Question: Even regarding Chulin, l'Chatchilah one must slaughter the entire Simanim (Chulin 27a)!

The majority does not suffice, lest he not cut the majority.

Answer: That is when one person slaughters. When two slaughter, [e.g. here, that the Kohen Gadol already slaughtered and desisted, if another comes and does Merikah, it looks like Shehiyah (a pause during Shechitah, which disqualifies);

It looks like two slaughtered the Korban. We should forbid [another] to be Memarek!

The Gemara answers that it is a Mitzvah to be Memarek, in order to receive all the blood.

Question: Why doesn't he list also Terumas ha'Deshen, which is the beginning of the Avodah of the day?

Answer #1: We must say that since sometimes we do it from [the end of] the Ashmores (third of the night) or from midnight, he does not list it, for there is a big interruption between it and these Avodos that he lists.

The ones he lists, it was normal to do them one after the other.

Answer #2: The primary Mitzvah of Terumas ha'Deshen is only at night. These Avodos (that he lists), if they want to do them during the day, they may.

Question: If so, why do we need the previous verse "v'Esh ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo" for the second Ma'arachah? We can learn from this verse [that there is a second]!

Answer: If we learned only from here, one might have thought that we make a second Ma'arachah on the inner Mizbe'ach, just like we make the big Ma'arachah on the outer Mizbe'ach, since it comes for needs of the Ketores of the inner Mizbe'ach.

Therefore, we need "v'Esh ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo" [to teach that it is] on the outer Mizbe'ach, in the place of the big Ma'arachah.

Question: Why must we say this reason (it is a Machshir)? We should say that it is first because what is Tadir (more regular) always comes before what is not Tadir!

Arranging the logs is more Tadir, for it is twice every day, but Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach is only once [a day].

Answer: We learn from "Milvad Olas ha'Boker Asher l'Olas ha'Tamid" that what is Tadir comes first only when both matters are the same, [e.g.] both of them are Matanos (putting on the Mizbe'ach), like Tamid and Musaf;

We do not learn to according to a case like here, in which one is Avodas Matanah, and the other is Avodas Siluk (removal).

Reference:: In Zevachim (51a), regarding pouring Shirei ha'Dam (leftover blood) on the western Yesod, the Gemara learns from "El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" - the one he encounters first;

Inference: This is because Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos.

Rashi's text (there): It does not say "the one he encounters first." We learn from "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed";

The western Yesod of the Mizbe'ach was opposite the opening [of the Heichal].

Support #1: The Gemara there discusses pouring Shirei ha'Dam on the western Yesod. It explains that we learn about his descent from the ramp from leaving the Heichal;

Just like when he leaves the Heichal, [he puts the Shirayim on] what is closest, i.e. the western Yesod, when he descends from the ramp, [he puts on] what is closest, i.e. the southern Yesod;

If we learned from Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos that [Shirayim of] inner Chata'os are spilled on the western Yesod, why was it more obvious that inner Chata'os are on the western Yesod, than that [Shirayim of] outer Chata'os are spilled on the southern Yesod? (I.e. why did we need to learn the latter from the former?)

The reason Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos applies to both of them!

Support #2: In Zevachim (58b), the Gemara asked 'Shirei ha'Dam are explicitly written - "Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed"!'

Question: Why do we need a verse? Why don't we learn from Reish Lakish's law, that Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos?

Reish Lakish's law applies only when one wants to do both Mitzvos. He does first the Mitzvah he encounters first;

When he will do only one, we do not learn from it (that Ein Ma'avirin). Rather, we would do only the one that is more Tadir, and not the one that is less Tadir. (See Tosfos Megilah 6b DH Mistaber.)

Note: Tif'eres l'Moshe and Mishmaros Kehunah explain that if not for "Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", we would spill Shirayim of the southern Yesod, which is more Tadir for Shirayim. Si'ach Yitzchak disagrees [for without this verse, we would not know which Yesod is Tadir]!

Rashi's opinion:: This forbids putting Tefilin on the head before on the hand, for he passes over the Mitzvah of hand Tefilin, for he e9c the arm before the head.

Question: Why does this depend on Reish Lakish's law? We know this from a Drashah in Menachos (36a)!

Citation (36a): One put Tefilin on the hand and afterwards on the head, for it says "u'Kshartam l'Os Al Yadecha", and afterwards "v'Hayu l'Totafos Bein Einecha."

Opinion #2 (R. Tam citing Rav Hai Gaon): Our Gemara discusses removing Tefilin and putting them in their case;

He may not pass over the hand Tefilin, and put it in the case first, and afterwards the head Tefilin above it;

If he would do so, the next time he dons Tefilin, he will encounter the head Tefilin first, and he will need to pass over Mitzvos and put on the hand Tefilin first, like I explained (due to the Drashah in Menachos).

Therefore, he must and put the head Tefilin in the case first, and afterwards the hand Tefilin above.

Opinion #3: R. Eliyahu explains that our Gemara discusses touching Tefilin;

One must constantly touch his Tefilin. We learn from a Kal va'Chomer from the Tzitz (the Kohen Gadol may not divert his mind from it);

Our Gemara teaches that one touched the hand Tefilin first, and afterwards the head Tefilin.

Question: We should apply to both "ba'Boker"s to the blood of the Tamid, to teach that it precedes Dishun of Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, for now [Dam ha'Tamid] will have there, and Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi will have [only] two.

Answer #1: It is unreasonable to put both of them on a place where only one is written, and on Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, where two are written, we do not put any!

Is the native on the ground, and the foreigner is in the sky?! (This is opposite of what is reasonable.)

Answer #2: If so, the Torah should not have written only one ba'Boker regarding the logs, and we would apply to it to Dam ha'Tamid, so it will precede Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.

Implied question: If so, it would say "ba'Boker" twice regarding both of them! (We would not know which had precedence.)

Answer: What is Mechaper (Dam ha'Tamid) is preferable.

Since the Torah wrote ba'Boker twice, this teaches that we must apply one of them to Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.

Question: It says "ba'Boker ba'Boker" many times regarding the Tamid in Parshas Tetzaveh and Parshas Pinchas!

Answer: They are all considered like one, since they are not written together the way they were regarding the logs and Neros, about which it says "ba'Boker ba'Boker";

[The Tamid] is like a Parshah that was taught and repeated. (We expound only the Chidush, but not everything repeated.)

Implied question: Above, we said that regarding the Tamid it says "ba'Boker ba'Boker"!

Answer: That refers only to Dam ha'Tamid.

Question: We should apply one "ba'Boker" written regarding the logs to Dam ha'Tamid, to teach that it precedes Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi...

Interjection of implied question: If so, it would say "ba'Boker" twice regarding both of them! (We would not know which had precedence.)

Answer: What is Mechaper (Dam ha'Tamid) is preferable.

Continuation of Question (c): And we should apply one "ba'Boker" to the limbs of the Tamid, to teach that it precedes fixing two Neros!

Implied question: If so, it would say "ba'Boker" twice regarding both of them! (We would not know which had precedence.)

Answer: We would [know to] put the limbs of the Tamid first, in order to interrupt within the Neros, for the Torah said to interrupt while fixing the Neros;

Rhetorical question: If we would not interrupt with the limbs, with what will we interrupt them?!

Answer: It is unreasonable to put both of them on the Tamid, like I explained above (for it says ba'Boker only once regarding the Tamid, and it says so twice regarding Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, and we do not put any there)!

Implied question: [The Hava Amina was not to put both of one matter, rather,] one is on the blood, and one is on the limbs!

Answer: In any case, since they are parts of one Korban, it is unreasonable to say so.