a (54b), it should have written 'va'Chamishiso Yosef Alav', like it says regarding Ma'aser, and in Bava Basra (111b) it should have written 'Ishto Tirash Es ha'Nachalah';

Now that the verse wrote [the way it did], we must resolve the verse through diminishing and adding.

Question: What is the source that the verse comes to obligate only for partial fulfillment and partial Bitul? Perhaps the verse comes to obligate even in such a case, and all the more so Bitul of the entire [Mitzvah]!

It says like this in Sanhedrin (90a) regarding [a false prophet who entices people to serve] idolatry, for it says "Min ha'Derech" - even part of the way;

[A false prophet] is liable both for partial fulfillment [of the Isur of idolatry, and partial Bitul], and also for total [Bitul], but for other Mitzvos he is liable only for total Bitul!

Answer: There, it says "Laleches Bah", and a Beraisa in Sifri teaches [regarding a false prophet] "and not one who says part and leaves over part." It explicitly excludes partial fulfillment;

Therefore, for idolatry, for which the Torah revealed, he is liable even for partial (Kiyum and partial Bitul), and also for total Bitul. It is no worse than other Mitzvos;

If not for the exclusion of other Mitzvos, i.e. had the Torah written Stam, [a false prophet] would be liable also for other Mitzvos in every case (partial or full Bitul), and similarly here (regarding Par Helam Davar);

Therefore, here it is written "Davar" to exclude total [Bitul].

Suggestion: Perhaps we should say oppositely, that "Davar" connotes the entire matter!

Rejection - Citation (Toras Kohanim - Beraisa): It says here "mi'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m", and it says regarding a Mashi'ach "mi'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m";

If one was liable only for uprooting the entire Mitzvah, we would not find [liability] for any Mitzvah said in the Torah, except for Bito me'Anusaso (one's daughter from a woman he raped [or enticed, but not from his wife]), and the mother of his mother-in-law and the mother of his father-in-law, something that the Tzedukim do not agree to. This was copied from R. Simchah's Perush.

Explanation: There, a Tosefta (Horayos 1:7) learns [Par Helam Davar from Zaken Mamrei, and Zaken Mamrei from] "Bein Dam l'Dam", and not the entire matter;

Those here (Ula and Chizkiyah) did not hear that Beraisa, so they learn from a different reason.

Implied question: Why did we need to exclude the entire matter (Mitzvah)? We should know this because the Tzedukim agree (that there is an Isur, even if they do not agree to all details of it)!

Answer: [This is needed for Isurim] such as Bito me'Anusaso, for [Tzedukim] do not have the Gezeirah Shavah (so they hold that she is totally permitted), or the mother of one's mother-in-law;

Implied question: Why did our Mishnah mention Nidah, Shabbos and idolatry?

Answer: It is not because [one is liable] only for these Isurim. Rather, it is only in order to explain partial fulfillment.

Implied question: Regarding a Nidah herself, we could find many cases [of partial Bitul], e.g. red blood, black blood, and more listed in Toras Kohanim!

Answer: It comes to teach that even regarding Shomeres Yom and Nidah (if they permit one and forbid the other), this is considered partial Kiyum and partial Bitul.

Implied question: The Gemara asks "if so, even Nidah, also!"

Answer: It means that even Nidah in such a case, if the Tzedukim would not agree to it, would be partial Kiyum.

Assertion: The text does not say "v'Safrah Lah", for in the last Sugya in Nidah, we derive this from "k'Mishkav Nidasah Yihyeh Lah."

Inference: The Tzedukim agree to this.

Implied question: In Sanhedrin (33b), regarding a mistaken [verdict to acquit] a man and woman who transgressed adultery, it connotes that the Tzedukim do not agree to this!

Answer: There it discusses Ha'arah Lo k'Darkah.

Observation: We could have brought the first verse, which says "Zov Damah Yamim Rabim."

Explanation: The Tana calls Hachnasah "Hotza'ah", like we say in Shabbos (2b) and Shevu'os (5a).

Explanation: [The Tzedukim hold that only] Hotza'ah and Hachnasah are forbidden.

Implied question: [Why do they forbid] Hachnasah? It is not written!

Answer: It is logical. There is no difference between taking out and bringing in. (Since Hotza'ah is forbidden, also Hachnasah is forbidden.)

Explanation: He mentioned the first of the Avos Melachos in Shabbos (73a).

Question: the Tzedukim agree to plowing, and Rav Yosef requires [a mistake about] something that the Tzedukim do not agree to, like it says below "Rav Yosef can say to you..."!

Inference: He holds like Shmuel [who requires something that the Tzedukim do not agree to]!

Inference: The Tzedukim do not agree to this Drashah, even though above they expound "Yihyeh Lah" for a Shomeres Yom.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The greatest Chacham] was not in the count [of 71 judges], for if he was, even if the smallest [judge] was not there [Beis Din is exempt], like we said above, that all of them must be in the Hora'ah.

Question: This opinion was refuted above (3b! Rather, Tosfos explains that he was among the 71 judges. The absence of a smaller judge would not invalidate the Hora'ah.)

Comment: We must say that in front of Tosfos was not written [our text] above, in which we concluded "if so, what do we learn from "Kol Adas"? [It teaches that a Hora'ah is valid only if the entire Sanhedrin was present.] See below Rashi 7a (DH Kisvah).

Reference: Toras Kohanim adds that also if one of them said "I do not know" [the Hora'ah is invalid] for it is as if he is not there.

Citation (Yerushalmi): They transgressed and appointed him. [The Hora'ah is invalid,] for one who is not qualified for Hora'ah, it is as if he is a rock.