Question: According to this answer, it is difficult what we said above (55a) in the Beraisa "it should not say below regarding the goat..."

If so, we would learn only from the Hekesh to the bull. This is not from a Hekesh and something else!

Answer: The Beraisa above holds that from a Hekesh and something else is a Hekesh. This is easy to understand. (It makes no difference whether or not we learn only from the Hekesh.)

Rashi's opinion: Since the Hekesh was given to expound for explicit matters inside, e.g. [sprinklings of] the bull below and of the goat above, we can learn together with it also what was learned from another Hekesh.

Question #1: This is astounding! We learn from Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys of goats for [a mistake ruling about] idolatry from Par Helam Davar, and Par Helam Davar was learned from Par Kohen Mashi'ach;

This is considered a Hekesh from a Hekesh in Zevachim (41a), even though we learn goats for idolatry from Par Helam Davar regarding Haza'os written regarding Par Helam Davar itself!

Question #2: In Zevachim (55a), we do not learn from Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, that they are Kodshei Kodoshim and must be slaughtered in the north, from the Hekesh to Chatas, even though we learn from the Hekesh that only male Kohanim may eat them, which is written regarding Chatas itself!

Question #3: Also Asham, we do not learn there that it must be slaughtered in the north from the Hekesh to Chatas, even though we learn also from the Hekesh Semichah, which is written regarding Chatas itself!

Answer (to all three questions): Those are different than here. Here, all the Haza'os are considered one matter. Since the Torah revealed about part of it (the bull or goat) in the matter itself, we learn [through a Hekesh] at once even from what was learned from a Hekesh;

These other cases [from which I asked] are not one matter.

Ri's opinion: From the one [Haza'ah] above written regarding the goat, we learn to outside, both regarding the bull and goat. From the seven below of the bull, we learn to outside, both for the bull and goat.

The verse "v'Chen Ya'aseh l'Ohel Mo'ed " connotes that he will do with two animals, just like he did one above with the goat inside [Lifnai v'Lifnim, so he does with both outside, in the Heichal].

Similarly, "Ka'asher Asah" with the bull inside below, he does with two animals, in the Ohel Mo'ed.

Objection (Ritzva): "We learn at once" connotes unlike this. [According to the Ri] It should have said "the bull outside above we learn from the goat", and "the goat outside below we learn from the bull"!

Support (for Rashi - Ritzva): Rashi is correct. This is unlike the cases the Ri brought. Here, since it says "v'Chen Ya'aseh l'Ohel Mo'ed", presumably it refers to the Haza'os that were explicitly written about them themselves, i.e. one above with the goat, and seven below with the bull.

Lifnai v'Lifnim he did only Haza'os, and "v'Chen Ya'aseh" refers to this. If so, we must learn at once also what was learned from a Hekesh;

If not, we would not fulfill v'Chen Ya'aseh, which connotes doing in the Ohel Mo'ed exactly like Lifnai v'Lifnim.

This is almost the same as the answer I wrote above.

Question (Riva): In Bayis Rishon there was no Paroches, and in Bayis Sheni, in which there were Parochos, they did not offer Par Helam Davar, like it says in Megilah (9b);

Citation (9b - Mishnah): The only difference between Kohen Mashi'ach and Merubah Begadim (he was not anointed with oil. His inauguration was through wearing the extra garments of a Kohen Gadol) is a bull brought for [Hora'ah, i.e. a mistaken ruling about] all Mitzvos.

A Kohen Mashi'ach offers it, but Merubah Begadim does not.

Answer #1 (Riva): It was in Bayis Rishon. It discusses the Paroches of the gates.

Note: We must say like Ha'aros ha'Gaon Rav Y.S. Elyashiv Ztz"l (Daf 54a), that this was a curtain in front of the doors to the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, for modesty, like Rashi (Zevachim 55b) says about the curtain in front of Pesach ha'Heichal. (The curtain is Batel to the door, so it is as if he sprinkled on the door.) If the Paroches was elsewhere, why would drops of Dam Par Helam Davar be sprinkled on it?!

