1)

(a)Rebbi Elazar again restricts Rebbi Eliezer's ruling (Im Kareiv Kos Achas ... ) to bringing two cups at a time, and Rebbi Ya'akov establishes the Seifa Afilu Karvu Kulan Chutz me'Echad to mean Zug Echad. Having taught us the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim with regard to ...

1. ... Eivarim, the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it with regard to Kosos - because otherwise, we might have confined Rebbi Eliezer's ruling (Yikr'vu Kol ha'Roshim) to Eivarim, where the main Kaparah has already been attained be'Hechsher, but not to Kosos, which entails attaining now the Kaparah in a way that is not quite Kasher.

2. ... Kosos, the Tana needs to repeat it with regard to Eivarim to teach us that - the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Eliezer even where the main Kaparah has already been attained be'Hechsher.

2)

(a)The Mishnah in Parah discusses a case where water falls into a jar containing Mei Chatas. Rebbi Eliezer holds Yazeh Sh'tei Haza'os - the Kohen must sprinkle the Tamei Meis with Mei Chatas twice.

(b)The Chachamim - invalidate the Mei Chatas.

(c)Assuming that they hold Yesh Bilah (as we learned in our Mishnah), they will have to hold ...

1. ... Haza'ah Tzerichah Shi'ur.

2. ... Ein Mitztarfin Haza'os.

3)

(a)We initially assume that Rebbi Eliezer holds Yesh Bilah - because otherwise, what would be the point of sprinkling the Tamei Meis twice, seeing as perhaps both times it was the ordinary water that he sprinkled)?

(b)And we know that he holds Haza'ah Tzerichah Shi'ur - because otherwise, why would the Kohen need to sprinkle on him twice? Why will once not suffice? ...

(c)... and he argues with the Chachamim in that - he holds Haza'os Mitztarfin.

(d)The problem that remains is that - even if the Kohen does sprinkle twice, what guarantee is there that he will have sprinkled the full Shi'ur, and that both Haza'os were not from the ordinary water?

4)

(a)Resh Lakish answers Hacha be'Mai Askinan, she'Nis'arvu Achas be'Achas - one Shi'ur Haza'ah of ordinary water became mixed up with one Shi'ur of Mei Haza'ah, in which case between the two Haza'os, he definitely sprinkled the full Si'ur Haza'ah.

(b)Rava maintains that Rebbi Eliezer holds Haza'ah Ein Tzerichah Shi'ur, and the second Haza'ah - is a K'nas (a penalty, to deprive the Kohen of the pleasure of sprinkling with a lot of water).

5)

(a)According to Rav Ashi, Rebbi Eliezer holds Ein Bilah - and Haza'ah Einah Tzerichah Shi'ur (like Rava).

(b)And he argues with Rava - inasmuch as he does not hold of the K'nas.

(c)He does not concur with Resh Lakish, and establish the case she'Nis'arvu Achas be'Achas - because that conforms to Resh Lakish's opinion that Rebbi Eliezer holds Haza'ah Tzerichah Shi'ur, which he rejects, as we just explained.

(d)According to Rav Ashi, we know that the Tamei was actually sprinkled with the Mei Chatas - because seeing as only a Kol she'Hu of water fell into the Mei Chatas (as the Mishnah in Parah explicitly states), it is impossible that one of the Haza'os does not include the Mei Chatas.

6)

(a)Rebbi in a Beraisa states that, according to Rebbi Eliezer - who requires two Haza'os, Haza'ah Kol-she'Hu Metaheres.

(b)The basis of Rebbi's statement is - the principle that Haza'ah Einah Tzerichah Shi'ur.

(c)When Rebbi says Haza'ah Mechtzah Kasher, u'Mechtzah Pasul, he means that - not only does Haza'ah not require a Shiur, according to Rebbi Eliezer, but it doesn't even matter if it is mixed with something that is Pasul.

(d)This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Resh Lakish - who holds that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, Haza'ah Tzerichah Shi'ur.

7)

(a)In another Beraisa, in connection with Nitnin Lema'alah she'Nis'arvu be'Nitnin Lematah (the blood of a Chatas with the blood of an Olah), Rebbi Eliezer rules Yiten Lema'alah, ve'Ro'in ... ve'ha'Tachtonim Alu lo (the excerpts from the Beraisa, which we are about to clarify, section by section, runs parallel with our Mishnah. See Tosfos DH 've'Od'). The last statement means that - when he places the Shirayim Lematah (as Shirayim of the Chatas), he will automatically be Yotzei the Matanos of the Olah.

