Citation (Me'ilah 11b): It is because Terumas ha'Deshen and limbs of Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach [are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad];

Citation (cont.): This is fine according to the opinion that forbids Hana'ah [from limbs of the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach]. According to the opinion that permits, how can we answer?

Note: After this, it continues like our Sugya, and suggests that Bigdei Kehunah and Terumas ha'Deshen are Shnei Kesuvim...

Implied question: We could have answered that the opinion that [Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad] teach [to other places] holds like Rabanan of R. Dosa, so there are Sheloshah Kesuvim!

Answer: The Gemara wanted to answer even if you will say that he holds like R. Dosa.

Implied question: One exclusion would have sufficed. The same applies in Chulin 113b regarding Izim-ha'Izim.

Answer: Had the Torah written only one exclusion, one might have thought that granted, had the Torah not written an exclusion, we would not exclude anything, for Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad teach [to other places];

However, now that the Torah wrote a Mi'ut regarding one of them (the Shenei Kesuvim, i.e. Terumas ha'Deshen and Eglah Arufah), now it is Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad;

Granted, Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad do not teach, but only when they were not written in one place;

However, here, two of the three [verses] are written in one place. This is Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut, and Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut always includes. (Now that there are Sheloshah Kesuvim, all of them are considered Mi'utim.)

Therefore, we need the other Mi'ut.

Implied question: How was there a Hava Amina to say Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut always includes?

If so, the Torah should have totally omitted this. Why would I think to exclude it, that we need Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut to include it?!

Answer: This is not difficult. Whenever there is Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut to include, Rabbeinu Shmuel asks this, and answers that perhaps we would have excluded it from some Drashah, Kal va'Chomer or Binyan Av;

Therefore, we need Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut to include. The same applies here.

Question: If we would expound Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut, what do we need the third verse for?

Answer #1: It is like a Parshah that was taught and repeated. (We need not expound everything repeated.)

Support - Question: According to this opinion, that Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad teach, when there are only Shenei Kesuvim, why do I need the other verse? (We could have learned it from the other!)

Answer: Rather, we must say like I explained.

Answer #2: If not for the third verse, we would not expound the other two for Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut;

Had the Torah written only Terumas ha'Deshen and its Mi'ut (v'Samo, i.e. he will put it, but not something else), Terumas ha'Deshen [itself] would not be a Mi'ut [because there are not Sheloshah Kesuvim];

However, now that it says also Eglah Arufah, and there are Sheloshah Kesuvim, each of them is like a Mi'ut, so Terumas ha'Deshen and its Mi'ut are like Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut.

Question: One verse suffices to exclude both of them. Since we exclude one, we learn the other through a Gezeirah Shavah "Chilul"!

This is like we learn them from each other in Zevachim (45a) regarding Kodshei Nochrim.

Question: We did not need a verse for Nosar or Tamei! Since we do not need a verse for Pigul, since it (blood) is Davar she'Ein Lo Matirim (nothing else permits it), we can learn from a Kal va'Chomer!

The Korban for eating Pigul [b'Shogeg] is a fixed Chatas [even an Oni must bring an animal], and through one Yedi'ah (knowledge. It suffices that he found out after he ate), and it is not totally permitted. Even so, one is not lashed [for blood] for Pigul;

The Korban for eating [Kodshim b']Tum'ah is an Oleh v'Yored, and only through two Yedi'os (he knew before eating that he became Tamei, and remembered afterwards), and Tum'ah is totally permitted (we may eat Pesach brought in Tum'ah). All the more so it does not apply [to blood]!

Since we learn Tum'ah from a Kal va'Chomer from Pigul, we learn Nosar from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" [from Tum'ah], for something learned from a Kal va'Chomer can teach through a Gezeirah Shavah, like it says in Zevachim (50b).

Answer: Even though the Gemara made a Kal va'Chomer to teach that one is exempt for Tum'ah regarding Davar she'Ein Lo Matirim, the Kal va'Chomer can be refuted;

We can ask that Pigul [has leniencies, i.e. it] does not apply after Zerikah, and the Pesul is not b'Gufo (in the person himself), rather, in mere intent, and it is not Metamei;

We cannot learn to Tum'ah, which applies even after Zerikah, and the Pesul is b'Gufo, and it is Metamei!

Implied question: The Gemara there (Zevachim 45b) learned this Kal va'Chomer! (It did not challenge it like I said.)

Answer: Primarily, it relied on the Gezeirah Shavah, that we can learn [Tum'ah] from "Chilul-Chilul" [from Nosar], and Nosar from "Avon-Avon" from Pigul.

Implied question: Why did the Gemara say that it learns from a Kal va'Chomer, and not say explicitly from the Gezeirah Shavah?

