Question: In Chulin (21b) this is expounded differently. (Olas ha'Of is not offered like Chatas ha'Of. Only in the former, the head and body are attached through a full Siman.) We need it for like we expound here!

Answer: Here we expound from the fact that [v'Hikrivo] was written next to Turim and Bnei Yonah, this shows that it is [even] one bird. There we expound from that it is written next to v'Hiktir.

Suggestion: Perhaps we expound both of these due to the [prefix] Vov in v'Hikrivo!

Rejection: In Chulin R. Yishmael [taught the other Drashah], and he does not expound Vov (Yevamos 68b).

Question: Kemitzah should be Yochi'ach! The Torah did not fix the north for it, but it fixed a Kohen!

Answer: We cannot [refute this] from a Minchah, which requires Hagashah, Tenufah and Kidush in a Kli Shares. (That is why it requires a Kohen.)

Question: We should learn from the Hekesh to a Minchah, like we said above (63b)!

Answer: It is reasonable to him that Melikah should not be Avodah more than Shechitah.

Question: Kemitzah should be Yochi'ach! The Torah fixed a Kohen for it, but did not fix a Kli!

Answer: We cannot [refute this] from a Minchah, for it is not a species with blood.

Question: We cannot learn from Tzon, for it is a Zevach (Korban that needs Shechitah), but a bird is not considered a kind of Zevach, like above (8b)!

Answer: This is because we know that [Melikah] is done by hand, but if it were with a Kli (like the Havah Amina), it would be considered a kind of Zevach.

Question: We cannot learn from Tzon, for it requires the north!

Answer: Initially, [the Makshan] relied on the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah (96b), from which we learn that Olah requires a Kli;

Also birds are written in that matter, since we ask in Chulin (22a, why do Chachamim learn that Olas ha'Of is offered) during the day [from "like the law"]? We learn from "b'Yom Tzavoso"!

And in Megilah (20b), regarding "the entire day is Kosher for Melikah", we expound in the Gemara from b'Yom Tzavoso.

Question: We should learn from the Hekesh above (63b) of Chatas ha'Of to Minchah!

Answer #1: Chatas is equated, but Olas ha'Of is not equated.

Answer #2: Since we can establish the Hekesh [for something else], it does not negate the Kal v'Chomer here.

Answer #3: Just the contrary, through the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah, we should equate [Olas ha'Of] to Olah, which requires a Kli!

Explanation: Even the opinion that disagrees with this reasoning regarding lighting twigs on the Ma'arachah, that is because it is possible that [a Yisrael] stands on the ground and [ignites] through a bellows. (Here, even he agrees that we do not need a verse to require a Kohen for Melikah.)

Explanation: We learn from [Melikah of] Chatas and Olah from each other regarding opposite the Oref and through the Kohen himself through a Gezeirah Shavah. It says here u'Malak, and it says there u'Malak;

However, we do not learn to obligate Melikah for Chatas on top of the Mizbe'ach, for Olah was learned only from a Hekesh of Haktarah, and something learned from a Hekesh does not return to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah, from R. Yochanan's teaching above (49b).

Question: In Kidushin (36a), it says that Melikah is not Kosher through women, for it is equated to Haktarah, and regarding Haktarah it says "Bnei Aharon", and not Benos Aharon;

This is fine for Melikas Olah. What is the source for Melikas Chatas? Something learned from a Hekesh does not return to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah!

Answer: It is a mere Giluy Milsa that [the Torah discusses specifically a] "Kohen", and not a Kohenes.

Question: R. Yishmael learns in Chulin (21b) that [Melikas] Olah is opposite the Oref from the Hekesh "ka'Mishpat (like the law of) Chatas ha'Of." He does not learn the Gezeirah Shavah here;

If so, what is his source that [Melikah] of Chatas ha'Of requires the Kohen's body?

Answer: He learns also Chatas from Olah from the Hekesh "ka'Mishpat".

Assertion: It seems that Chatas does not require all the blood, since it was not taught that he brought the place of Melikah to [press it against] the Mizbe'ach. (Chidushei Basra - the verse says that he squeezes, but he need not press against the Mizbe'ach.)

Implied question: It says "u'Malak... v'Hiktir... v'Nimtza"! (Melikah and Mitzuy must be in the place of Haktarah.)

Answer: We do not require the actual place of Haktarah. This is like regarding blood, that within one Amah of the Keren is considered the Keren. (Olas Shlomo asks that Amora'im argue about this above (53a); some require putting on the edge. The Griz asks that the Sovev, and even the entire top half of the Mizbe'ach, is Kosher for Haktarah!)

Question #1: Regarding Chatas, this is fine, like we expound in Toras Kohanim "Chatas Hi" - if Melikah was done Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, and likewise any deviation is Pasul. However, Olah is difficult. What is the source?

Question #2: Also, we learn from Haktarah - just Haktarah, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, also here (Melikah)... if so, just like Haktarah is not Me'akev, also Havdalah is not Me'akev!

Question #3: Melikas Olah done below is difficult. Since we learn from Haktarah, we should learn everything from it, and [say that] just like if Haktarah was not done above, it is Kosher, also if Melikah was not done above, it is Kosher!

Question: We must be meticulous [to explain] why we need all of these Mishnayos here, and in the first Perek above, and in Menachos!