Answer #2 (Ri): It was in Bayis Sheni. The Mishnah in Megilah discusses a bull that a Kohen Mashi'ach brings for his own Hora'ah;

Note: Daf Al ha'Daf (Gitin 56b DH v'Hayah) asks why the Gemara did not suggest that the blood was [miraculous], from when Titus stabbed the Paroches at the time of the Churban, and answers that it would not be drops, for it gushed out, and it was not near a hole from the sword. He assumes that R. Eliezer saw that Paroches. Perhaps he saw the other Paroches, which was one Amah away! They made two new Parochos each year (Shekalim 8:5); presumably, the old ones were put in Genizah. However, the Riva holds that R. Eliezer saw a very old Paroches; the Ri did not call this unreasonable. Also, if the Paroches was from the Churban, the version that says that the drops were Dam Par Helam Davar Shel Tzibur must hold that it was offered in the year before the Churban. R. Shimon was mature then (he was among Chachmei Yavneh before R. Elazar ben Azaryah was made Nasi (Brachos 27b); it seems that this was shortly after the Churban, even in the conclusion of Tosfos Yuma 66a DH Ein). In Horiyos 3b, R. Shimon holds that a special collection is made to bring Par Helam Davar, and everyone knows that Beis Din retracted; R. Yehudah argues. Was there no one else as old as R. Shimon in Klal Yisrael to testify about that collection in the year before the Churban?! Perhaps even the Ri holds that R. Eliezer saw an old Paroches.

We hold that a Kohen Mashi'ach's Hora'ah for himself is like the Hora'ah of Beis Din for the Tzibur. He bring a bull if he erred and acted (did an Isur Kares) based on his Hora'ah;

This is only a Kohen Mashi'ach, for it says "Im ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach." A Merubah Begadim is like any other individual. He brings a female lamb or goat.

However, the Par Helam Davar of the Tzibur, even a Kohen Hedyot can offer it, like it says in Toras Kohanim.

Note: Dam Par Helam Davar is sprinkled from the east of Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav (Yuma 58b), which was in the middle of the Heichal (Shekalim 6:3), 20 Amos from the Paroches. It is astounding that one could flick drops of blood so far, and they would be arranged in order on the Paroches!

Support: It must have been from Bayis Sheni. If it was in Bayis Rishon, he should say "or, the blood was from Par Kohen Mashi'ach"!

Note: Tosfos asks why he omitted a possibility. Alternatively, it is much more likely for a Kohen to sin through his Hora'ah than for most of Yisrael to sin through Hora'as Beis Din! In Horiyos 6a, the Gemara suggested that the 12 bulls and goats (Ezra 8:35) were Parei Helam Davar and Se'irei Avodah Zarah for idolatry during Bayis Rishon. It concluded that it was a Hora'as Sha'ah, for they sinned b'Mezid. It did not ask that there was no Kohen Mashi'ach at the time, or say that the Hora'as Sha'ah also permitted a Merubah Begadim to offer them! According to Riva, why didn't R. Elazar attribute the blood to those Korbanos? (According to the Ri, perhaps he did! However, Gevuras Ari rejected the Riva, for drops would not be visible after hundreds of years.)

Conclusion: Rather, we must say that it was from Bayis Sheni. Therefore it does not say "or, it was from Par Kohen Mashi'ach";

There was no Kohen Mashi'ach in Bayis Sheni, for Yoshiyahu buried the Shemen ha'Mishchah [towards the end of Bayis Rishon].

Question: Why do we need to bring this verse? It should suffice that Matanos of Dam ha'Par are written first, and it says "Chukah" [to teach that it is Me'akev]!

Answer: Perhaps we bring the verse, for if we learned from Chukah alone, one might have thought that it is Pasul only if he changed the order of an entire matter, e.g. if he did all the Avodah of the goat in one place before the Matanos of the bull;

However, in such a case when he did only one Matanah of the goat before the seven Matanos of the bull, it is not Me'akev;

Therefore, we bring "v'Chilah" - the Torah says that one must totally finish the blood of the bull, and afterwards finish the blood of the goat.

It is as if the Torah wrote the matter twice to teach that it is Me'akev.

Explanation: This is because Olin (things offered on the Mizbe'ach) are not Mevatel each other. (The blood of the goat retains its status, even if it is mixed with a larger amount of blood of the bull.)

Implied question: This should be like the Mishnah (Zevachim 79b) that says that if blood that should be put above [on the corners of the Mizbe'ach] became mixed with blood that should be put below, Rabanan of R. Eliezer hold that it is spilled to the Amah!

Answer: Here is different. Granted, now, after putting above blood of the bull, this is a case of blood (i.e. of the goat) that should be put [also] above mixed with blood [of the bull] that should be put [only] below...

However, since initially the bloods were the same regarding their Matanos, even Rabanan of R. Eliezer agree here that we put it above, and I view the blood of the bull [thrown with the goat's blood] above as if it were water.

Rashi's opinion: This means "and similarly in the Heichal."

Inference: The same applies when buckets of blood became mixed up before he put [blood of the bull] Lifnai v'Lifnim.

Objection: We say below in our Perek that if the goat was slaughtered before Matan Dam of the bull, it did not help at all!