Answer: One might have thought to learn differently, from a Hekesh that equates eating Kodesh b'Tum'ah to Avodah b'Tum'ah, in the verse "va'Yinazru", like the Ri explained there (Zevachim 15b DH Ela);

One might have thought that just like the primary Avodah in Tum'ah is even in Davar she'Ein Lo Matirim (blood), the same applies to eating Kodesh b'Tum'ah [so one is liable even for blood].

Implied question: A Gezeirah Shavah is preferable [over a Hekesh. It should override it, even without the Kal va'Chomer!]

Answer: Here is different, since we do not need the Hekesh for anything else, but we need the Gezeirah Shavah for other matters. Therefore, the Hekesh is preferable;

This is why we bring the Kal va'Chomer. Since Pigul is more stringent in several ways, yet one is liable only for Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, if so, it is reasonable to learn Tum'ah from it through a Gezeirah Shavah, and not expound the Hekesh at all.

This is because it is not such a total Hekesh. The verse "va'Yinazru" does not mention explicitly eating and Avodah.

Question: Why do we need to say that Pigul does not need a verse, because it is Davar she'Ein Lo Matirim?

We should say that it does not need a verse, because we learn from Nosar from "Avon-Avon"!

Answer: The Gezeirah Shavah of "Avon-Avon", and that of "Chilul-Chilul", were given only for what is written explicitly;

These Drashos [regarding blood] of "Lachem", "v'Hu" and "Lechaper" connote only that they exclude Me'ilah.

Implied question: We expound from [two of] them Nosar and Tum'ah!

Answer: This is through Im Eino Inyan (since we do not need them to teach) about Me'ilah;

Since we learn them only from Im Eino Inyan, we do not learn from them through a Gezeirah Shavah.

Inference: This is because they are Me'akev. If not, he would not be Mechayev for [offering] them outside.

Question #1: Zevachim 39a connotes that R. Nechemyah discusses Shirayim of outer [Chata'os];

Citation (39a - Beraisa): If blood spilled to the Amah, one is not liable for [offering] it outside, and intent does not disqualify it, and it does not obligate laundering [a garment on which it splashed];

Citation (cont.) Question: We could distinguish within Kosher blood! The [last] three Matanos of a Chatas do not obligate laundering, intent does not disqualify it, and one is not liable for it outside!

Citation (cont.) Answer: The Beraisa is R. Nechemyah, who obligates for Shirei ha'Dam offered outside. He could not teach these three exemptions [regarding Shirayim] parallel to the three Chiyuvim.

Inference: (He could have taught the other two exemptions.) R. Nechemyah holds that three Matanos of a Chatas do not obligate laundering, and intent does not disqualify them. If so, similarly they are not Me'akev. Even so, if one offered them outside he is liable;

If so, the same applies to Shirayim. Even though they are not Me'akev, if one offered them outside, he should be liable!

Question #2: How is it possible that according to R. Nechemyah, three Matanos of a Chatas are not Me'akev, but Shirayim are Me'akev?!

Question #3: Zevachim 38a and Yoma 15a connote that we never find blood half below and half above in one place, that it is Me'akev;

According to this, we find this according to R. Nechemyah! (Three Matanos are not Me'akev, but the Shirayim are.)

Question #4 (R. Yakov of Orlins): Zevachim (38a) connotes that he discusses outer [Korbanos. This contradicts 111a!]

Citation (Zevachim 111a): Now that Rav Ada bar Ahavah taught that they argue about inner Shirayim, but all agree that outer Shirayim are not Me'akev, we must say that R. Nechemyah discusses [only] inner Shirayim!

Question #5: In Zevachim (112a), regarding blood received in two buckets, we establish it to be like R. Nechemyah, who gives a parable...

We establish it to discuss the Sa'ir [Chatas] of a Nasi.

Inference: R. Nechemyah discusses outer Korbanos, similar to Se'ir Nasi! (Also this contradicts 111a.)

Answer: Question #5 is not difficult. Even though his parable was about Se'ir Nasi, we can say that he discusses inner Chata'os.

In any case, the other questions are difficult.

Suggestion: The Sugya in Zevachim 38b is unlike R. Yochanan [who says here that R. Nechemyah holds that Shirayim are Me'akev].

Rejection: In the conclusion in Zevachim 111a, we establish R. Yochanan's words after Rav Ada bar Ahavah taught [that R. Nechemyah must discuss inner Shirayim, for all agree that outer Shirayim are not Me'akev]!

Answer #1 (R. Chaim Kohen): R. Yochanan says here that R. Nechemyah taught like the opinion that inner Shirayim are Me'akev, and if one would offer them outside, he would be liable;

If so, we should say that one is liable for outer [Shirayim] outside, even though they are not Me'akev, for we learn from limbs and fats;

Question: We cannot learn from limbs and fats, for they are initial Avodah!

