Question: Since it depends on being written and repeated, why does the Beraisa say that the reason is because they are Me'akev everywhere?

Answer: It is lest we say that we should learn four Matanos from seven Matanos.

Question: At least two Matanos are written and repeated, and even according to R. Shimon. If so, we should learn the other two from them!

Comment - Answer: One that is written is always (Me'akev), and we cannot learn from it [that others are Me'akev]. From the second that is written we do not learn two additional, for we do not learn two from one. Until here is a comment.

Explanation (Rashi): R. Shimon holds that Yesh Em l'Mikra (we expound primarily based on how the word is pronounced)

Support: Surely, we know that he holds like this in Sanhedrin (4a) regarding "ba'Sukos... ba'Sukos."

Implied question: In Kidushin (18b) he expounds both of them - Yesh Em l'Mikra ul'Mesores regarding b'Vigdo Bah (one cannot sell his daughter after a man spread his Beged over her, i.e. married her, nor after Bagdo Bah (dealing with her treacherously, i.e. he sold her and her master did not do Yi'ud)!

Answer: That is because there, he can fulfill both of them. However, here we cannot expound both of them.

Question: This is difficult for R. Akiva, who does not expound both of them there, and in Pesachim (36a), regarding Lechem Oni, he expounds Mikra and Mesores (bread over which we answer (say) many things, and poor bread, to disqualify if it was kneaded with fruit juice)!

And also in a Mishnah in Sukah (34b), R. Akiva says "just like we take one Lulav and one Esrog...", and he expounds in the Gemara one Lulav because it is written "Kapas" (without a Vov, to connote the singular, even though it is pronounced Kapos)!

Answer: Granted, R. Akiva holds that Mikra is primary. Even so, we expound the Mesores a little. (Tzon Kodoshim - in Sukah, we rely also on Pri Etz Hadar, which connotes one.)

Question: This is difficult from R. Shimon, for here he holds that Yesh Em l'Mikra, and in Pesachim (86b), regarding "b'Bayis Echad Ye'achel" he holds that Yesh Em l'Mesores! (It is written like Yochal, i.e. the person must eat in one group.)

Implied question: We expound "Yutan" similar to "Yiten" (Kidushin 59b - one of the seven liquids is Machshir if he was pleased that it come on the food, even if he did not put it), and Uvad similar to Avad (Pesachim 26a - Eglah Arufah is disqualified even if the owner did not work with it, if he is pleased that it worked), and "Lo Sisa [Shema Shav]" and "Lo Sasi" (Sanhedrin 7b - if one litigant is here, but his opponent is not, the judge may not hear his claims, and he may not plead his case to the judge. Mesores ha'Shas explains so. Tosfos could equally refer to Makos 23a, which expounds from here an Isur to speak Leshon ha'Ra, and an Isur to accept it - PF.)

Answer (R. Tam): In these, all agree [that we expound both], for the Mikra and Mesores can be explained together (Ayeles ha'Shachar, based on Shitah Mekubetzes Bava Metzi'a 30a). These do not pertain to the argument of Mikra and Mesores.

Question: Since we establish what is written about this [Par] to teach [also about] this [Par, we should do so], also regarding Haza'os. If so, we should require 14!

Answer #1: These are different. We find four Matanos [elsewhere], but we do not find 14 Haza'os anywhere.

Comment - Answer #2: "Keranos" connotes [two, and it can connote] also more [than two]. If we say four, we do not contradict the verse. However, regarding Haza'os, it is written "v'Hizah Sheva", and not more.

Question: Below (52a), we expound from that it is written "ha'Par", to teach that Par Yom Kipur requires putting blood on the Yesod. What is that Tana's source for Semichah?

Answer: In Toras Kohanim, it expounds "v'Samach Al Rosh ha'Par", to include Par Yom Kipur for Semichah.

Note: Tzon Kodoshim says that the following begins a new Dibur.

Citation: This is only for Avodah...

Implied question: That Tana learns Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys from the Hekesh, even though they are not Me'akev Kaparah!

