Question: Why wasn't he in doubt also whether we learn from Terumah Gedolah?

Answer #1: Regarding Terumas ha'Deshen, it says "v'Herim", like it says regarding Terumas Ma'aser "v'Haremosem" and regarding Terumas Midyan "v'Haremosa Meches";

There is no expression of Haramah in the command to give Terumah Gedolah. It says only "Reishis Deganecha... Titen Lo."

Implied question: It says "ki'Terumas Goren Ken Tarimu Osah" [regarding Terumah Gedolah]!

Answer: "Tarimu" refers to Chalah.

Question: Why didn't he ask if we learn from Chalah?

Answer #1: We learn "v'Herim" from "v'Haremosem" or "v'Haremosa", but not from "Tarimu", for they are not so similar.

Answer #2: We learn initial Terumah from initial Terumah;

Implied question: [Terumas Ma'aser is not initial Terumah.] Terumah Gedolah precedes it!

Answer: The verse discusses Leviyim. Terumas Ma'aser is the first Terumah that the Torah obligates them.

Summation of Answer #2: Chalah is not initial Terumah. Terumah Gedolah precedes it.

Answer #2 (to Question (a), and Answer #3 to Question (e)): Since there is no explicit Shi'ur [in the Torah] for Terumah Gedolah and Chalah, we learn what is not specified (Terumas ha'Deshen) from what is explicit, i.e. Terumas Ma'aser or Terumas Midyan.

Implied question: Why don't we learn Terumah Gedolah and Chalah themselves through this Gezeirah Shavah, and say that they have a Shi'ur?

Answer: Since it says regarding [Terumah Gedolah] "Reishis Deganecha", even one [kernel of] wheat [suffices]. Similarly regarding Chalah, it says Reishis Arisoseichem."

Rashi's opinion: From Terumas Midyan we would learn one part in 500 (the amount that the soldiers gave from their half of the spoils).

Implied question: Perhaps we should learn one part in 50 (the amount that Bnei Yisrael gave from their half)!

Answer: We would learn one part in 500, since this is written regarding v'Haremosa.

Tosfos' opinion: I would say that from Midyan we would learn one part in 50;

The Yerushalmi expounds that an average amount [for Terumah Gedolah] is one part in 50 from "Echad Achuz Min ha'Chamishim" - whenever you Ochez (take a percentage) from elsewhere, it should be like this.

Question: What was R. Avin's Safek, whether we learn from Terumas Ma'aser or Midyan?

Surely it is more reasonable to learn [Terumas ha'Deshen] from Terumas Ma'aser, for this is [something that applies to all] generations from generations, and not from Midyan, which is generations from a one-time event!

Answer #1: Based on what [the Yerushalmi] explained, that we learn from "Echad Achuz Min ha'Chamishim", this is fine. Whatever you take from elsewhere is like this.

Answer #2: Even according to Rashi, we learn v'Herim, which is singular, from v'Haremosa, which also is singular, but he is reluctant to learn from v'Haremosem.

Answer #3: We learn from Terumas ha'Deshen, which is a Mitzvah of Avodah of the Tzibur, from Terumas Midyan, which applied to all of Yisrael, but not from Terumas Ma'aser, which applies only to Leviyim.

Question: Why wasn't [R. Avin] in doubt whether we learn from v'Herim Mimenu b'Kumtzo?

This is more similar to Terumas ha'Deshen than all of the others! In both of these it says v'Herim.

Answer: We cannot learn totally from there, that he will separate Terumas ha'Deshen with his hand, lest he get scalded, like Rashi explained here. Therefore, he did not think to learn from there.

Even so, we conclude that we learn from there, since it is more similar. In both of them it says v'Herim.

Implied question: Why didn't we ask "why do you include Avodas Siluk and exclude Avodah that is not final?" (Perhaps we should include non-final Avodah, and exclude Avodas Siluk!)

Answer: Avodas Siluk pertains to the Mizbe'ach. Non-final Avodah is not of the Mizbe'ach.

Question: If so, one should be liable for arranging the Ma'arachah. It is Avodas Mizbe'ach. Why do we exclude it, and include Avodas Siluk?

Answer: Terumas ha'Deshen is better [to learn], for it is before all [other Avodos].

Question: He lists four Avodos for which a Zar is liable, and counts Nisuch ha'Yayin and Nisuch ha'Mayim separately, but he does not count Haza'os of blood and Haza'os of oil separately!

Answer: Nisuch of water and of wine are important, and we find that they come for their own sake, therefore they are counted separately;

Haza'os of oil come due to an animal Korban, with has [Haza'os of] blood, therefore it is included in Zerikah.

