Rejection: The Kal va'Chomer does not teach through a Binyan Av (rather, through a Hekesh of birds and animals). Also, even if it were a Binyan Av, it would not answer our question, since we learn from Chulin (Rashi - according to the opinion that the restrictions on expounding apply when the source is Kodshim. Shitah Mekubetzes - it would not be a proof even according to Rav Papa, for even though we learn to Kodesh, a source and one of the matters learned are Chulin.)

Questions: Can a Binyan Av teach through a Hekesh, Gezerah Shavah, Kal va'Chomer or Binyan Av?

Answer (to the last of these - Beraisa): If Zerikas Dam was not done before sundown, the blood is still 'Kosher' (i.e. if blood of a Chatas was brought up the ramp, we put it on the Keranos), for we find that Eimurim are 'Kosher' (if brought up the ramp, we burn them on the Mizbe'ach) after Linah (being left overnight);

Eimurim are 'Kosher' after Linah because we find that meat (of a Shelamim) is permitted after Linah.

Yotzei (Evarim, i.e. of an Olah) is 'Kosher', because this is permitted on a Bamah;

Tamei (Evarim) is 'Kosher', because this is permitted for Korbanos Tzibur (if they cannot be offered b'Taharah);

(Blood of a Korban disqualified due to intent) Chutz li'Zmano is Kosher, because Zerikah of such blood is Meratzeh (like a proper Zerikah) regarding Pigul (Kares applies only if all the Matirim were offered without any Pesul other than Chutz li'Zmano);

Chutz li'Mkomo is Kosher, because the Torah equates it to Chutz li'Zmano;

If Pesulim received or threw the blood, the blood or Eimurim are 'Kosher'. This is if the Pesulim are Kosher for Korbanos Tzibur (e.g. Teme'im).

Objection: Can we learn something done improperly (Linah of Eimurim, or Yotzei) from something done properly (Linah of Basar Shelamim, or Yotzei on a Bamah)?!

Answer: Indeed, the Tana really learned these laws from "Zos Toras ha'Olah" (to include these). (Tosfos - nevertheless, since the Tana discussed a Binyan Av teaching a Binyan Av, surely we can (normally) learn in this way.)

(Mishnah): The Shirayim (are poured on the Yesod on the western side of the outer Mizbe'ach.)

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: "El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" refers to the Yesod closest to the opening of Ohel Mo'ed. (In the Mikdash, the Heichal corresponds to the Ohel Mo'ed. Our text adds 'the first side the Kohen encounters' (when he leaves the Heichal, for we do not pass over a Mitzvah), but Tosfos deletes this from the text, for this reason would not determine where we put Shirayim.)

(Beraisa): It says "El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah" three times. These teach that we do not pour the Shirayim on the inner Mizbe'ach, that the inner Mizbe'ach has no Yesod, and 'Ten Yesod l'Mizbe'ach Shel Olah' (that Shirayim of all other Korbanos (Rashi; R. Chayim (in Tosfos, 51b) - of an Olah) is poured on the Yesod; Tosfos - the primary Zerikos of an Olah (alternatively - of all other Korbanos) are on edges (or walls) above the Yesod. We explain the rest of the Sugya like Rashi.)

Question: Perhaps it (the last) teaches that Mizbe'ach Shel Olah Yehei l'Yesod! (We throw two Matanos of Dam Olah on opposite corners of the Mizbe'ach, and the blood spreads to all four walls. We must throw above the Yesod, i.e. the northeast and southwest corners. The southeast corner is invalid, for it is not above the Yesod.)

Answer #1 (R. Yishmael): We already know this from a Kal va'Chomer! Shirayim are not Me'akev Kaparah, yet they require (must be thrown on the) Yesod. The first Zerikah of Olah is Mechaper, all the more so it requires Yesod!

Answer #2 (R. Akiva): Shirayim are not Me'akev Kaparah, and they do not come to Mechaper, yet they require Yesod. The initial Zerikah of Olah is Me'akev Kaparah, and it comes to Mechaper, so all the more so it requires Yesod! (We will explain what they argue about.)

Question: If so, what do we learn from the last "El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah"?

Answer: It teaches that blood leftover in the Keli is poured on the Yesod.

(Beraisa): (The first teaches that) we do not pour the Shirayim on the inner Mizbe'ach.

Question: The verse is needed for the simple meaning (that the Shirayim may be poured on the outer Mizbe'ach). How can we exclude the inner Mizbe'ach?

Answer: We already know that it refers to the outer Mizbe'ach from "Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed." "Mizbach ha'Olah" is extra to exclude the inner Mizbe'ach.

(Beraisa): "El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah" teaches 'Ten Yesod l'Mizbe'ach Shel Olah' (we pour all Shirayim on the Yesod).

Suggestion: Perhaps we need it for the simple meaning (that the primary Matanos must be above the Yesod! We explain according to the text of Shitah Mekubetzes.)

Rejection: We already know this from a Kal va'Chomer (of R. Yishmael or R. Akiva) from Shirayim (of Chatas)!

Suggestion: We need "ha'Olah"! If not, we would have thought that the Shirayim are never on the same Mizbe'ach as the first Matanos! I.e. inner Shirayim go on the outer Mizbe'ach, and outer Shirayim go on the inner Mizbe'ach!

Rejection: The inner Mizbe'ach has no Yesod!