Answer: Still, he cannot learn Shirayim, for it is inferior, like it says below (111a) that Eimurim are initial Avodah, and Shirayim are final Avodah.

Reference: I explained this above (18b DH v'Idach. In some cases he expounds "Asher".)

Question #1: We know that R. Yehudah holds that inner Shirayim are Me'akev according to one Amora below (52b) and in Yoma (60b);

This Beraisa teaches "v'Nislach", even though he did not put Shirayim, and it needs "Ken Ya'aseh" for four Matanos, we are forced to say that it is unlike [R. Yehudah], for since Shirayim are Me'akev, all the more so four Matanos!

Suggestion: This is only regarding Shirayim of Yom Kipur, for the Torah revealed [that they are Me'akev, from] v'Chilah mi'Kaper.

Rejection: It connotes unlike this, like I explained (Sof 39b), since [Rav Ada] did not say that they argue about Shirayim of [Par] Yom Kipur, rather, he distinguishes between inner and outer [Shirayim], and we do not find anywhere a distinction within inner [Shirayim].

Question #2: It says above "one might have thought that this is only Avodah that is Me'akev Kaparah..." You are forced to say that according to R. Yehudah, Shirayim are Me'akev Kaparah!

Answer: This Sugya is like R. Yehoshua ben Levi, who says that they argue only about the source (but not about the Halachah), and R. Yehudah does not hold that Shirayim are Me'akev;

R. Yochanan, who holds that R. Yehudah holds that Shirayim are Me'akev, needs Ken Ya'aseh only for Semichah.

Observation: He holds like Abaye, for R. Yirmeyah above cannot establish this like R. Yehudah, for R. Yehudah expounds Ken Ya'aseh for Semichah and Shirayim, and this Beraisa establishes it for four Matanos.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "B'Dam" is not written regarding Par Helam Davar, only regarding Par Helam Davar, only regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and we learn from it Par Yom Kipur, for it is equated in this verse.

Question (R. Tam): It says in the Sugya (below, 41a) that we need "l'Par" - this is Par Helam Davar, to teach about Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys to Se'irei Avodah Zarah, lest it be something learned from a Hekesh [which does not] return to teach through a Hekesh;

If all of these written in this verse are equated to each other, if so Se'irei Avodah Zarah themselves, which we expound from "ha'Chatas", we should learn from Par Kohen Mashi'ach itself, for Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys are explicitly written about it!

Both of them, Se'irei Avodah Zarah and [Par] Yom Kipur, are written in this verse, through an inclusion.

Strengthening of question: Also below (49b), we need Ka'asher Yuram to learn Yoseres [ha'Kaved] in Se'irei Avodah Zarah, lest we say that Par Helam Davar was learned from a Hekesh;

Also in our Sugya (Sof 41a), we say that one might have thought that this is only for Haza'os, which are written in [Par Helam Davar] itself, but Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys, which are not written in it itself, I would say not;

If [Se'irei Avodah Zarah] are equated to Par Kohen Mashi'ach, [we would learn Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys, which] are written in [Par Kohen] itself, just like [we learn] "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah to Par Yom Kipur!

Answer: We can resolve Rashi's Perush. This is different. The simple meaning of v'Asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah l'Par ha'Chatas" equates the first Par to the last Par, i.e. Par Yom Kipur to Par Kohen Mashi'ach;

However, l'Par ha'Chatas", which we establish for Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Se'irei Avodah Zarah, is not considered a Hekesh at all. Riva explained like this.

Question: What is the source for [what we learn from] "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah regarding Se'irei Avodah Zarah, to learn from Par Helam Davar and to be as if they were written in it itself, just like Yoseres (below, 41a)?

This is fine for R. Yishmael. However, for Rebbi, who expounds '"la'Par" - this is Par Yom Kipur', what is his source?

Granted, Yoseres is not difficult, for he learns from Ka'asher Yuram, like it says below (49b), that Par Kohen Mashi'ach is extra, to be as if [Yoseres] was written in Par Helam itself. However, "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah do not apply to it!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): They are not all equated to each other. Rather, all are equated to Par Helam, and Par Helam Davar is equated to Par Kohen Mashi'ach;

In Par Helam, in which it is not written "b'Dam", it is written "v'Taval Etzba'o Min ha'Dam", which properly connotes that there is a Shi'ur [enough to dip his finger into] from the beginning, just like "b'Dam";

[The Gemara] mentioned "b'Dam" because it is first in the Parshah, regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach.

