Question #3: How does [R. Yirmeyah] infer that something learned from a Kal va'Chomer returns to teach through a Binyan Av?

I can say that Shechitas Ohf is learned from a Binyan Av from Shechitas Behemah, and something learned from a Binyan Av returns to teach through a Binyan Av, like we conclude in our Sugya!

Answer: He infers from the wording of the Beraisa. It is obvious that R. Meir's primary reason is the Hekesh of "Zos Toras ha'Behemah veha'Of", like below (89b);

It is obvious to him that he learns from Mah Matzinu from a bird. If he learns from an animal, why [does he need a Mah Matzinu]? He can learn from a Kal v'Chomer!

Question: We should resolve two of these! Since [a Binyan Av] teaches through a Binyan Av like itself, if so, all the more so it teaches through a Kal v'Chomer!

A Hekesh, which does not teach through a Hekesh, whether due to [the proof of] Rava or of Ravina, teaches through a Kal v'Chomer from Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael. A Binyan Av, which teaches through a Binyan Av like itself, all the more so it teaches through a Kal v'Chomer! [The Gemara] made a Kal v'Chomer like this above (50b).

Question: How does [the Gemara] infer from here that a Binyan Av returns to teach through a Binyan Av? (We learn blood after Shki'ah from Eimurim after dawn, and the latter is learned from meat after Linah);

Perhaps we learn Linah of blood after Shki'ah from "Linah" of Eimurim (i.e. after Shki'ah, but before dawn), which is not Pasul after Shki'ah, only at dawn. (We do not need a Binyan Av to teach this. It says "ha'Olah Al Mokdah Al ha'Mizbe'ach Kol ha'Laylah Ad ha'Boker"!)

Afterwards, [the Beraisa] returns to learn [absolute] Linah of Eimurim, which become Pasul at dawn, that Im Alah Lo Yered, from Linah of meat!

Answer: It is obvious to [the Gemara] that even though we learn Eimurim not in the proper way (i.e. after dawn) from the proper way of meat - blood, which permits, is preferable, and we do not learn blood in an improper way (after Shki'ah) from Eimurim in the proper way (after Shki'ah; rather, we learn from Eimurim after dawn).

Proof: We do not learn Linah of blood directly from Linah of meat (because blood is unlike meat, and this is improper from proper).

Explanation (Rashi): The Yesod opposite the opening [of Ohel Mo'ed] is the west of the Mizbe'ach, which is opposite the opening of the Heichal.

His text does not say what is written in Seforim "the one he encounters first", because it connotes that the reason is because we do not pass over Mitzvos, and not due to the verse "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed";

Source #1: Regarding Chatas, some say below (53a) that Shirayim are [put] on the western Yesod, and it says that the reason is that we learn from Sasum (what is not explicit) from what is explicit, from an inner Chatas. This connotes that it is explicit.

Source #2: Some say [there that Shirayim are put] on the southern Yesod, and [this opinion] says that we learn his descent from the ramp from his exit from the Heichal. When he exits the Heichal, [he puts Shirayim on the Yesod] nearby...

Why is one more obvious than the other? Regarding both of them, the reason "we do not pass over Mitzvos" applies!

Source #3: We say below (58b) about Kodshei Kodoshim "[the place of] Shirayim is explicitly written about them - "Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed"!

Question: This is difficult! Why do we need a verse Pesach Ohel Mo'ed? I should know from "we do not pass over Mitzvos", like we find this reason in Yoma (15b)!

It asks "why is it different that he puts first on the northeast corner?", and regarding Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach and the Menorah, it says that Dishun of the Mizbe'ach is first, because we do not pass over Mitzvos. Similarly, it is forbidden to pass over the arm and (put on, or touch) the head Tefilin first!

Answer: "We do not pass over Mitzvos" applies only when there are two Mitzvos in front of him, e.g. Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach and the Menorah, or Mitzvos of [Matanos on] the corners, and he does not know where to begin;

However, to fix a place for pouring Shirayim, we would not fix due to this reason, had the Torah not explicitly revealed.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): All blood put on the outer Mizbe'ach requires pouring Shirayim on the Yesod;

Because regarding Olah pouring Shirayim on the Yesod is not written, we need to learn here;

Or, perhaps it does not discuss Shirayim at all, rather, there must be a Yesod for the Mizbe'ach of the Olah for initial blood, that the Matanos of all Zevachim are k'Neged (above or on) the Yesod!

R. Yishmael said... the verse is not needed for initial Matanos above the Yesod. They are learned from a Kal v'Chomer of Shirayim of Chatas! Rather, you are forced to say that it is to obligate Shirayim on the Yesod for all Zevachim. Rashi explained so.

Question #1: Above (37a), we learn from other verses - from "[v']Dam Zevachecha Yishafech", and according to Rebbi from "b'Dam"!

He should rather have brought this Drashah regarding R. Yishmael above (51a), for they argue (he expounds it differently), for [R. Yishmael] holds like this Drashah, and brought the verse above regarding R. Akiva here!

