Explanation: [It is R. Nechemyah,] who says that if one offered Shirayim of blood outside he is liable. He could not teach three exemptions together with three Chiyuvim (for he never exempts outside).

Our entire Sugya connotes that R. Nechemyah discusses outer blood.

Question #1 (Ri of Orlins): Below (111a), we say "now that Rav Ada bar Ahavah said that they argue about inner Shirayim, but all agree that outer Shirayim are not Me'akev. R. Nechemyah discusses inner Shirayim!"

Question #2: R. Yochanan said there (111a) that R. Nechemyah [obligate for offering Shirayim outside, for he] holds like the opinion that Shirayim are Me'akev. Here we find that if one offered outer [Shirayim] outside he is liable, and they are not Me'akev;

Source: It says here according to R. Nechemyah two exemptions for outer blood, and one Chiyuv. Since intent does not take effect on it, and it need not be laundered, if so it is not Me'akev!

Question #3: If Shirayim of outer blood put on the Yesod were Me'akev, if so we find that blood is partially below and partially above, and we never find this in one place, like it says above (38a)!

Question #4: Are [outer Shirayim] better than [the last] three Matanos of a Chatas?

Question #5: We say below (112a) regarding a Chatas whose blood was received in two cups, which we establish like R. Nechemyah... A parable for this [is one who was Makdish his Chatas, lost it, was Makdish another, and then found the first...]

We establish it to discuss the goat (Chatas) of a Nasi. This shows that R. Nechemyah discusses outer Chata'os, similar to the goat of a Nasi!

Answer: This (Question #5) is not difficult. Even though the parable discusses Se'ir Nasi, the Reisha does not discuss Se'ir Nasi.

Answer #1 (to all questions): We must say that our Sugya is unlike R. Yochanan (who says that R. Nechemyah holds that Shirayim are Me'akev).

Implied question: [If so,] the Beraisa is difficult for R. Yochanan! (Why did the Beraisa distinguish between blood destined for the Yesod, and what is destined for Amah, and not distinguish within what is destined for the Yesod, between inner Chata'os and outer Chata'os? Our Sugya answered that the Beraisa is R. Nechemyah, and he does not totally exempt outer Shirayim. R. Yochanan cannot say so, for he holds that R. Nechemyah obligates only what is Me'akev - Panim Me'iros!)

Answer: It does not distinguish within [what is destined for the Yesod, between inner Chata'os and outer Chata'os] because it totally discusses inner Chata'os.

Comment - Answer #2: R. Yochanan said that R. Nechemyah holds like the opinion that inner Shirayim are Me'akev. If he would [throw] them outside [l'Shem Avodah], he would be liable;

If so, we should obligate even for outer [Shirayim], even though they are not Me'akev, for we learn from limbs and Chelev.

Implied question: You can challenge this - limbs and Chelev are initial Avodah!

Answer: Inner Shirayim are Yochi'ach (one is liable even for final Avodah).

Implied question: You cannot learn from inner Shirayim, for they are Me'akev!

Answer: Limbs and Chelev are Yochi'ach (one is liable even for what is not Me'akev).

Question: Below (111a), we call inner Shirayim initial Avodah!

Comment - Answer #3 (R. Tam, to Ri of Orlins): The truth is, R. Nechemyah discusses even outer Shirayim, since he taught Stam Shirayim - there is no difference between inner and outer [Shirayim];

The Sugya below (111a) means as follows. Now that Rav Ada bar Ahavah said that they argue about inner Shirayim, but all agree that outer Shirayim are not Me'akev, R. Nechemyah discusses inner Shirayim!

Explanation: When he said that Shirayim are Me'akev from "v'Chilah mi'Kaper", this refers to inner Shirayim. That Beraisa refers to outer Shirayim;

I.e. the Beraisa of R. Nechemyah and R. Akiva refers to outer Shirayim. All this is from the words of Rav Ada;

Implied question: According to R. Akiva, the Gemara says that R. Akiva said that Shirayim are Shirei (remnants of a) Mitzvah, this connotes that there is no difference between inner and outer [Shirayim]!