Question: We need this for what we conclude in Menachos (7b) and below (93b) "Min ha'Dam" - from the blood we are discussing (but not blood left on his finger after each Haza'ah)!

Answer: There, we do not expound from "v'Taval Etzba'o Min ha'Dam", rather, from v'Hizah Min ha'Dam b'Etzba'o" written regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach after "v'Taval".

Proof: It explains there that it excludes blood left on his finger. He may not sprinkle [it] a second time. This has no connection to dipping [his finger in the blood]!

Question: In outer Chata'os, what is the source for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah? Even an inner [Chatas] from an inner, we learn only from a Hekesh;

In Menachos (7b) it connotes that [these laws] apply to all Chata'os, for it says that the Kometz does not become Kodesh half-way (if he part put into a Kli, and the rest in a different Kli), for we learn from blood;

All the more so, we should learn blood from blood!

Partial answer: This is fine for R. Tam. Regarding outer Chata'os it is written Min ha'Dam, which is like b'Dam, and it is written about them v'Lakach, which we expound to teach a Shi'ur to take, just like we expound v'Taval to teach a Shi'ur to dip;

And "Es", to be Machshir warts on the finger, we learn outer [Chata'os] from inner, through a Kal v'Chomer.

Question #1: However, still one must be meticulous [to explain] how we learn the Kometz from blood. Even blood from blood we do not learn!

Comment - Question #2: This is difficult, for "Es" is not written in Par Helam. If so, what is his source to be Machshir warts for Par Yom Kipur?

In Mesores (the tradition of how verses are written), it says that in the first [Parshah, i.e. Par Kohen Mashi'ach] it is written "Es", and in the second, it is not written "Es".

Also Rabbeinu Sadya [Gaon] wrote that in the verse "Min ha'Dam", it is not written "Es".

Observation: Also, we could have said [that we need it] for "l'Ohel Mo'ed", like we said above (40a), that if the ceiling was breached (the Haza'os may not be done), and for "Ketores ha'Samim" like it says below, that if the Mizbe'ach was not inaugurated [with Ketores, the Haza'os may not be done on it].

Explanation: [The Gemara] understands that what the Beraisa taught "for everything taught in this matter" means for "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah;

If it came only to teach that [the Haza'os are] Me'akev, it should not have said "for everything taught in this matter."

We cannot say that it is for Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys, for they were equated for Avodas Dam.

Also, we cannot say that it is for Shirayim, for Rebbi learns them from another verse below (52a).

Support: R. Yishmael's Kal v'Chomer "in a place where they are not equal" applies only to "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah.

Citation: Below (52a), R. Yishmael learns putting blood on the Yesod from Par Yom Kipur from a Kal v'Chomer - if one whose blood is not obligated to enter inside requires the Yesod...

Observation: We could not say that Kal v'Chomer here, because it is a leniency to be Machshir warts on the finger.

And the Kal v'Chomer here, we could not say there, for we do not learn from this Kal v'Chomer a new matter, to apply what was said about this to the other, for we find that they are different in several matters;

We learn from this Kal v'Chomer only that what is written in them must be the same. The same way he does Haza'os for this, he does Haza'os of the other, i.e. "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah.

Proof: R. Yishmael does not argue with '"l'Par" - this is Par Kohen Mashi'ach', to teach Ikuv. Why is this needed? We should know from this Kal v'Chomer!

Where the Korbanos (animals) are different, i.e. Par Helam and Se'irei Avodah Zarah, the actions are equated, that they are Me'akev. Where the Korbanos are the same, all the more so they are Me'akev!

Rebuttal: We can reject this. They (Par Helam Davar and Se'irei Avodah Zarah) are the same. They are [Korbanos] Tzibur (unlike Par Kohen Mashi'ach).