Question (Ri): In Kidushin (14a), we asked "it is really true that whenever it says Chukah, we do not expound a Kal va'Chomer?!" Regarding Yom Kipur...

The Gemara concludes "this is because it says v'Asahu Chatas. If not for this, we would expound a Kal va'Chomer.

What was the Gemara's question? A Stam Sifra is R. Yehudah. He holds that Chukah does not apply to the lottery!

Answer #1 (R. Shimshon of Kutzi): The Gemara asks because below (60b), R. Yehudah needs "Zos" and "Achas" to teach that Chukah does not apply to matters done in the white garments outside [the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim];

Inference: We expound a Kal va'Chomer even when it says Chukah.

Proof by contradiction: If you would say not (i.e. we do not expound a Kal va'Chomer when it says Chukah), the Torah should have omitted [Zos and Achas];

Question: Had it not written Zos and Achas, I would say that Chukah applies to everything!

Answer: No. Since it would apply also to the lottery, if so, it would not have needed to write v'Asahu [to override the Kal va'Chomer and teach that the lottery is Me'akev, since Chukah applies to it, and one may not expound a Kal va'Chomer]!

Conclusion: Rather, you must say that had it not written v'Asahu, one might have thought that even though Chukah applies to everything, the lottery is not Me'akev, due to the Kal va'Chomer;

Inference: Even though it says Chukah, we expound a Kal va'Chomer.

Note: R. Shimshon's answer assumes three things. 1) There is nothing else we could expound from v'Asahu. 2) Once we prove that Chukah does not apply to the lottery, it is clear that it applies only to Avodah in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. If we could say that it applies to everything except for the lottery, we would still need Zos and Achas to exclude Chukah from Avodah outside. 3) The Gemara considered this entire reasoning obvious, and did not need to explain it.

Objection #1 (Tosfos): Even if Chukah applies to everything, and we do not expound a Kal va'Chomer where it says Chukah, the Torah still needed to write v'Asahu, to teach that a lottery is not Mekadesh elsewhere, like I explained above!

Objection #2: Even if Chukah applies to everything, we need v'Asahu to teach about the lottery (that it is Me'akev), for the lottery is not Avodah.

Answer #2: We can say that the Gemara did not mean specifically Chukah. There is a different reason why it is Me'akev, i.e. the Torah repeated twice [Asher Alah];

This (the repetition) is like Chukah. The Gemara asks "is it true that wherever a verse teaches that something is Me'akev, we do not expound a Kal va'Chomer? Regarding Yom Kipur, it says "Goral", and it says Chukah!"

Chukah connotes Ikuv according to R. Nechemyah. According to R. Yehudah, there is another Ikuv, i.e. the repetition.

The lottery is Me'akev only because it says v'Asahu. If not for this, we would have expounded a Kal va'Chomer, even though it was proper to expound "Asher Alah... Asher Alah" to be Me'akev;

Even though it is not written like a command, and it looks like mere narration, since it says Chukah, it was proper to say that it is Me'akev due to Chukah and the two "Asher Alah"s.

Rather, the Kal va'Chomer uproots this reasoning, and we establish Chukah for other matters, and we say that Asher Alah... Asher Alah is mere narration.

Conclusion of the Gemara in Kidushin: Also here regarding Yevamah, it says Kachah for an Ikuv, we should make a Kal va'Chomer to teach that a Get permits her [to marry a stranger], and the Ikuv Kachah teaches about other matters!

Implied question: Why didn't the Beraisa discuss [Korban Oleh v'Yored of] Shevu'as ha'Edus, which is written earlier (Vayikra 5:1? The following verse discusses Tum'as Mikdash.)

Answer: The Beraisa discusses what is more common.

Explanation: All hold like Rav Chisda, who says that Kinim are specified only [at the time of purchase or Hakravah].

Explanation: This does not mean that they go to Nedavah of the Tzibur, for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach (Olos to bring when the Altar is idle.

Proof: It says in Shevuos (12b) that we do not bring birds for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach. Rather, it is an individual's Nedavah.

Question: The words of the Gemara "it goes to Nedavah" are difficult. This always means the [boxes shaped like] Shofaros [in which people put money] for Nedavah of the Tzibur!

Answer: "We do not bring birds for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach" means that l'Chatchilah, we do not buy birds with money of Nedavah for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach. However, if such birds happen to be available, like here, we use them for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach.

Question: Why don't we bring it for an individual's Olah, like in Nazir 24a?

Citation (24a): If a woman vowed to be a Nezirah, and separated her animal (for Korban Nazir), and her husband annulled her Nezirus... the Chatas dies, the Olah is offered for an Olah, and the Shelamim is offered for a Shelamim.

Answer #1: There is different, since she already separated all of her animals. They were fixed [to be offered] for her;

Here, he did not buy all his Korbanos, so they were not fixed for him. Therefore, it (the Olah) goes to Nidvas Tzibur.

Answer #2: Here it says Stam "it goes to Nedavah", and did not say "it is offered for an Olah", like it says there, because it makes no difference;

There is no difference between an Olas ha'Of brought for a need, and one that is Nidvas Tzibur.

Neither requires Semichah or Nesachim, for these do not apply to birds.

However, when Olas Behemah comes for an individual, he supplies the Nesachim, and a man's Olah requires Semichah;

When the Tzibur brings a Nedavah, the Nesachim are from the Tzibur, and there is no Semichah;

If a Kohen brings his own Olah, he has the right to offer it himself and keep the skin. If it is Nidvas Tzibur, the Mishmar (the division of Kohanim serving that week) offers it and receives the skin.

All this is explicit in Temurah 20b.

Implied question: [Even regarding Olas ha'Of,] it makes a difference whether it is his or of the Tzibur regarding offering it. If it is his, he may offer it even if his Mishmar is not serving this week!

Answer: Since if he is not a Kohen there is no difference, we say Stam that it goes to Nedavah.

Implied question: Why didn't the Gemara discuss [the weight of] the ribbon on the goat offered on the inner Mizbe'ach?

Answer: That ribbon was merely so the goat will not become confused [with other goats], so it had no Shi'ur;

There is a need for the other ribbons, so they had a Shi'ur.

We needed a ribbon on the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, to know whether it turned white, like it says "[even if your sins are red,] ka'Sheleg Yalbinu."