Answer: Inner Shirayim Yochichu (prove that one can be liable even for what is not initial Avodah).

Question: We cannot learn from inner Shirayim, for they are Me'akev!

Answer: Limbs and fats Yochichu. [They are not Me'akev. We learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of inner Shirayim, and limbs and fats.]

Rejection (Ritzva): How can we say that inner Shirayim Yochichu, for they are final Avodah?

This is called initial Avodah in Zevachim 111a according to the opinion that inner [Shirayim] are Me'akev!

Answer #2 (Ritzva): We conclude according to R. Nechemyah that outer Shirayim are not Me'akev;

[R. Yochanan says that] R. Nechemyah taught like the opinion that inner Shirayim are Me'akev. Therefore, it is reasonable to make outer Shirayim at least like initial Avodah, and compare them to limbs and fats;

Since the Torah esteems inner Shirayim so much, that they are Me'akev, we should make outer Shirayim like initial Avodah,

Since they are not in the place of the Matanos, rather, on the ledge of the Yesod, they are like the beginning of another Avodah, and not the end of the first Avodah;

Even though they are not Me'akev, one is liable for them outside, just like limbs and fats are not Me'akev, and one is liable for them outside.

Support - Citation (38b): Granted, we heard that R. Nechemyah said [that one is liable] for offering outside, just like limbs and fats.

He learns from limbs and fats alone, like I explained.

Implied question: R. Akiva challenged that one may not learn from limbs and fats, for they are initial Avodah, and R. Nechemyah did not answer at all!

Answer: R. Nechemyah did not need to answer him. The question was only according to R. Akiva's opinion that inner Shirayim are not Me'akev.

Explanation: R. Akiva initially challenged him that Shirei ha'Dam are remnants of a Mitzvah. This was according to his own opinion, that even inner Shirayim [are a remnant];

R. Nechemyah answered that limbs and fats Yochichu. This was according to R. Akiva's opinion, like it says there, but not totally according to R. Akiva;

R. Nechemyah himself needs a proof from limbs and fats. However, in this sense it is according to R. Akiva's opinion, for his answer connotes that he agrees that it is a remnant of a Mitzvah;

R. Nechemyah does not hold like this. Rather, he holds that inner Shirayim are Me'akev, and he learns from them to be Mechayev [offer offering] outer Shirayim outside the Mikdash, like I explained.

Support: This is why the Mishnah and Beraisa taught Shirei ha'Dam Stam, that one is liable for them. This connotes that Neshamah is Mechayev for all Shirayim;

This is for the reason I gave. He considers it initial Avodah to be Mechayev outside. We learn from limbs, since they are not in the place of the first Matanos, rather, on the Yesod.

For this reason, we initially thought that outer Shirayim are Me'akev. If not, why would we think that they are Me'akev before bringing Rav Ada's words?

The Hava Amina was that even outer Shirayim are Me'akev.

Implied question: The verse is only for inner Shirayim, "v'Chilah mi'Kaper" - if he finished, he was Mechaper!

Answer: You must say that the reason is like I explained. (Since the Torah esteems inner Shirayim so much, that they are Me'akev, we make outer Shirayim like initial Avodah.)

R. Tam's opinion: R. Tam explained differently. His Perush is very difficult, therefore I did not write it. It is brought in Tosfos in Zevachim 38b.

Rashi's opinion: This refers to Tum'ah Lifnai v'Lifnim.

Objection: We bring this regarding the Matanos Lifnai v'Lifnim and of the Heichal, to teach that all the Matanos Lifnai v'Lifnim are considered like one...

I.e. if the blood spilled before finishing all the Matanos Lifnai v'Lifnim, he must bring another bull and start from the beginning!

Tosfos' opinion: Rather, this teaches about if the blood spilled. "Zeh Lifnai v'Lifnim" means that all of them are considered like one Matanah. All [of the Matanos] in the Heichal are considered like one Matanah, and similarly regarding the Mizbe'ach.

Defense of Rashi: We can say that "Zeh Lifnai v'Lifnim" teaches that the Matanos Lifnai v'Lifnim are considered like one, and atone for Tum'ah that occurred there;

Likewise, those in the Heichal are considered like one, and atone for Tum'ah that occurred in the Heichal. "Mizbe'ach" is like the simple meaning. It is considered like one. It atones for one who became Tamei inside, and did not delay long enough to bow, and did Avodah.

The simple meaning of the verse discusses Kaparah, that he atones for Mikdash ha'Kodesh for Kohanim and the congregation. This is why Rashi explained like this.