Answer: This is not difficult for Rav Ada. R. Akiva answered according to his own opinion. He argues with R. Nechemyah, and he holds that Shirayim are not Me'akev, even inner Shirayim;

R. Nechemyah holds that really, inner [Shirayim] are Me'akev, and outer Shirayim are not Me'akev, and even so, one is liable for all of them outside;

R. Yochanan holds that even outer Shirayim are Me'akev according to R. Nechemyah.

Observation: This was not difficult, that we do not find any Tana who holds that outer [Shirayim] are Me'akev, for surely there is some Tana who holds that outer [Shirayim] are Me'akev;

Rather, [R. Yochanan] was refuted about the following. He holds that R. Nechemyah holds that outer [Shirayim] are Me'akev, and the reason why R. Nechemyah obligates outside is because they are Me'akev. Surely this is wrong.

Question #1 (against R. Tam): You are forced to say that no Tana holds that outer Shirayim are Me'akev, like I explained, for we do not find blood that is half below and half above!

Question #2: Also, according to R. Nechemyah we cannot say that outer Shirayim are Me'akev, like is proven in Yoma (60a);

R. Yehudah and R. Nechemyah argue about matters done in the white garments outside. R. Yehudah holds that they are not Me'akev, and R. Nechemyah holds that they are Me'akev;

R. Yochanan explains that both of them expound one verse - "v'Haysah Zos Lachem..." - it says Zos, and it says Achas. R. Yehudah says that one excludes [from being Me'akev matters done in] the white garments outside, and one excludes the gold garments outside;

R. Nechemyah holds that one excludes [matters done in] the gold garments, and one excludes Shirayim, that they are not Me'akev.

There, [the Gemara] properly asks a contradiction in R. Yochanan, against R. Yochanan's teaching below, that R. Nechemyah taught like the opinion that Shirayim are Me'akev. It leaves this difficult.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is written regarding Par Helam Davar of the Tzibur. The verse is not needed, for all its Avodos were explained, except for Yoseres ha'Kaved (the diaphragm) and the two kidneys, which it needs to learn from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, taught above it.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps the Torah equated them for this matter (Yoseres ha'Kaved and the kidneys)!

Rejection: The verse writes Kaparah - "v'Chiper Aleihem", and the Eimurim are not Me'akev Kaparah.

Inference: If we could establish [the Hekesh] to teach about Avodas Dam, we would not establish it to "double" Haza'os (to be a second source, to teach that they are Me'akev).

Question: According to R. Shimon below (40a, the Gemara) wanted to say that he needs "Ken Ya'aseh" to teach about four Matanos, for four Matanos are not written regarding Helam Davar, and it is learned from "Keranos" of [Par] Kohen Mashi'ach. (Two Matanos are written about each Par. "Ken Ya'aseh" teaches that for each, we do also the two Matanos written about the other.)

If so, I can say that we need Ka'asher Asah for four Matanos. If so, what is the source to double Haza'os (teach that they are Me'akev)?

Explanation #2: It seems that "v'Asah" comes to double whatever is written in the Parshah.

Defense (for Explanation #1): We can say for Rashi that "v'Asah" does not connote to add to Par Helam two Matanos written about Kohen Mashi'ach, for it is not evident that [Par Helam] is lacking any Haza'ah. Rather, the two of Par Helam are the same two as of Mashi'ach. (V'Asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah cannot teach four Matanos. We can learn this only from Ken Ya'aseh.)

Question: Perhaps "v'Asah... Ka'asher Asah" comes for [what we expound (40a) from] "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah, which are not written regarding Par Helam Davar, and they are written regarding Par Kohen, according to Rashi, and not to double Haza'os!

