Question: What is the source that the upper Haza'ah of the bull did not touch?

Suggestion: We learn from the Hekesh to the goat, like below.

Rejection: The goat itself is learned from a Hekesh! "Al" is Hukash to "Lifnei". Something learned from a Hekesh cannot teach through a Hekesh!

Answer #1: It is a mere Giluy Milsa that "Al" here is like there.

Answer #2: Since we find that "Al" of the goat does not literally mean "on" [the Kapores], also regarding the bull we equate "Al" to "Lifnei".

Explanation: However, we are not concerned for a mixture of Chovah with Chovah, that he will take some of Rachel's money and some of Leah's money and offer it for Leah;

This is because it is possible for each one to wrap her coins by themselves and put them in the Shofar (box). Rabanan of R. Yehudah, who hold that there were Shofaros for Kinim of Chovah, hold that they do so;

When the Kohen buys one Kan from every bundle of money, he offers each Kan for whoever [is the owner].

Question: Why not say oppositely, that there were not Shofaros for Kinei Nedavah, due to mixtures, but they enacted Shofaros for Chovah?

Answer #1: There were more [birds offered for] Nedavos.

Answer #2: Sometimes, they would not offer Nedavos for many days, when the Mizbe'ach was not idle. During this time, they kept the money for Nedavah. Therefore, the needed a Shofar [to hold it];

We can offer Chovah immediately. (The Rashash points out that we must offer Chovah immediately, for the owner assumes that Kohanim did so, and his Taharah is complete.)

Explanation: One who offers a Nedavah of Turin (turtledoves) puts money in the box on which it says Kinin. One who offers a Nedavah of Bnei Yonah (doves) puts money in the box on which it says "Gozlei Olah."

Question: We say there (Gitin 28a) that this is only if the owner did not yet reach Gevuros (80 years old), but not if he reached Gevuros. (Then we do not rely on the Chazakah that he is alive);

If so, we should be concerned lest there is a Zav, Zavah, Metzora, one who entered the Mikdash Tamei, took a false Shevu'as Heses or Shevu'as Bituy who reached Gevuros (and put money in the Shofar). We are concerned lest one of them die!

Answer #1: It is unreasonable to be so concerned. This is not common.

Answer #2: We say there "but not if he reached Gevuros" only regarding a Shali'ach bringing a Get, due to the stringency of Eshes Ish.

Note: Really, there is no concern for Eshes Ish. Even if her husband died, she is merely a Shomeres Yavam who thinks that she may remarry. Sometimes this is called concern for Eshes Ish (Rashash). Alternatively, it can lead to an Isur Eshes Ish. If a stranger (Ploni) is Mekadesh a Yevamah, this is Vadai or Safek invalid (Yevamos 92b). If we are Machshir the Get, we think that Ploni's Kidushin is Vadai valid, and we will ignore any Kidushin she accepts after Ploni's Kidushin, or that Ploni later gave to her sister (PF).

Regarding one who sends a Chatas, we do not distinguish between whether or not he reached Gevuros.

Support: We brought this [distinction between whether or not he reached Gevuros] regarding the Mishnah of one who brought a Get, but not on the Mishnah of one who sent a Chatas.

Question: Why did we retract? We can say that really, the concern is lest one of them die.

Suggestion: [There is no concern, for] the Mishnah says that we offer it, based on the Chazakah that he is alive!

Rejection: The Gemara says there that we are not concerned lest he already died, but we are concerned lest he will die. We find that R. Yehudah is concerned lest the flask [will] break!

Answer: Since we are not concerned lest one of them died, we should make Shofaros for Kinei Chovah, and at every moment it is permitted to offer, since we are not concerned lest he (the owner) died.

Implied question: Here is like the case there of [a Kohen] who gave a Get to take effect "before my death." She is immediately forbidden to eat Terumah, lest he will die [in a moment, and the Get already took effect]!

Answer: There, when we are concerned lest he will die in this Sha'ah (a short time), she is forbidden to eat, for he said 'a Sha'ah before my death';

Here, this becomes a Chatas whose owner died, only immediately after he dies;

If so, even if we are concerned at every moment lest he die within a Sha'ah, now he did not die, so we may offer it.

Rashi's opinion: The Gemara mentioned four Zuz because it says in Kerisus (8a) "that day, the price of Kinim was Ribatayim (half of a silver Dinar, which is four common Zuz)." Four Zuz was the price of the Chatas.