Explanation: The fact that [Olah] is offered above and [Chatas] is below is not considered a deviation.

Explanation #1 - Consequence: [Since squeezing is not Me'akev,] if he wants to divide, he can divide and not squeeze after dividing, and he did not do Ma'aseh (the actions of an) Olah;

Even though he deviated in Havdalah, since he did not squeeze like [is Me'akev] for Olah, if so, dividing is like mere cutting flesh. Rashi explained like this.

Question: In Chulin (21b), R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon expounded ka'Mishpat (like the law of) Chatas ha'Of. Just like there, when he holds the head, he sprinkles blood with the body (for it is attached), and he learns from it Olas ha'Of, that he cuts only the majority of two Simanim;

How does he learn [this]? If he wants, he totally divides in Chatas!

Answer: We could explain "when the head is attached to the body, he sprinkles", i.e. if he wants to.

Implied question: It says there "perhaps just like there, [he cuts only] one Siman...!"

Answer: This means that if he wants, he cuts only one Siman.

Question #1: Earlier there (21a), a Beraisa above teaches "two [Simanim] or the majority of two", and it explains two according to Rabanan, or the majority of two according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon;

We should establish it totally like R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon. If he wants, [he cuts] two, and if he wants, the majority of two!

Question #2: Also in Chulin (123a), regarding a Talis that was mostly torn, it is no longer connected, and is Tahor, we establish it to discuss a Talis that is a Tevul Yom;

Since he was not concerned for [ruining] it, and he immersed it, we need not say "perhaps he was concerned for it, and did not tear the majority."

However, when it is not a Tevul Yom, we decree [lest he did not tear the majority].

[The Gemara] asks if so, according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, we should decree lest he not [cut] the majority!

Summation of Question #2: If there is no Isur to totally cut two, why would we decree there at all lest he be concerned for it?!

Explanation #2: It seems that this entire Sugya discusses Havdalah after Haza'ah. However, all agree that before Haza'ah it is Pasul, for it says "Lo Yavdil";

Only R. Shimon ben Elazar below holds that according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, he may totally divide both [Simanim], and even before Haza'ah. He holds that there is no Isur [or] Pesul of dividing at all, for he explains "Lo Yavdil" to means that he need not divide;

The Sugyos in Chulin (21b) and (123a) are unlike him, rather, like Rav Chisda, Rabah and Abaye.

The entire Sugya means as follows. What do they argue about? I.e. what are their reasons? Rav Chisda said, they argue about whether or not Mitzuy of Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev;

Rabanan hold that Mitzuy of Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev, and when he did Haza'ah, the Mitzvah was not finished;

Therefore, when he separates the second Siman after Haza'ah, it is not considered merely cutting flesh, and it is Pasul, because he did Ma'aseh Olah to a Chatas, for there is Havdalah of two Simanim before Mitzuy, just like in Olah;

R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds that Mitzuy is not Me'akev, and the Mitzvah was already finished. When he divides after Haza'ah, he merely cuts flesh.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Now we must say that the second Siman in Olas ha'Of is not Me'akev, for if it were Me'akev, why do Rabanan disqualify when he divided after Haza'ah?

There is no Ma'aseh Olah, for the Hechsher of Olah is unlike this, and he cannot do Haza'ah between Melikas of the first Siman and the second Siman, lest he delay.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rabah explains that they argue about whether delay in the second Siman of Olas ha'Of is Me'akev. R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds that it is Me'akev.

Abaye explains that they argue about whether [cutting] the majority of flesh is Me'akev. Rabanan hold that the majority of flesh is not Me'akev;

Therefore, sometimes he does not cut the majority of flesh with the first Siman before Haza'ah. When he divides after Haza'ah, there is Ma'aseh Olah in a Chatas;

And even if he cut the majority of flesh with the first Siman, we decree due to when he did not cut the majority of flesh.

And R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds that the majority of flesh is Me'akev. Therefore, he does not disqualify, for there is not Ma'aseh Olah, for he already cut the majority of flesh with the first Siman, and when he divides after Haza'ah, he divides a dead [bird], and it is Pasul.

In such a case of an Olah, it is not Havdalah. Abaye teaches like he taught elsewhere. He holds like this in Chulin (20b). He asked "you should ask about Olas ha'Of, which requires two Simanim. Does he do Melikah on a dead bird?!" He does not hold that it is in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Havdalah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): After, it says that Rabanan said this in front of R. Yirmeyah, i.e. these reasons of Rav Chisda, Rabah and Abaye;

He said to them, did you not hear what R. Shimon ben Elyakim said in the name of R. Elazar ben Pedas, that R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon used to say "I heard that we divide in Chatas ha'Of. What is Lo Yavdil? He need not separate."

Explanation: Therefore, we do not need all these reasons of Rav Chisda, Rabah and Abaye. Even before Haza'ah it is permitted to divide.

Question: According to [Rav Chisda, Rabah and Abaye], it is forbidden to divide before Haza'ah, and even according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon. If so, why did [the Gemara] say above that our Mishnah is unlike R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon?

It seems that our Mishnah is before Haza'ah, like the Reisha, which taught "how is Chatas ha'Of done? He does not Melikah of the head opposite the Oref, and does not divide, and shakes the blood on the wall of the Mizbe'ach"!