Question: If so (we learn only the Prat), why did the Torah write "l'Chol Devar ha'Mizbe'ach"? We said that [instead of] Devar [the Torah wrote] l'Chol Devar [to include]!

Suggestion: L'Chol includes Haza'os inside [the Heichal] and of a Metzora.

Question: It is still difficult, for l'Chol connotes a Klal. We should ask oppositely, that "l'Chol" [and] "Devar ha'Mizbe'ach" are two adjacent Klalim;

[In such a case, we insert the Prat, v'Avadtem Avodas Matanah, between the Klalim, and judge them like a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal!

Ul'Chol is considered a Klal, just like b'Chol, like we expound "b'Chol Asher Tish'alcha Nafshecha" to be a Klal;

We say so in Bava Kama (54b, 64a) that b'Chol is a Klal.

Therefore, we should include what resembles the Prat, even what is not final Avodah, and even Avodas Siluk.

Suggestion: Perhaps we do not do so because the latter Klal is unlike the first Klal.

Rejection: We judge [like a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal] in such a case in Chulin (67a)!

Answer (to Question (2)): B'Chol and l'Chol by themselves are not considered Klalim, only when they are with an explicit word from the matter;

We find so regarding "b'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha ba'Bakar uva'Tzon uva'Yayin uva'Shechar", and in [Aseres] ha'Dibros it says "v'Chol Behemtecha."

Implied question: In Nazir (35a), we say that "Chamor Oh Shor Oh Seh" are Peratim, v'Chol is a Klal, and Behemah is another Prat! (V'Chol by itself is considered a Klal. The Maharsha points out that in our text there, the Klal is v'Chol Behemah, so there is no question at all.)

Answer #1: R. Eliezer taught that Drashah [in Nazir. Only he considers Kol to be a Klal even by itself.]

Answer #2: There is different, for first it says "Chamor Oh Shor Oh Seh", and then v'Chol. Here, v'Chol is at the beginning, so it is not a full Klal, and we do not judge it [like another Klal] in the methodology of Klal u'Ferat.

Support - Citation (Zevachim 4b): We should say that "Ya'aseh" is a Klal, and Zevach is a Prat"!

Citation (cont.): Had it written 'Ya'aseh Shelamim Zevach', we would say so. However, it says "Ya'aseh Zevach Shelamim", so this is a Klal that is not full...

Questions: Whom does the Gemara challenge, and why was it understood if we would not say so?

Answer: It seems that we challenge what was said above that he is liable for Zerikah, even though there is Haktarah afterwards. In any case he is liable, since it is final Avodah of the blood;

If so, one should be liable for arranging the Ma'arachah, for he does not do anything afterwards with wood of the Ma'arachah!

The Gemara answered that [afterwards] he arranges two logs.

We can explain the entire Sugya like this, including above, when we suggested that a Zar who arranged the Shulchan should be liable. This is easy to understand.

The Gemara answered that there are spoons [of Levonah], and these are all considered like one Avodah. (Therefore, arranging the Shulchan is not final Avodah.)

This is unlike Zerikah and Haktarah, for Haktarah is not Me'akev.

Explanation: This is because it is unlike other [Haza'os], for it has no Kabalah [of blood] in a Kli. Rather, he holds the head and body and sprinkles.

Also, the Mizbe'ach receives only its blood. Therefore, it was taught by itself.

Question #1: Why don't we say also one who squeezes blood of Olas ha'Of [against the wall of the Mizbe'ach]?

Question #2: Why don't we teach Haktarah regarding all Kodshim?

I looked in the Tosefta in Zevachim, and there it says Stam "ha'Maktir", and it teaches also squeezing [Olas] ha'Of.

My Tosefta is errant. This requires investigation [to see if it is] in another Tosefta.

Based on my version of the Tosefta, it seems that "ha'Maktir b'Olas ha'Of" means even one who is Maktir even Olas ha'Of;

Since for Chatas ha'Of, one is liable only for Haza'ah of the blood, since there is no Haktarah, unlike all Kodshim, we said that for Olas ha'Of, one is liable even for Haktarah

One is liable not only for squeezing the blood, which [resembles Haza'as Dam,] which applies even to Chatas ha'Of. Rather, one is liable even for Haktarah, which has no analog in Chatas ha'Of.

One is liable not only for Haktarah of other Kodshim, for Haktarah applies to all Kodshim. Rather, even for birds, which include Chatas ha'Of, in which there is no Haktarah, one is liable for Haktarah of Olas ha'Of.

Explanation: All of these are counted like one. Ha'Maktir b'Olas ha'Of is the second, and Nisuch ha'Yayin and Nisuch ha'Yayin make four in all.

Explanation: This includes Zerikah, Haza'os, Haktaros, Nisuch of wine and water, for all of them go on the Mizbe'ach.