Remark: Some explain differently, but Rashi's Perush is primary. (R. Shimon holds that it is not Avodah, and Rabanan disagree.)

Explanation: [We ask how improper intent in Haza'ah can disqualify Chatas ha'Of,] since R. Shimon is Machshir Holachah not by foot;

Rather, surely it is more reasonable to say oppositely. It depends on whether or not one can be Mevatel it;

Far from the Mizbe'ach, it is possible to be Mevatel this Holachah. If he wanted, he could have slaughtered next to the Mizbe'ach. [In such Holachah, improper] intent does not disqualify;

However, if he slaughtered near the Mizbe'ach, this Holachah of stretching his hand he cannot be Mevatel it. [In such Holachah, improper] intent disqualifies.

Consequence: Therefore, in Chatas ha'Of [improper] intent disqualifies from when [the blood] leaves [the bird] until it reaches the Mizbe'ach, for one cannot be Mevatel this.

Distinction: However, according to the other opinion, that it does not depends on possible or impossible [to be Mevatel], rather, Holachah not by foot is not considered Avodah, and it is as if the Mitzvah was done, if so also regarding Chatas ha'Of, it is as if the Mitzvah was done.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] answers that the Torah considers this Holachah to be full Avodah. This is from R. Baruch.

Explanation: Granted, if you will say that they argue about big Holachah, but small Holachah, which cannot be avoided, [improper] intent in it disqualifies, we find this before blood leaves, because blood in the neck is like [blood] placed in a Kli Shares;

This is unlike the question of R. Avin below (92b), who asked whether or not the neck is like a Kli Shares. (Chak Nasan - he discussed bringing Dam Chatas into the Heichal, which was written about Chatas Behemah, i.e. after the blood left the neck and entered a Kli Shares. A bird's blood is not put in a Kli. Is blood in its neck like in an animal's neck, or like in a Kli Shares? The Torah taught that improper intent disqualifies Chatas ha'Of, so surely it is as if the blood is in a Kli Shares. Od Yosef Chai - there it is a Safek because we expound "mi'Damah", and not the blood with the meat. (Perhaps the same applies to birds.) Here there is no verse.)

However, if small Holachah does not disqualify according to R. Shimon, how do we find [that improper intent disqualifies in Haza'ah]?

Implied question: Why didn't he ask from every Zerikah? If [the improper intent] was before blood left the Kli, this is nothing. If it was after blood left the Kli, the Mitzvah was done!

Answer: It is because it is obvious to [the Makshan] that the Mitzvah was not done until the blood gets to the Mizbe'ach;

However, regarding Haza'ah, one might have thought that he does not need the Mizbe'ach, just like we find that Haza'ah [towards] the Paroches and between the staves [of the Aron] which is Haza'ah even though the blood does not touch (the Paroches or Aron). This is a comment.

Implied question: Why didn't [the Mishnah] teach a Ba'al Mum, one who drank wine, and one who grew his hair long (more than 30 days)?

Answer: For them, the Torah explicitly wrote that they disqualify Avodah.

Explanation: Afterwards it teaches a Tamei. The Mishnah taught this (Tevul Yom, which is a bigger Chidush), and we need not say this (Tamei, which is a smaller Chidush). Because there are two verses, both were taught.

Implied question: Why did he teach first a Tamei (the smaller Chidush)?

Answer: He prefers to teach Tamei together with Arel, like we find in Yevamos (70a) and Chagigah (4b);

Also, there is a Tana who includes an Arel [because he is] like a Tamei.

Disclaimer: However, the Sugya is unlike [that Tana], since we require two verses.

Suggestion: Perhaps we need [a verse] for an Arel for a Korban Tzibur, for [he disqualifies it,] whereas a Tamei may offer it!

Rejection: R. Akiva includes an Arel like a Tamei, i.e. like a Zav or Metzora, for he expounds the verse "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon v'Hu Tzaru'a Oh Zav", and that Tum'ah (Tzara'as or Zivah) is not permitted b'Tzibur.

Question (R. Yom Tov): Here it connotes that this "Bnei Yisrael" does not come to exclude Nochrim;

Below (45a), We say that one is not liable for Nosar of Kodshei Nochrim, for we learn [from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chilul-]Chilul" from Tum'ah, and regarding Tum'ah it says "Bnei Yisrael", to exclude Nochrim!

Implied suggestion: [There] we expound "Bnei Yisrael" written regarding eating Kodesh b'Tum'ah (Vayikra 22:3), for this is the verse after [va'Yinazru] in Parshas Emor. (Surely, Bnei Yisrael was repeated to exclude Nochrim!)

Rejection #1: It connotes unlike this in Toras Kohanim and in Temurah (3a), for there it explicitly brings the verse "va'Yinazru"!

Rejection #2: Chilul is written regarding "va'Yinazru", and not regarding eating Kodesh b'Tum'ah!

Answer: The verse "va'Yinazru" discusses every service - both a Tamei Kohen who served, and a Zar who served. It also discusses every Tum'ah, both eating Kodshim b'Tum'ah, and a Tamei who served;

It is obvious to [the Makshan here] that it does not come only to exclude eating Kodshim b'Tum'ah, for we learn that from "Bnei Yisrael" written afterwards regarding eating b'Tum'ah;

It comes to expound a Zar from "Bnei Yisrael v'Lo Yechalelu." Eating Kodesh b'Tum'ah is written here to teach that Chilul applies to it, to teach about Nosar.

