Implied question: Why is this unlike Keranos, in which we expound [also] the first?

Answer: "Keranos" connotes the number [of corners], but "Sukos" does not connote the number of walls, rather, two Sukos. Therefore, we should not expound the first.

Question: This requires investigation regarding "Elohim" (judges). Also it connotes the number, and we do not expound the first!

Explanation: This is half of 70, and half of 14 (the two ways to read the word).

Explanation: Like the Shi'ur of her [Tum'as] Nidah, you should add [to Tum'as Leidah for] a female more than for a male.

Observation: In Sanhedrin (4a) we do not bring this [Drashah] k'Nidasah.

Question: Even outside from inside we want to learn, because it is a Chatas and [blood is put on] four Keranos. All the more so we should learn inside from inside!

And below (39a) we require a verse for each inner [Chatas] to teach [that all Matanos are] Me'akev]. We do not learn them from each other!

[The Gemara] expounds "la'Par" - this is Par Yom Kipur. "Ka'Asher Asah la'Par" refers to the Par of a Mashu'ach (for transgressing through his own mistaken Hora'ah), to equate it to Par Helam Davar of the Tzibur, to teach [that every Matanah is] Me'akev. Why do we need a verse [for each, and not learn them from each other]?

Question: Why did he interrupt from the order in which he began to expound? He should have said v'Chiper, even though he put above only once, and three below!

Answer: It connotes to him to expound that they will do below only like what is done l'Chatchilah with blood that should be put below;

Two above and two below that it says, i.e. he does below one that is two [he throws at one edge, and the blood goes on two sides]. Similarly, "v'Chiper even though he put all of them below" means like other blood put below (two Matanos that are four);

However, if you will say one above and three below, below he does one that is two and one that is one.

Comment: These are two deviations - the majority is below, and also the one is not like the law of blood below. However, three above and one below, even though the one [below] is not like the law [of blood below], we are not concerned for this, since the majority is above. Until here is a comment.

Answer (cont.): Rava answers "which matter needs [the Torah to write] three [times] v'Chiper? This is the Keranos";

Explanation: According to you (the Makshan), it suffices to write twice v'Chiper. Since we do not need a verse for one above and three below, since it is not like the law of blood put below...

If so, also three above and one below, even though the majority is above, should not need a verse, since it is not like the law of blood below, for every [Matanah] below from what requires four [Matanos] is one that is two!

Answer (cont.): [The Gemara] asks "we should say v'Chiper even though he put only one above and three below, and not all below", and not be concerned for this reasoning, for it is better to be Machshir one above than all below!

Comment: We can explain that Rashi holds that [the Makshan holds that] since the third v'Chiper teaches about three below, since when the majority is below, it is Kosher, the same applies when all are below;

[Rava] counters, for what matter did [the Torah] need [to write] v'Chiper three times...? According to you, it should have written v'Chiper four times! Also your [explanation] is not good.

After, [the Gemara] asks that perhaps only three below is Kosher, but not all of them.

Disclaimer: However, [Rava's words "what matter] needs three", which connotes "and according to you, it does not need three", connotes like Tosfos explained. Until here is a comment.

Question: Why don't we expound these occurrences of v'Chiper [to teach] even if he did not put on the Keranos, i.e. on the edge, v'Chiper even though he did not put with the finger, v'Chiper even though he did not put four Matanos, rather, two Matanos that are four? (Tosfos does not answer this.)

Implied question: Why don't we ask that here we expound v'Chiper totally, and even the meat may be eaten, and above (26b) we expounded "I gave (was Machshir blood put in the wrong place) for Kaparah, but not for something else [to eat the meat]"?

Answer: We can distinguish between "Lechaper" (which we expounded there) and "v'Chiper" (which we expound here).

Question: What did the Makshan think? A Mishnah explicitly teaches this (Yoma 53b). He did not intend to sprinkle above or below, rather, like one who is Matzlif (flicks his hand)!

Answer: He comes to answer that k'Matzlif is like one who whips. Everything (both those above and below, goes) in one place, like the Aruch explains "like one who lifts his hand, but does not lash until he lowers it";

Note: The Ritva (Yoma 15a) says that the Makshan understood the Mishnah simply, that one is above and seven are below; "he did not intend to sprinkle above or below" refers to the position of his hand. Tosfos ha'Rosh there says that he understood "... to sprinkle above", i.e. at the very top of the Paroches, "or below", at the very bottom.

The Yerushalmi says that k'Matzlif is k'Metavrer. The Aruch explains that he is like one who lifts his hand, but does not lash until he lowers it until the navel.

Explanation #1 (Tosfos): If so, we find blood that is half above and half below, for initially he put on the corners, and afterwards at half [the height of] the Mizbe'ach.

Explanation #2: Rashi explained differently. (He cannot be exact, so some will be above half the height, and some will be below.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Beis Shamai] hold that two Matanos are Mefagel, but not one, for we are not Mefagel in half a Matir.

Question: We should say that "Mefaglos" is in one [Matanah], and according to Beis Hillel only in the first, and all hold that we are Mefagel in half a Matir!

If so, even in Pigul sometimes there is a stringency according to Beis Shamai. If he put the first properly and the second Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul, and according to Beis Hillel it is not Pigul, like he says in our Mishnah.