Answer: [What we expound from] "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah is not a Chisaron (lack) of Avodah, rather, it is doing Avodah properly. "V'Asah... Ka'asher Asah" does not apply to it. This is from R. Baruch.

Explanation #1: Below (40a), we say that we need ["v'Asah... "] only for [what we expound from] "Es", "b'Dam" and Tevilah, but not to teach Ikuv, for Chukah is written in [the Parshah, which teaches that it is Me'akev].

Question #1: Why does it say "v'Asah... " to "double" Haza'os? I already know this from the Hekesh to Par Yom Kipur!

Question #2: According to R. Yehudah, who expounds below (40a) v'Chilah mi'Kaper - if he finished [the Haza'os], he was Mechaper, and if he did not finish, he was not Mechaper, to teach that the Haza'os of Yom Kipur are Me'akev...

I should know this from the Hekesh to Par Helam Davar!

Partial answer (to Question #2): According to the version below (52b) and in Yoma (60b) that according to R. Yehudah, Shirayim are Me'akev, this is fine. (V'Chilah mi'Kaper teaches that Shirayim are Me'akev);

However, according to one who says that they argue only about how the law is expounded, and Shirayim are not Me'akev according to R. Yehudah, it is difficult. We do not need v'Chilah mi'Kaper to teach that Haza'os are Me'akev, for we learn from Par Helam Davar!

Answer: We need v'Chilah to teach about the seven Haza'os on Tiharo (the top or middle) of the inner Mizbe'ach, which do not apply to Par Helam Davar.

Comment - Question: This itself we should learn from Par Helam Davar through the Hekesh!

Suggestion: Par Yom Kipur is equated to Par Helam Davar, but Par Helam Davar is not equated to Par Yom Kipur.

Rejection: We learn (111a) Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys in Par Helam Davar from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, which we learn from a Yitur (something extra) in this verse. (This shows that this verse teaches also about Par Helam Davar.)

Also according to R. Shimon below (40a), we learn the four Matanos in [Par] Helam [Davar] from [Par] Kohen Mashi'ach. We should learn also Ikuv in tradition from Sinai from Par Yom Kipur!

Explanation #2: Therefore it seems to me that v'Asah comes for Ikuv, to teach about [Par] Kohen Mashi'ach and Se'irei Avodah Zarah, which are written in this verse, from a Yitur, to teach that their Matanos are Me'akev;

Korbanos that come from a Yitur in this verse, we do not learn them from each other.

Observation: This answer cannot be according to Rashi's Perush below (40b DH Zeh). He explained that "Es... b'Dam" is not written regarding [Par] Helam. It is written only regarding Kohen Mashi'ach, and we learn Yom Kipur from Mashi'ach;

Since Korbanos learned from a Yitur, we learn from each other, if so the Torah could have omitted v'Asah, and we would learn Ikuv in all of them from Par Yom Kipur.

Remark: However, R. Tam rejected Rashi's Perush, like he explains below. This is from R. Baruch.

Explanation #3: Surely, we do not learn Ikuv in Par Helam Davar from Par Yom Kipur, for those Parshiyos are far from each other. However, Par Helam from Par Kohen Mashi'ach we properly learn for Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys and four Matanos, since the Parshiyos are close to each other. This is from R. Baruch

Support: According to this it is fine that we do not learn the seven [Haza'os] on Tiharo from Par Yom Kipur, for those Parshiyos are far from each other;

However, "Par" helps for this, that it is extra to expound "this is Par Yom Kipur", through which we learn laws of Helam.

Implied question: According to Rashi's Perush, that we properly learn Par Helam from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, why do we not learn the seven on Tiharo and the eight [Haza'os] on the Paroches in Par Helam Davar from Par Yom Kipur?

Answer: This is because since it says in [Par Helam Davar] "v'Hizah Sheva Pa'amim Lifnei Hash-m Es Pnei ha'Paroches v'Gam Yiten Al Karnos", if you add, you did not fulfill the verse, and it seems that the verse is false;

However, the four that we learn [in Par Helam Davar] from "Karnos", this is because Karnos properly [can] mean many, once on each corner, i.e. four.

