Implied question: Why don't we ask from here in Me'ilah (8b) against Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who said that Rav taught that he squeezes out the blood, for squeezing Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev?

Answer: He could say that [here] is like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, who says that it is not Me'akev, above (52b), like it says "two Tana'im argue according to R. Yishmael."

Implied question: It asks there against Rav Huna, who said that squeezing is not Me'akev, and did not answer that he holds like the Tana who says that it is not Me'akev!

Answer: [The Tartzan] prefers to answer that both cases are taught. (Mitzuy must be done if blood remains. If not, it is not Me'akev.)

Observation: He should have said like we said (63b), that we do not learn from this verse alone. (Shitah Mekubetzes - we did not learn the southwest corner from this verse at all! Rather, it teaches that the Minchah must be touched to the Mizbe'ach. We would not know this from the other verses. Alternatively, this teaches to all Menachos.)

Assertion: It seems that this refers to outer Shirayim, which require the southwest corner.

Question: Why does he go until the Keren? He distances from Beis ha'Deshen [to which he must throw the innards. It was near the ramp, west of the southeast corner!]

Suggestion: All blood requires the Keren. (Keren Orah - indeed, whatever requires four Matanos, or two Matanos that are four, requires the Keren. The suggestion is that even when only one Matanah is needed, the Keren is required.)

Rejection: Above (60a), regarding R. Yehudah agrees about blood [it must be offered on the Mizbe'ach, and not on the floor, we suggested] "he should take [blood from the floor from Korbanos Pesach], and pour it in its place!"

If all blood requires the Keren, what was the question?!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): When [Olas ha'Of] was in the east, he stood on the Sovev, for there was a small ramp that turned to the Sovev. However, in the west there was no ramp to the left to go to the Sovev, and he must ascend to the top of the Mizbe'ach and stand to the east of the Keren.

Support: A Mishnah in Sukah (48a), regarding Nesachim, teaches "he ascended the ramp and turned to his left." It did not teach "he turned to the Sovev"!

Rebuttal: That is no proof that there was no ramp to the Sovev in the west.

Support (for Rebuttal): If so (there was no ramp to the left), when he put the four Matanos of Chatas, and the Mishnah (above, 53a) says that he turned to the Sovev regarding Chatas...

When he reached the southwest corner, he would need to go back [the way he came, for he could not step from the Sovev to the ramp, which was almost three Amos higher]!

Explanation #2: There was a ramp there.

Question: Why wasn't it mentioned above (62b) regarding the two small ramps that emerged from the [main] ramp? (One led to the Yesod, and the other led to the Sovev!)

Assertion (R. Tam): Regarding the coals of Yom Kipur, the text does not say "from the inner consumed ones", for here we consider them to be ashes;

On Yom Kipur, and similarly for Ketores of the entire year, we require specifically coals, like it says there (Pesachim 75b) - "coals of fire - one might have thought extinguished..."

Source: It says "v'Samo" - he may not scatter [them].

Question (Riva): Since Terumas ha'Deshen, and Dishun of Mizbe'ach ha'Pnimi and the Menorah were swallowed in their place, why does Me'ilah apply to one more than to the other?

Me'ilah applies to Terumas ha'Deshen, like it says above (46a), and a Mishnah teaches about Dishun of Mizbe'ach ha'Pnimi and the Menorah "one may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply"!

Answer: Terumas ha'Deshen is different, for the Torah revealed "v'Sam'o" (there it will be buried).

Question: Since they were swallowed in their place, how could Me'ilah apply to them?

Answer: Perhaps they were not swallowed immediately.

Assertion (R. Tam): Terumas ha'Deshen was not swallowed, since it is not listed in Yoma (21a) with the others that are swallowed, i.e. Dishun of Mizbe'ach ha'Pnimi and the Menorah. (Note: This is not an alternative answer. Tosfos still needs the above answer to explain why it was taught that one may not benefit from Dishun of Mizbe'ach ha'Pnimi and the Menorah, but Me'ilah does not apply.)

Rebuttal (R. Yom Tov): Also in Toras Kohanim it lists two Batei ha'Deshen, one in the south of innards and feathers [of Olas ha'Of], and one of Dishun of Mizbe'ach ha'Pnimi and the Menorah, and it does not list Terumas ha'Deshen, even though it was there, like a Mishnah in Tamid teaches.

Explanation: Because [we throw] Dam Chatas before Dam Olah (if both are waiting to be thrown - 89a), it explains Chatas first. (Otherwise it would explain Olas ha'Of first, for it is more Kadosh, for it is almost totally burned on the Mizbe'ach.)

Source: It is written "v'Hizah mi'Dam ha'Chatas", and it is not written v'Lakach, which would connote in a Kli.

Question: Why didn't we ask here "what does this mean?!", like [the Gemara] asks in Chulin (22a)? (It seems that Tosfos explains like Rashi there, that we ask what is the source that he must hold both. Shitah Mekubetzes (9) explains that there, we ask because it says that the same applies to Olas ha'Of. Haza'ah does not apply to Olas ha'Of! This question does not apply here, for we discuss only Chatas.)

Explanation: If it were the top wall, sometimes he squeezes onto the Sovev, if he squeezes above the Sovev, for the top wall is from the Chut [ha'Sikra] until the Keranos.

Explanation: Regarding all of these, it is taught "this is a difficult Avodah."