Inference: The price of two birds was a full Rova, i.e. a Tzuri (silver) Dinar, which is eight common Zuz. The Chatas cost four Zuz.

Question: In Kerisus 10b, we say that Hash-m was merciful, that the Korban of a poor person costs one 16th as much as a rich person's Korban;

Citation (10b): A rich man brings a field lamb or goat [for a Chatas], which costs a Sela (four Dinarim). A poor person spends Ribatayim. Likewise, a very poor person [who brings a flour offering] spends one 16th as much as a poor person's Korban.

Inference: Ribatayim is a quarter Dinar (two common Zuz), i.e. one 16th of a Sela.

Implied question: Why did the Gemara mention removing four Zuz? (We need to remove only the cost of one bird, the Chatas!)

Answer: The Gemara is wont to do so (mention four Zuz to denote a Stam amount of money).

Example #1: In Erchin (29a), a man made his property Cherem. Rav Yehudah told him to take four Zuz, redeem the property on them, and throw them to the river.

Example #2: In Avodah Zarah (49b), a barrel of Asur [wine] became mixed with [permitted] wine. Rav Chisda told him to take four Zuz, and throw them to the river.

The text: The text says "d'Tanya", and not "d'Tanan", for there is no such Mishnah anywhere.

In Maseches Demai (7:4), there is a Mishnah in which only R. Meir's opinion [here] is taught Stam.

Implied question: R. Meir decreed to forbid wine of Kusim (Chulin 6a)!

Answer #1: He taught this before he decreed.

Implied question: R. Yosi and R. Shimon hold (Menachos 66b) that we may separate tithes from Peros of Kusim to exempt Peros of Nochrim and vice-versa, for Kusim converted due to lions (only to be saved from them. It was invalid. Their wine should be forbidden, for they are Nochrim!)

Answer #1: In any case, since they refrain from idolatry more than other Nochrim, and they fulfill the written Torah, and they do not worship their gods like they did during Bayis Rishon, when Chachamim decreed to forbid Stam wine of Nochrim, they did not decree on Kusim's wine, even though they decreed about their bread.

Support: This is like according to R. Meir, before he decreed about them. He permitted their wine, but forbade their bread.

Answer #2 (to both questions): We discuss [a Kusi] who is Metaher his wine. (He hired a Yisrael to make it to sell to Yisre'elim, so there was no decree on it.)

Explanation: The Beraisa discusses specifically buying from Kusim. It is different if one bought from an Am ha'Aretz (who is suspected to sell Tevel), like it says in the Seifa in Maseches Demai;

Regarding Demai it does not mention "the two Lugim that I will separate [to be Terumah Gedolah]", for Amei ha'Aretz were not suspected about not separating Terumah [Gedolah], like it says in Sotah (48a).

Implied question: It says in Berachos (47b) that Kusim tithe, for they are careful about what is written in the Torah!

Answer: That is only regarding what they themselves eat. When they sell to others, they are not concerned for "'Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol."

Implied question: They are not suspected to steal! (Why do we suspect them of not tithing?)

Answer: Also Amei ha'Aretz are not suspected to steal, but even so they are suspected about tithes;

They do not consider this to be theft, since no specific person can claim [the tithes].

Also, before it was separated, they do not consider [keeping it] to be theft;

Also, they rely on what we expound (Bava Metzi'a 88b) "[Aser Ta'aser] v'Achalta", but not what you sell.

Note: Some explain that this exempts one who sells before final processing. Some explain that it exempts one who sells afterwards. And even if mid'Oraisa he is exempt, mid'Rabanan one must tithe what he sells.

Explanation: There is another difference between Vadai Tevel and Demai;

Difference #2: Regarding Demai, it was taught "that I will separate tomorrow." Regarding Vadai, it does not say tomorrow, for we discuss Erev Shabbos, like Rashi explained, and like is clear from the Reisha in Maseches Demai;

He cannot separate on Shabbos.

Implied question: Also Demai he cannot separate on Shabbos. It is permitted only when it is Safek dark (Shabbos 34a)!

Also in Maseches Demai (1:4), a Mishnah teaches like this. It is brought in Shabbos (23a). One may separate Demai when naked (i.e. one does not bless on it) and Bein ha'Shemashos (of Erev Shabbos), but not on Shabbos.

Answer: This is only when he was not Korei Shem (declare that the tithes take effect on the Demai) before Shabbos. However, even if one was Korei Shem before Shabbos for Vadai Tevel, he may not separate it on Shabbos.