Question #2: Below (56b), we learn Yesod for initial Matanos of Bechor, Ma'aser or Pesach from a Gezeirah Shavah "Zerikah-Zerikah" from Olah;

Why do we need it? I should know from the Kal v'Chomer of R. Yishmael and R. Akiva here! Shirayim do not atone... just like we learn from this Kal v'Chomer Olah and Shelamim!

Suggestion: [We learn Olah and Shelamim] because they pertain to Kaparah more than Bechor, for it comes for a Chovah. (Therefore, we cannot learn Bechor.)

Rejection #1: We can learn a Kal v'Chomer as follows. Shirayim, which are not Me'akev, require Yesod. The initial Matanah of Olah, which is Me'akev, all the more so it should require Yesod! (The same applies to all Korbanos.)

Question #3: We learn that Shirayim [of all Korbanos] require Yesod from this verse, or from the verse above. All the more so the initial [blood! Why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah?]

Question #4: It says that we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Zerikah-[Zerikah]" from Olah. Why did it mention Olah more than Shelamim or other Korbanos?

We learn all of them from the Kal v'Chomer here! It should have said that we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Zerikah-[Zerikah]" from other Korbanos!

Question #5: It says there (57a) 'what is the source for Olah itself? It says "El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah"';

Inference: We know the initial Matanos from a Kal v'Chomer, and the verse comes for Shirayim, to obligate Yesod!

Poor answer (Rashi 57a): It was taught without need. (It means that if not for the Kal v'Chomer, we would learn from the verse.)

Question #6: How can one make a Kal v'Chomer from Shirayim? We should say that Chatas is Yochi'ach. It is Mechaper, and it does not require Yesod. (The first Matanah is Mechaper, and it is on the southeast Keren. There was no Yesod in that corner!) I can learn all initial [Matanos] Dam from Chatas!

Answer: [Chatas is different] because it is put on all four Keranos, and we cannot say that all of them [must be k'Neged the] Yesod.

Question #7: It says below (53b) "it says Saviv about Chatas, and it says Saviv about Olah", and it asks "just like Chatas requires four Matanos on four Keranos, also Olah should require... [this cannot be], for Olah requires Yesod;

Why is Olah more obvious [to the Makshan] than Chatas? Also regarding Chatas there is a Kal v'Chomer [just like that] of Olah (Shirayim are not Me'akev Kaparah, and they require Yesod...)!

Question #8: Olas ha'Of was offered at the southeast Keren, like it says below (53b). It should require Yesod from a Kal v'Chomer!

Shirayim of Chatas ha'Of, which are not Mechaper, require Yesod. The initial [Matanah] of Olah (Olas ha'Of), which is Mechaper, all the more so it should require Yesod!

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): We cannot learn from the verse here pouring Shirayim of outer blood, except for Olah, like the verse specifies;

The verse v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech comes only for [Zevachim] that are eaten, like the end of the verse says "veha'Basar Tochel." Similarly, "veha'Nish'ar ba'Dam" is written regarding Chatas ha'Of, which is eaten;

[The Gemara] asks or, perhaps [it teaches that] the Mizbe'ach of Olah must be to the Yesod, and the verse El Yesod Mizbach comes to teach that Olah has the law of Yesod! I.e. the initial Matanos of Olah must be k'Neged the Yesod.

It concludes 'does it say "El Yesod ha'Olah", which would connote that the initial blood [is k'Neged the] Yesod? It is written "Mizbach ha'Olah"', which connotes Shirayim.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It then says that perhaps it is written Mizbach, lest you say that [one throws against] the vertical wall of the Yesod. Rather, [he pours] on its roof;

Regarding this, R. Yishmael says that we learn from a Kal v'Chomer. Since Yesod is written explicitly, I know from a Kal v'Chomer that it is on the roof. If so, you are forced to say that [the verse] comes to teach that Shirayim of Olah [require] the Yesod;

Now, we learn the initial [Matanah] of Olah from a Kal v'Chomer from its Shirayim;

However, we do not make a Kal v'Chomer from Shirayim of Chatas to initial blood of another Korban, only from Shirayim of that Korban itself we learn about its initial Matanos.

Other Korbanos, about which it is not written Yesod, are learned from a Gezeirah Shavah "Zerikah-Zerikah" from Olah, e.g. Bechor and Ma'aser.

Implied question: [The Gemara] asked below (56b), regarding Bechor, "what is the source for k'Neged the Yesod?" (It could have asked about all Korbanos!)

Answer #1: [We asked about Bechor] because the Mishnah discussed Bechor (that its Matanah must be k'Neged the Yesod).

Answer #2: After (the Mishnayos of our Perek were finished, and they) explained all the Korbanos, we asked what is the source [for all Korbanos] to require k'Neged the Yesod, and it says that we learn all from a Gezeirah Shavah "Zerikah-Zerikah" from Olah.

However, we cannot learn from a Kal v'Chomer [from Olah], since Yesod is not written explicitly in it;

This Kal v'Chomer comes only to reveal that the Yesod said is on its roof. It is not applicable to ask "Chatas is Yochi'ach" about this Kal v'Chomer.

