Question: R. Yonason holds that [Vav] connotes both together, and also each by itself! (He should say that we sprinkle also the blood mixed together.)

Here it connotes that he holds that we sprinkle only each by itself.

Answer: Since [Vav] connotes both ways, we learn what is Sasum (not explicit) from what is explicit;

Just like Lifnai v'Lifnim and in the Heichal, he sprinkles each by itself, similarly regarding the corners;

Since it says mi'Dam ha'Par umi'Dam ha'Sa'ir, presumably he sprinkles from each by itself.

Support #1: This answers a question from the Beraisa below, which learns from "Achas". The Gemara says that it is Stam (anonymous), like R. Yoshiyah;

Question: How can it be like R. Yoshiyah? He holds that even without Achas, it is as if it says "together"!

Granted, it is not difficult that R. Yoshiyah said to R. Yonason "it already says "Achas".' We could explain that he addresses R. Yonason according to R. Yonason's reasoning, but R. Yoshiyah [knows that we mix the bloods] even without Achas;

Answer: Even though initially we thought that R. Yoshiyah knows that we mix even without Achas, after we bring the verse "Achas", we retract...

We [then] hold that if not for Achas, one might have thought that we do not mix, just like Lifnai v'Lifnim and in the Heichal. We learn what is Sasum from what is explicit, like I explained;

Support #2: This answers also what is difficult from above. We concluded that R. Yoshiyah holds that we mix, but rejected this. Even R. Yonason could say so, for it says Achas;

Question: What was the rejection? Even if R. Yonason says that we mix, all the more so R. Yoshiyah says that we mix!

[However, this cannot be, for] we are forced to say that one of them holds that we do not mix, for we say that one of them says that we mix, and the other says that we do not mix. (Therefore, it must be that only R. Yoshiyah holds that we mix. If so, what was the rejection?!)

Answer: According to what I said, this is good. We say that here is different, for it says Achas. Had it not said Achas, it would be reasonable that even R. Yoshiyah holds that we do not mix, for we learn what is Sasum from what is explicit, like I explained;

If so, which Tana says that we mix?! Rather, we must say [that the Tana says so] because it says Achas.

Explanation (of the rejection): Why must we say that R. Yoshiyah expounds Achas for this [to teach that we mix]? Perhaps R. Yonason expounds this, and R. Yoshiyah expounds it differently, like in Shevuos 8b!

Citation (8b, 10a): This Kaparah is only once a year. Alternatively, it atones for only one matter, but not for two.

Retraction (of Support #1): Above, I asked why we say that the Stam Beraisa [that learns from "Achas"] is like R. Yoshiyah. (He should know that we mix even without Achas!)

Even without my answer (that if not for Achas, we would learn Sasum from Mefurash), this is not difficult. We did not say that the Tana is R. Yoshiyah, rather, he holds like R. Yoshiyah;

Explanation: I.e. he holds like R. Yoshiyah that we mix for the corners, but for a different reason. He (R. Yoshiyah) knows this without expounding Achas.

Perhaps the Tana is R. Yehudah, who holds that we mix, even though he holds that [a Vav connotes] each by itself, like R. Yonason.

He (R. Yehudah) learns from Achas that we mix for the corners, like I explained above (57b DH Tanya).

Implied question: Why do we say that it is Stam like R. Yoshiyah? We could have said that it is like R. Yehudah, for we explicitly heard (Menachos 22a) that he holds that we mix!

Answer: Since we did not bring in our Sugya [that R. Yehudah holds that we mix], we mentioned R. Yoshiyah, who was mentioned above in the argument with R. Yonason.

Question: According to the opinion that we do not mix for the corners, what is the source that Olin are not Mevatel each other?

Answer: He learns from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Dam-Dam" in Zevachim 81b.

Implied question: Why are the seven Haza'os on Tiharo of the inner Mizbe'ach different? All agree that we mix for them, but they argue about the corners!

Answer: You are forced to say that Lifnai v'Lifnim we do not mix. The verses say so explicitly. After he puts the blood of the bull, he slaughters the goat;

If so, the same applies in the Ohel Mo'ed, like it says "v'Chen Ya'aseh l'Ohel Mo'ed";

Regarding the corners, it says "mi'Dam ha'Par umi'Dam ha'Sa'ir." This connotes each by itself, like the others, since it mentions explicitly the bull and goat;

However, regarding the seven on Tiharo, it says "v'Hizah Alav Min ha'Dam b'Etzba'o Sheva Pa'amim." This connotes that from all the blood he sprinkles seven times, and no more.

Explanation: However, what is not Mino is surely Chotzetz. This is not called "v'Lakach".

Support #1: Also in Zevachim (24a), we say that nothing may separate between him (the Kohen) and the Kli Shares.

Support #2: Also in Pesachim (57b), regarding Yisachar of Kefar Barkai, who used to wrap his hand in silk [we say that this was a Chatzitzah].

Question: In Sukah (37a), we conclude that taking [a Lulav] through something else is considered Lekichah (taking)!

Answer: That is when he wraps a scarf around the Lulav and lengthens it, and makes the scarf like a holder, and holds it;

However, when he wraps his hand in a scarf, and holds the Lulav this way, this is not called taking.

Explanation: Here, regarding one bucket in another, the Gemara connotes that if it were b'Eino Mino, surely it would be Chotzetz;

We do not discuss when he holds the outer bucket at the brim. Then, surely it is not Chotzetz. It is like a handle!

Rather, he holds [the outer bucket] from the bottom.

Support: We must say so also in the Sugya in Sukah, like we distinguished [here].

Proof: If you would not say so, rather, in every case taking through something else is considered taking, Rava would contradict himself!

Rava says afterwards Min b'Mino is not Chotzetz. This implies that Min b'Eino Mino is Chotzetz!

Above, he said regarding a scarf that taking through something else is considered taking, even if it is b'Eino Mino!

Question: What was the question [here] "isn't the case that he put the full bucket in the empty one?"

We could say that indeed, he did, but he does not hold the outer bucket from the bottom, rather, at the brim! (Then it is like a handle, and it is not Chotzetz.)

Answer #1: It was obvious that he could not hold like this with one hand two heavy buckets containing all the blood of the bull and goat. (When putting blood on the inner Mizbe'ach, he holds the bucket(s) with one hand and puts with the other.)

Answer #2 (Ritzva): In our Sugya regarding Klei Shares, Min b'Eino Mino is always Chotzetz;

Even if you will say that regarding a Lulav there is a distinction [between wrapping a scarf around the Lulav, or wrapping his hand in a scarf], like I explained, regarding Klei Shares, in every case Min b'Eino Mino is Chotzetz.

Granted, when he makes like a handle, this is called taking [a Lulav]. Regarding Klei Shares, about which it says v'Lakach ha'Kohen, this is not called taking with the Kohen's own body.