(b)This proves - that Yesh Bilah. Otherwise, why is he Yotzei either Korban? How does he know that he is not placing the blood of the Chatas below and that of the Olah above?

(c)... a Kashya on Rav Ashi, in whose opinion Rebbi Eliezer holds Ein Bilah.

(d)To refute this Kashya, we establish the Beraisa where the majority of the blood is from the Chatas, and the Kohen placed above the Chut ha'Sikra - the Shi'ur of the Matanos of the Olah plus a Mashehu.

8)

(a)The problem with the Seifa of the Beraisa 've'ha'Tachtonim Alu lo' is that - seeing as he placed the entire Shi'ur of the blood of the Olah plus a Mashehu above the Chut ha'Sikra, how can he be Yotzei the Olah with what he subsequently places Lematah (seeing as he may well have placed all the blood of the Olah above the Chut ha'Sikra)?

(b)When we answer le'Shem Shirayim, we mean that - ve'ha'Tachtonim Alu lo is not referring to the Olah, but to the Shirayim of the Chatas.

(c)The Beraisa continues Nasan le'Matah ve'Lo Nimlach (without asking advice), Rebbi Eliezer Omer Yachzor ve'Yiten Lema'alah ... . Had the Kohen asked, he would have been told - to place the Matanos above first (since the Matanos above the Chut ha'Sikra take precedence).

(d)According to the Rabbanan, the remainder of the blood must be poured into the Amah - because it is forbidden to abuse the blood of an Olah, even if it is to accommodate Matanos of a Chatas (by means of Ro'in).

9)

(a)This Beraisa poses on Rav Ashi on Rav Ashi inasmuch as - having sprinkled the Matanos Lematah, placing the rest Lema'alah will only make sense if the Tana holds Yesh Bilah.

(b)We answer (like we answered in the previous case) - by establishing the Beraisa where the majority of the blood was from the Chatas, and the Kohen subsequently placed the Shi'ur of blood from the Olah plus a Mashehu above the Chut ha'Sikra.

(c)And the Seifa ve'ha'Tachtonim Alu lo - will therefore refer (not to the blood of the Olah, but to the Shirayim of the Chatas [as we explained above]).

10)

(a)The Beraisa continues Nasnan Lema'alah ... Eilu va'Eilu Modim she'Yachzor Veyiten Lematah. This time, even the Rabbanan (who rule in the previous case Yishafech le'Amah) agree with Rebbi Eliezer - since in any case, the remainder of the blood needs to be placed below the Chut, irrespective of whether it is from the Olah or from the Chatas.

(b)Here too, according to Rav Ashi, we establish the case where the majority of the blood was from the Chatas ... . According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer - who holds Ein Bilah, only the Chatas is Kasher (as we explained earlier).

2. ... the Rabbanan - who hold Yesh Bilah, both Korbanos are Kasher.

(c)And the Seifa (which does not say Eilu va'Eilu Modim, but) Eilu va'Eilu Alu lo - goes according to the Rabbanan.

11)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah ha'Nitnin be'Matanah Achas she'Nis'arvu be'Matanah Achas, Yinasnu be'Matanah Achas ... Matan Arba be'Matan Arba, Yinasnu be'Matan Arba. We know that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with these rulings - because, since he speaks in the Seifa, and does not comment in the Reisha, we can assume that he agrees with the Tana Kama.

(b)Rav Ashi, who holds Ein Bilah (according to Rebbi Eliezer) will explain ...

1. ... the Reisha - where sufficient blood for one Matanah became mixed up with the same amount of blood.

2. ... the Seifa - where sufficient blood for four Matanos became mixed up with the same amount of blood.

(c)We ask the same Kashya on Rav Ashi from the Seifa Matan Arba be'Matan Achas, Rebbi Eliezer Omer Yinasnu be'Matan Arba, as we asked from the Reisha. We suggest that maybe here too, the Mishnah speaks be'Nis'arev be'Achas - sufficient blood for the one Matanah of a B'chor became mixed up with sufficient blood for the four Matanos of an Olah or a Shelamim.

(d)We reject this suggestion however - because if, all in all, there is only enough blood for five Matanos, how will we explain the bal Tosif of Rebbi Yehoshua.