Answer #1: We must say that since Beis Hillel say that the first [Matanah] is Mefagel, this implies that Beis Shamai hold that it is not Mefagel. [If not, Beis Hillel] should have said [that he is Mefagel] in the first, but not in the second.

Also, we can say that ["Mefaglos"] is like "they permit", i.e. only both of them are Mefaglos.

Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak): This is explicitly proven in the Tosefta. R. Eliezer ben Yakov said that this is a leniency of Beis Shamai and a stringency of Beis Hillel. Two Matanos of a Chatas are Machshir and Mefagel;

Citation (Tosefta): What is the case? If one [Matanah] was Chutz li'Zmano and the blood spilled, it is Pasul and there is no Kares according to Beis Shamai. Beis Hillel say that it is Pasul and there is Kares;

Inference: In one [Matanah] there is no Pigul according to Beis Shamai.

Possibility #1: It connotes that it is because the blood spilled and they did not offer all the Matirim, but if the blood did not spill and they put the second Matanah properly it is Pigul, for we are Mefagel in half a Matir, unlike Rashi explained.

And according to Beis Hillel he was Mefagel, because all the Matirim were offered.

Possibility #2: Or, perhaps even if the blood did not spill and they put the second Matanah properly it is not Pigul according to Beis Shamai, for we are not Mefagel in half a Matir;

It mentioned that the blood spilled due to Beis Hillel, to teach that this is [considered that] all the Matirim were offered.

Observation: Now, no matter what you will say, even if Beis Shamai hold that we are Mefagel in half a Matir, they are [more] lenient.

Question: Still, it is difficult to me. Why did [Rava] answer [that this was taught to answer] the question about [how many Zerikos are needed] to permit?

Even if it was asked about Pigul, Beis Shamai are more stringent when the blood did not spill, and he put the first properly and was Mefagel in the second, for we are Mefagel in half a Matir!

Question: [R. Oshaya] should say that only when it spilled it is a leniency of Beis Shamai. Why should it teach in Eduyos the leniency of when it spilled, since without spilling, it is a stringency?!

Answer: We should say that this case (without spilling) is not taught explicitly in a Mishnah or Beraisa. However, the Beraisa (Tosefta), when it spilled, is a leniency according to Beis Shamai. Therefore, he asks that it should be taught in Eduyos.

Question: According to Rashi, the support for Rav Papa is rejected. The Gemara should have said "Ela"!

Explanation: It seems that this is an answer for Rav Papa. The reason is because we find according to R. Nechemyah that it must be laundered when he is liable outside...

Also according to Rabanan, since he is liable for the [last] three Matanos of a Chatas, likewise it requires laundering. Laundering and Chiyuv outside are the same. This is obvious. It does not need any proof! (Rabanan do not argue with R. Nechemyah about this.)

[The Gemara] asks "we heard R. Nechemyah say so about Ha'alah. Did we hear him say so about laundering?!"

If so, we do not infer "[what splashed from the Yesod not,] but what is proper for the Yesod [obligates laundering]", and likewise we do not infer "but what is proper for the Keren [obligates laundering]"!

It answers "yes (he said so about laundering)! A Beraisa teaches...", and the entire Sugya upholds the support for Rav Papa, until at the end it responds "rather, the Beraisa discusses inner blood", and [Rav Papa's support] is rejected. However, Rav Papa said all this to fulfill his words.

Note: Mishmeros Kehunah says that the following begins a new Dibur that pertains to 39a.

Citation (39a): [The Beraisa discusses the last three Matanos of] inner blood.

Explanation: Therefore, intent takes effect on them. We discuss Shirayim, like the wording of the Beraisa connotes "it needs [to be poured on] the Yesod", and not the [last] three Matanos;

Since we discuss inner [Chata'os, the last three Matanos] are like the first Matanah, since all four are Me'akev according to everyone. [The Tana] would not call this "what requires the Yesod"!

In the Seifa they cannot argue about outer blood, for R. Nechemyah is the one who obligates for their Shirayim outside. If so, he cannot teach that he is exempt for three!

Explanation: The Seifa [which obligates for] what is proper for the Yesod, is like R. Nechemyah. The Reisha [which obligates for] what is proper for the Keren, is like Rabanan.

Support #1: We find like this in Menachos (95a). A Beraisa teaches that [Shtei ha'Lechem] are baked inside [the Azarah]. This teaches that the oven is Mekadesh (if they were baked outside, they would be disqualified due to Yotzei. Baking them is not Docheh Shabbos, and Linah disqualifies them. (The last two clauses were taught by different Tana'im. If one must bake them before Shabbos, he must hold that Linah does not disqualify them!)

Support #2: A Beraisa below (100b) teaches that the day one hears (that a close relative died) is like the day of burial [for Aveilus, and like the day of re-interment of the bones) for eating Pesach. For both of these, he immerses and eats Kodshim at night. The Reisha connotes that he may not eat Pesach on the night after Yom Kevurah, and the Seifa connotes that he may! Rav Chisda answers that different Tana'im taught the Reisha and Seifa.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] discusses this, until it says "rather, the Beraisa discusses the [last] three Matanos of a Chatas." In accurate Seforim, the text says "Ela". The latter Beraisa supports Rav Papa, and not the former.

Remark: According to this, we can explain the entire Sugya. Rashi explained our entire Sugya differently.