Conclusion: Rather, we do not discuss Lifnai v'Lifnim. We discuss only in the Heichal.

Question: We say in Menachos 22a that it is know that there is more blood of the bull than blood of the goat. Rather, this shows that Olin are not Mevatel each other.

Since he poured blood of the bull into blood of the goat, it should say oppositely! (The Hava Amina should be that the blood of the bull is Batel to the blood of the goat.)

Even though there is more blood of the bull, we should have said that each drop that mixes with blood of the goat is Batel, like it says in Avodah Zarah 73a!

Citation (73a): If one pours Yayin Nesech from a barrel into a pit [of wine], even the entire day, each drop that mixes is Batel.

[The conclusion would be the same, i.e.] rather, here it is not Batel, because Olin are not Mevatel each other.

Answer: There is an opinion there (in Avodah Zarah) that this is only when one pours from a small flask, which has a thin flow, but not from a barrel, which has a big flow.

Even according to the opinion that even from a barrel, which has a big flow [it is Batel], when he pours from something with a bigger flow than a barrel, he agrees that we do not say each drop that mixes is Batel.

Implied question: We could also have brought the Beraisa brought in Zevachim (42b) and Menachos (16), which mention 47 Matanos of Yom Kipur. (There are eight each of the bull and goat Lifnai v'Lifnim and towards the Paroches, 32 in all, and seven on Tiharo (the top or middle) of the inner Mizbe'ach. This leaves eight for the corners. This shows that one Tana holds that they are put separately!)

There, we bring another Beraisa that says that there are 48. (That Tana counts the Shirayim, for he holds that they are Me'akev.) These Beraisos must hold that we do not mix the bloods before putting on the corners. If not, we would not have so many!

The Gemara establishes it this way there (that we do not mix the bloods).

Answer: Our Gemara prefers to bring this Beraisa, in which R. Yonason himself is mentioned. Now we conclude that he holds that we do not mix.

Question: In Chulin (79a), we say that R. Yehudah was unsure whether or not we are concerned for the seed of the father (regarding crossbreeds).

If you will say that we are concerned for the seed of the father, this is like Chananyah there. Chananyah holds like R. Yonason, who does not require "Oh" to distinguish, like it says there.

If so, how can R. Yehudah learn (Menachos 22a) from v'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par umi'Dam ha'Sa'ir v'Nasan Al Karnos..." that Min b'Mino is not Batel?

Since he holds like R. Yonason, if so we do not mix for the corners!

Answer: Granted, R. Yonason does not expound "Achas". R. Yehudah expounds it, and holds that we mix.

Question: Why does R. Yonason hold that we do not mix? Even though he does not expound "Achas", since it says "mi'Dam ha'Par umi'Dam ha'Sa'ir", he should say that we mix!

We say in Menachos (91a) that according to R. Yonason, we needed to write regarding Nesachim "Min ha'Bakar Oh Min ha'Tzon." If not, we would expound "Min ha'Bakar u'Min ha'Tzon" in va'Yikra as if it says "together"!

Answer #1: Rashi explained there that he does not expound the Vav, rather, the Torah's change of wording.

Initially it says "Min ha'Behemah Min ha'Bakar", and afterwards it says u'Min ha'Tzon. It did not write u'Min ha'Bakar u'Min ha'Tzon. This shows that Bakar and Tzon are mixed. (One brings Nesachim only when offering both together. We needed "Min ha'Bakar Oh Min ha'Tzon" to teach that this is not so.)

Objection: This is wrong. The Torah could not have written u'Min ha'Bakar, for Bakar and Tzon are the explanation of Min ha'Behemah!

If so, we needed to write Min ha'Bakar. It turns out that Min ha'Bakar u'Min ha'Tzon is like mi'Dam ha'Par umi'Dam ha'Sa'ir!

Answer #1: They are different. Had the Torah written here mi'Dam ha'Par veha'Sa'ir, then this would be like Min ha'Bakar u'Min ha'Tzon;

However, the Torah wrote umi'Dam ha'Sa'ir. "Mi'Dam" interrupts the matter according to R. Yonason.

Answer #2: Regarding Ben Tzon it says Min ha'Kevasim u'Min ha'Izim. Also regarding Ben Ohf, it says Min ha'Turim u'Min Bnei ha'Yonah. Here (regarding Nesachim) it does not say Oh Min ha'Tzon! This shows that it is to join them;

Therefore, in the Parshah of Nesachim it needed to say "Oh" to divide [and teach that one brings either by itself].

Then, we establish u'Min ha'Tzon to exclude an animal that gored.