Citation (Zevachim 6b - Mishnah - R. Akiva): "Veha'Nosar ba'Shemen Yiten Al Rosh ha'Mitaher" - he was Mechaper only if he put it;

Citation (cont.) R. Yochanan ben Nuri: [If he did not put,] the Torah considers it as if he did not atone, and he atoned.

The Gemara explains that "as if he did not atone, and he atoned" means that he atoned putting on the Behonos (ear, thumb and toe), but he did not atone putting on the head.

Rashi's opinion: He brings other [oil] and begins putting on the head. According to R. Akiva, even the Matanos on the Behonos did not count, so he brings another Log and begins with the Behonos.

Question: This is unlike the Tana'im here!

Answer: R. Yochanan ben Nuri, who says there that Matanos on the head are Shirei Mitzvah, holds like the Tana here;

Explanation #1: Initially, we wanted to say that the person was Mechaper, but not regarding Shamayim. I.e. the person is Tahor from his Tzara'as, but he was not Mechaper regarding Shamayim, from the punishment he will get [for omitting Matanos ha'Rosh];

We retracted and said that he was Mechaper even from the punishment. Rather, he was Mechaper Matan Behonos that he did properly, but he was not Mechaper Matanos ha'Rosh, for he omitted a Mitzvah and did not do it properly.

Explanation #2: Initially, we wanted to say that he was not Mechaper regarding Shamayim Matan Behonos themselves;

Even though he put them, it is not fully accepted, even though Matanos ha'Rosh [which he omitted] are not Me'akev.

We retracted and said that he was not Mechaper Matanos ha'Rosh to be fully accepted, but Matan Behonos were fully accepted.

Implied question: We could have asked from umi'Yeser ha'Shemen, which [is in the same Parshah that] we were discussing!

Answer: The Gemara preferred to ask from veha'Noseres, which is [more] similar to veha'Nosar (which we were discussing).

Question (Riva): What is the comparison? Since it was not slaughtered Lishmah, it did not count for the owner's Chiyuv at all;

How does "the Torah said one Asham" pertain to "the Torah said one Chatas"? Whatever [blood] he put from it, it is as if he did nothing!

Answer (Riva): The text should say like R. Chananel's text, "if the blood of an Asham spilled before Matan Behonos, R. Meir argues with R. Elazar and R. Shimon about this;

This resembles a bull whose blood spilled before all the Matanos. It teaches that just like they argue about Matanos of oil, for it does not say Oso...

... Also here, they argue about Matan Dan of Asham, even though it says Oso, which connotes only one" (i.e. he need not bring another Korban).

Even so, he brings another. The reason is like I will explain shortly.

The Gemara asks "it says Oso!" R. Meir, and R. Elazar and R. Shimon, should agree that he does not bring another.

Implied question: We bring a Beraisa to support him (R. Yochanan! Also it discusses Asham slaughtered Lo Lishmah.)

Answer: The support is not from an Asham slaughtered Lo Lishmah. All agree about it! Rather, the support is from [the second law of the Beraisa,] one who did not put the blood on the Behonos. He needs another Asham to be Machshir him.

Inference: Even though it says Oso, there is an opinion that he brings another Asham!

Question: R. Yochanan himself said above that the reason for R. Elazar and R. Shimon regarding Par Yom Kipur is because the Torah mentioned [only] one Chituy;

Here we cannot expound like this. What is their reason?

Answer: Perhaps we learn from there. Just like there, there many Matanos, and the Torah revealed that he begins from where he stopped, also here, regarding both the Log of oil and the Asham.

Observation: In Nazir (46b) the text is opposite in all Seforim. Beis Shamai say that he need not [pass a razor over his head], and Beis Hillel say that he must.

This is among the Halachos Hafuchos (the opinions are switched elsewhere in the Gemara).

Example #1: We find this regarding ambiguous Yadayim (incomplete expressions that could be explained in different ways). Abaye and Rava argue in Nedarim 5b, and in Nazir 62a they reverse their opinions.

Example #2: In Bechoros (3a), regarding a wound that makes a Nevelah or Terefah, that Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue about whether or not a Terefah can live. In Temurah (11b), they argue oppositely.

Observation: There are many cases like this in Shas. They are like an Ika d'Amrei (another version of the argument).

Explanation: In Zevachim 47b, Rashi explains that it says Etzba regarding Shemen, and we learn blood from it. This is merely like learning what was not specified from what is explicit.

Implied question: Perhaps it is a Binyan Av!

Rejection: The Gemara there (51a) asked whether something learned from a Binyan Av can teach about something else through a Hekesh [and did not resolve this. If we learn blood from a Binyan Av, our Gemara proves that it teaches through a Hekesh!]

Implied question: Also regarding Chatas it says "v'Lakach... v'Nasan", but we do not expound like this (through the Kohen himself)!

Answer: Also there we should have said so. However, it says v'Lakach many times, regarding Se'ir Nasi, a female lamb and goat [which a commoner brings]. Since we cannot expound all of them, we do not expound them.

Rashi's opinion: We learn from the Olah of Har Sinai through a Gezeirah Shavah Kichah- Kichah.

Question: This was a question in Zevachim 50a, whether or not something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can teach through a Hekesh, according to the opinion that it depends on the source;

We should resolve this from here! Chatas, which is learned from a Gezeirah Shavah, teaches about Asham Metzora through a Hekesh!

Answer (Ritzva): Without the Gezeirah Shavah, we would have learned Chatas from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah [la'Olah la'Minchah vela'Chatas vela'Asham...]", like it says in Zevachim 97b;

Citation (97b): Just like Olah requires a Kli (Shares, also all of them).

Citation (cont.) Question: Does this obligate a Mizrak (bucket) for Kabalah? (We would not need a Hekesh to Olah for this.) It says also regarding Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur...

Since we learn from a Hekesh, the Gezeirah Shavah is as if it was written in the matter (Chatas) itself, so we may learn Asham from Chatas.

According to the opinion that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can teach through a Hekesh, in any case we need the Hekesh to other Korbanos.

Observation: It would not suffice without the Gezeirah Shavah. If so, it would be a Hekesh from a Hekesh, so we could not learn Asham from Chatas.

Note: Even though the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah..." equates all Kodshei Kodoshim, "v'Lakach... v'Nasan" removed Asham Metzora. "Ka'Chatas ha'Asham" (Vayikra 14:13, written regarding Asham Metzora) returns it. If not for the Gezeirah Shavah, it would return it only for what is written regarding Chatas, but not for what we learned about Chatas through a Hekesh (Si'ach Yitzchak).

Question (Ritzva): R. Shimon holds that if one did Zerikah with the left hand, it is Kosher (Zevachim 24b), for he holds that when it says "Kehunah", it must say also "Etzba" [to mandate using the right hand]; (The continuation of the question is on the next Daf.)