Question #1: According to the Tana (37a) who expounds from v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech that the blood of Ma'aser and Pesach is poured, what is his source for Yesod? Zerikah is not written about them (so he cannot learn from the Gezeirah Shavah)!

Question #2: Just like we learn initial [Matanah] of Olah from a Kal v'Chomer from its Shirayim, likewise we should learn for other Korbanos initial [Matanah] from a Kal v'Chomer from their Shirayim, which we learn from v'Dam Zevachecha;

Why does (R. Elazar) learn below (57a) Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach through a Gezeirah Shavah from Olah?

Question #3: Below (57a), it says 'what is the source for [initial Matanah of] Olah itself? It says "El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah."' This is difficult [for R. Chaim] just like for Rashi! (We should learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Shirayim!)

Question #4: It says below (53b) "you [must] say that Olah requires Yesod." Why is Olah more obvious than Chatas?

Answer: This that the initial [Matanah of] Olah must be k'Neged the Yesod, we do not learn at all from a Kal v'Chomer, even from its own Shirayim;

Rather, from the verse El Yesod ha'Olah we know the initial blood on the Yesod, and Mizbach, which is extra, is not needed for the roof, for we know it from a Kal v'Chomer;

If so, we expound [Mizbach] for Shirayim on the Yesod. However, the Kal v'Chomer comes only for its roof, where Yesod is written. Now, everything is fine.

Question: We expound two matters from the verse - initial blood, and from Mizbach, which is extra, we expound Shirayim. I should say that it is only for Shirayim!

Answer: First I should establish the simple meaning of the verse for initial Matanos, and what is extra for Shirayim. This is from R. Baruch.

Explanation #3: We can explain differently. Give a Yesod for the Mizbe'ach of the Olah, that all initial blood on Mizbach ha'Olah must be k'Neged the Yesod, except for Chatas, about which it explicitly says Keranos. It is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv [that not all its Matanos are k'Neged the Yesod];

Or, perhaps it teaches only that the Mizbe'ach of the Olah is for the Yesod, i.e. only Olah, but not other Korbanos!

It asks (rejects this), is it written l'Yesod ha'Olah, which would connote only Olah? It is written Mizbach ha'Olah, which connotes all blood on Mizbach ha'Olah!

It returns to say that perhaps Mizbach ha'Olah is written for the roof of the Yesod, and about this R. Yishmael said that we learn the roof from a Kal v'Chomer;

This Kal v'Chomer is only to reveal that the Yesod that the verse mentioned refers to its roof, and it is not applicable to say that Chatas is Yochi'ach.

It concludes "give a Yesod for Mizbach ha'Olah."

Implied question: Why do we need below (56b) a Gezeirah Shavah "Zerikah-Zerikah"?

Answer #1: We would know that initial Matanos of blood are on the Yesod from the Drashah "to the Mizbe'ach of the Olah" only for what is like Olah, which is a gift and atones. This excludes Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach.

Answer #2: [We would know only] what is similar to Olah, that it has two Matanos that are four;

And even if we learn that its Shirayim go on the Yesod from v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech or from Rebbi's teaching (he learns other Korbanos from "veha'Nish'ar ba'Dam Yimatzei" - 37a), in any case initial blood we would not know;

We cannot learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Shirayim, for we can say that Chatas is Yochi'ach.

Below (53b) it says "you [must] say that Olah requires Yesod" because the verse is written primarily about Olah.

Question: Still, the Tana who expounds Matan Dam on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach for Ma'aser and Pesach from v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech, Zerikah is not written about them. What is the source for the Yesod?

Suggestion: He learns from a Binyan Av from Bechor.

Rejection: If so, he should resolve that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Binyan Av!

Answer: Since the Torah revealed a Gezeirah Shavah about Matanah of a Bechor, if so "give a Yesod for the Mizbe'ach of the Olah" discusses all blood, even of those [Korbanos] for which there is only one Matanah, i.e. Ma'aser and Pesach;

However, we do not learn Olas ha'Of, for the verse discusses only Korbanos that are slaughtered.

Question: Below (53b), it explains that the southeast corner did not have a Yesod because it was not in the portion of Toref (Binyamin), for a strip went out from Yehudah's portion and entered Binyamin's portion;

And the one who says that Yerushalayim was not divided [among the Shevatim], he argues with that Beraisa, like is proven in Yoma (12a);

If so, the entire Mizbe'ach had a Yesod. If so, why do we need all of these Drashos? There cannot be a Mizbe'ach without a Yesod, like it says below (62a) that the ramp, Yesod and squareness are Me'akev!

Answer: Perhaps even according to the opinion that [Yerushalayim] was not divided, we have a tradition that [the southeast corner] did not have a Yesod.

Question: We must be meticulous [to explain] below (60a) that we want to say that according to R. Yehudah, even blood may be thrown on the floor (it received Kedushah like the Mizbe'ach), how does he expound these Drashos that prove that Olah requires Yesod, and the roof of the Yesod?

Answer: [It was relevant] before David was Mekadesh the floor, of if the floor was uprooted near the Mizbe'ach, if until the depth was not made Kodesh.

Implied question: We expound this for the western Yesod!

Answer: We expound two matters from it.