Question: If so, in Makos (14b), Shevu'os (7a) and Yevamos (75a), why did R. Yochanan struggle to find a Lav not to eat Kodesh b'Tum'ah? He should learn from here!

Answer: This verse is Lav shebi'Chlalos (it forbids more than one matter; one is not lashed for such Lavim), for it comes also for a Tamei who served.

Question #1: In Sanhedrin (83a), we learn that a Tamei who served is Chayav Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim] from [a Gezeirah Shavah] Chilul-Chilul from Terumah, and the Gemara asks that we should rather learn Chilul-Chilul from Nosar, which has Kares, and not [only] Misah;

Note: The Mishnah says that if a Tamei served, Kohanim break his head. However, this is a tradition from Sinai. We learn from Terumah only Misah bi'Ydei Shamayim.

It answers that it is better to learn [the Gezeirah Shavah] between words that are both in the plural - "v'Lo Yechalelu" from "Lo Yechalelu". However, regarding Nosar it is written "Ki Es Kodesh Chilel", in the singular.

According to this answer, we should still learn from eating [Kodshim b']Tum'ah, for which there is Kares, for it is in this verse itself (va'Yinazru, from which we learn a Tamei who served! Kodshei David - it is as if Chilul is written twice in this verse, so we can learn from a Gezeirah Shavah. It seems that the coming word "v'Od" should be deleted, and this is all one question, that we should learn from a Hekesh.)

Question #2: Since we learn [both] from one verse, we should make a Hekesh to equate Chilul of serving to Chilul of eating!

Question #3: Below (46a), we say v'Lo Yechalelu - the verse discusses two matters of profaning - the Pesul of Nosar, and the Pesul of Tum'ah, and they are equated to each other. (Kodshei David - this question does not depend on what was said above. Tosfos says "v'Od" because the answer to Question #1 answers also this);

If so, also Nosar has Chilul in a plural expression - v'Lo Yechalelu!

Answer #1: We learn that there is Misah for a Tamei who served from Chilul written about Terumah, regarding Misah - "u'Mesu Bo Ki Yechaleluhu";

The Gemara asks that we should rather learn Kares from Chilul of Nosar, about which it is written Kares - "Ki Es Kedosh Hash-m Chilel v'Nichresah"!

Therefore, it answers that that Chilul in the singular, but "Lo Yechalelu" in the verse of va'Yinazru, even though it discusses a Tamei who ate, and also Nosar, a punishment is not written explicitly regarding that Chilul. This seems to me primary - R. Baruch. (Keren Orah - he holds that a Gezeirah Shavah overrides a Hekesh. This answers Question #2.)

Answer #2: This verse "Lo Yechalelu" connotes a Tamei who served, and a Zar who served, eating Kodesh [b'Tum'ah] and eating Nosar. We do not know to what to equate (a Tamei who served) - to a Zar who served, for which there is Misah, or to eating Kodesh [b'Tum'ah] or Nosar, for which there is Kares. Therefore, we need a Gezeirah Shavah.

Question #1 (against Answer #2): It is still difficult according to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, who does not learn a Zar from this verse.

Question #2: Why does Rebbi learn (Sanhedrin 84a) that a Ba'al Mum who served is Chayav Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim] from a Tamei who served (in Yevamos and Chagigah cited above)? He should learn from eating Kodesh, which has Kares!

Question #3 (Rabbeinu): Below (45a), we learn that one is not liable for Kodshei Nochrim for the Aveirah of Nosar, for we learn "Chilul-Chilul" from Tum'ah, about which it says "Bnei Yisrael", and not Nochrim;

That verse itself discusses Nosar, like Levi taught (45b) - the verse discusses two Chilulim!

Question #4: What is Levi's source to expound two Chilulim - of Nosar and of Tum'ah? In our Sugya, Levi himself establishes the verse for a different two Chilulim - of Tum'ah and of Zarus!

Answer (to Question #4): Since Tum'ah and Zarus are written in the verse, even if it wrote only one Chilul, automatically it would apply to both of them.

Question (R. Baruch): We need Chilul in the plural to teach Misah for a Tamei who served, in Sanhedrin (83a)! This is from R. Baruch.

Implied question: Why can't we learn from one who sits, who may eat?

Answer: You cannot learn from one who sits, for he cannot testify, like it says below (16a).

Implied question: Why can't we learn from Mechusar Begadim (he is not wearing all the Bigdei Kehunah), or did not wash his hands and feet?

Answer: They are disqualified only because they are like Zarim (17b).

Question: We should learn a Kal v'Chomer from one who drank wine, or Peru'ei Rosh (one who grew his hair long)!

Answer - part 1: One who drank wine is not difficult at all. Below (17b), we learn that one who drank wine disqualifies from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Chukah- Chukah" from Mechusar Begadim, and we know that Mechusar Begadim disqualifies only because he is like a Zar, and we do not yet know [the source for] a Zar.

Answer - part 2: Also Peru'ei Rosh is not difficult at all. In Sanhedrin (22b) we say that we learn that there is Misah for Peru'ei Rosh, but not that he disqualifies Avodah;

And even the opinion there that he disqualifies, this is because he is equated to one who drank wine, who disqualifies due to Zarus.

Question: Why don't we learn a Kal v'Chomer from one who sits? He is not Chayav Misah (but he disqualifies)...

Also [we could learn a Kal v'Chomer from] a Zar, who is not Chayav Misah for Kabalah, for it is not final Avodah, and he disqualifies. All the more so, Peru'ei Rosh, who is Chayav Misah, he disqualifies! This is from R. Baruch.