Implied question: Regarding Se'irei Avodah Zarah, we learn from [Par] Helam that we put seven [Haza'os] on the p1c from a Hekesh. Also Se'irei ha'Regalim [we would have learned], if not for an exclusion!

Answer: That is because Avodas ha'Dam is not written at all regarding them. Rather, they are written Stam. If so, this does not contradict the verse.

Implied question: It says about the Eimurim "Kol Chelbo", and we add Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys!

Answer: This is because there is no Haktarah without Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys. This is from R. Baruch.

Question: How could we include it? [Inner Chata'os are burned, but] the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh was eaten, like it is written "Darash Darash Moshe v'Hinei Suraf"!

Answer: [The one who suggested this] comes to ask that Moshe should have expounded from here that it is burned, like inner [Chata'os]!

Implied question: Elsewhere, Semichah is not Me'akev!

Answer: One might have thought that here it is Me'akev, like Rashi explained, because v'Asah [la'Par] Ka'asher Asah refers to [Semichah and Shirayim].

Distinction: Regarding Haktaras Eimurim, we do not need [a Drashah] that it is not Me'akev, for it is not Me'akev anywhere. After the Korban was Kosher, will it revert to be Pasul?!

It is unlike Semichah, which is before Avodas ha'Dam. Also Shirayim are Avodas ha'Dam, and they are Me'akev according to some Tana'im.

Question: We should know this from what we expound below (52b) about Par Kohen Mashi'ach "v'Es Kol Dam ha'Par Yishpoch" - the Torah uprooted it and made it a remnant of a Mitzvah, to teach that Shirayim are not Me'akev;

We should expound similarly Yishpoch of Par Helam!

Answer: This is only regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach, like Rashi explained below (Sof 52a), that we expound since [the Torah] changed the wording;

In all the Avodos of [Par] Kohen Mashi'ach, it is written v'Lakach, v'Hizah, v'Nasan, and here it did not write v'Shafach Es Damo El Yesod, rather, Stam "Yishfoch". The Torah changed, to uproot it [so it will not be Me'akev];

However, here in Par Helam, the Torah did not change. It wrote also Yiten. Therefore, we need v'Nislach.

Implied question: Why couldn't we learn from the Hekesh of Par Kohen Mashi'ach to Par Helam Davar, to learn from there that it is not Me'akev?

Answer: This is because it was repeated, like it says there "a Kal v'Chomer [teaches] to Par Kohen Mashi'ach. If so, perhaps it is Me'akev!";

This is because what is written about it itself is as if it was repeated to teach that it is Me'akev, for even had it not been written, we would learn it from a Kal v'Chomer.

Question: Why does it say v'Nislach regarding Par Helam? We should learn from Kohen Mashi'ach that Shirayim are not Me'akev!

Do not say that we do not learn leniencies. We learn below that warts are not a Chatzitzah! This is from R. Baruch.

Explanation: At least outer Chata'os, all agree that [their] Shirayim are not Me'akev. However, we do not find anywhere that Haza'os are not Me'akev.

Question: This is difficult for R. Tam, who said that there is a Tana who says that outer Shirayim are Me'akev. It is difficult for that Tana. What is the source to disqualify [due to omitting] Haza'os, and to be Machshir [without Zerikas] Shirayim?

Answer: Perhaps he does not expound v'Nislach [to be Machshir without Zerikas Shirayim. Or, he does not expound it at all! - Shalmei Todah]

Proof: According to the opinion that inner Shirayim are Me'akev, you are forced to say that he says so about all inner [Chata'os], since [Rav Ada] said "they argue about inner Shirayim, but [all agree that outer Shirayim are not Me'akev]", and he did not say "they argue about Shirayim of [Par] Yom Kipur, but [Shirayim of] other inner [Chata'os] are not Me'akev."