Reference: Above (50a DH Lo) I explained why we do not learn from a Binyan Av. (We cannot learn from Olah Chatas, and Asham, for they are Tadir (more frequent) than Kivsei Atzeres. Liability, we could ask that Kivsei Atzeres are called Shelamim, which do not require the north.)

Implied question: Why don't we equate it to Chatas regarding Matanos?

Answer: We expounded above (10a) "Osah" - [Chatas'] blood is put above, but no other blood is put above.

Implied question: What is the source that it is Me'akev? Regarding Olah we know Ikuv only from a Kal v'Chomer from Chatas, like Rav Ada bar Ahavah above (48b), that the Tafel should not be greater than the Ikar (what is primary);

Something learned from a Kal v'Chomer (Olah) cannot teach through a Hekesh (above, 50b! Really, there we proved that it can teach according to Rav Papa, but we could not resolve according to the opposing opinion - PF.)

Answer: Perhaps [this Tartzan] holds like Rav Papa.

Observation: We cannot say that [the Hekesh] teaches about four Matanos on the four Keranos, like I explained above (DH Mah Chatas, that we expounded that only Dam Chatas is put above).

Suggestion: Perhaps it teaches about separate Matanos, that he puts and returns and puts (he puts on each side by itself, and not two Matanos that are four), like R. Yishmael says about Olah (above, 53b)!

Answer: Since [Eil Nazir] is equated also to Olah, we should not make it different than Olah [unless we are forced].

Question: Below (97b) and in Menachos (82b) we learn from a different verse!

Question: Since [Eil Nazir] is equated to Chatas, it should be Pasul Lo Lishmah, like Chatas!

Partial answer: According to Rabanan, who expound (above 10a) "Osah" (only Chatas), this is fine. However, it is difficult for R. Eliezer (who disagrees there, for he disqualifies Asham Lo Lishmah)!

Question: This requires investigation in Menachos (48b). We learn Shalmei Chovah from Shalmei Nedavah, and we do not equate to Chatas!

Question: We need a verse in Nazir (45b) that he sends his hair under the pot [in which they cook] the Chatas. I should already know from this Hekesh!

Reference: This is explained in Eruvin (2a) and Menachos (49b).

Explanation: The curtain is for mere Tzeni'us, lest people look into the Heichal at the time of Shechitah;

Whereas after Shechitah, they can close the doors. (No curtain is needed.)

Question: If height is considered an interruption, opposite the Mizbe'ach (i.e. the Mizbe'ach is between the Shochet and Pesach ha'Heichal) should be Pasul, for it interrupts! (We know that the entire Azarah is Kosher for Kodshim Kalim.)

Suggestion: Because he can see the opening above the Mizbe'ach [it is not an interruption].

Rejection: Now we are thinking that a height of eight interrupts. We cannot say that a height of eight blocks the entire opening, for we are thinking that the opening was 20 [Amos] tall, like it asks below! This requires investigation.

Question: It says in Yoma (16b) about the Kohen who burns Parah Adumah that the eastern wall was low, so he could see Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, and it says there that he saw through the top half-Amah (of the opening. This should resolve the question here!)

Answer: Perhaps only for Haza'ah [height does not interrupt], for it was done while stolen, but Shechitah was done sitting. (Ayeles ha'Shachar asks what is the source that Shechitah must be done sitting. Seemingly Tosfos means that it may be done sitting. We disqualify sitting only for Avodos from Kabalah and onwards, which require Kehunah (14b). Only kings from Beis David may sit in the Azarah! Presumably, Tosfos holds like Riva (in Tosfos Yoma 25a DH Ein), who says that anyone may sit if needed for Avodah.)

Remark: It is still difficult opposite the Mizbe'ach. Why is Shechitah Kosher there, like it says that the entire Azarah is Kosher for Shechitah [of Kodshim Kalim]!

Background: In Midos (35b) we say that the Ulam extended past [the Heichal] 15 Amos in the north and 15 Amos in the south;

It was called Beis ha'Chalifos. It had two Pishpeshim (small openings) to be Machshir the entire Azarah. The Chatzer until the western wall is called the Azarah.

Remark: This is unlike Rashi explained that everything was called Beis ha'Chalifos until the western wall.

Citation: In Gitin (54b), regarding the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur (if it was possible for witnesses to know that he was Mefagel while doing the Avodah alone in the Heichal), it says that they could see him through a Pishpesh.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): There were two small openings in Beis ha'Chalifos.

Rebuttal: This is astounding! He could not see into the Heichal at all through [those] Pishpeshim!

Explanation #2 (Rabbeinu Riva): They could see him through Pishpeshim, i.e. they would make Pishpeshim to see whether or not he was Mefagel.

Question: Also this is difficult, for above (33a) the Gemara said "we should make a Pishpesh", and answers "ha'Kol bi'Chsav mi'Yad Hash-m Alai Hiskil" (the entire structure of the Mikdash was given through prophecy. We may not change anything!)

Explanation #3 (Ri of Orlins): That Pishpesh was through the Lul (a window) in back of Beis ha'Kapores (in back of the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim). One could see from there [into] Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, and in the Heichal one could see through the great opening to the Ulam.

Explanation: This verse is brought regarding Shomerim in Tamid (27a).

Question: How can one slaughter in back of ha'Kapores? He cannot see Pesach Ohel Mo'ed through the window of Par Bar, for there are two Parochos (curtains) between the Heichal and Kodesh ha'Kodoshim!

There was no opening in the Paroches. Rather, one was partially lifted (to enable the Kohen Gadol to pass through) on the south, and one was [partially lifted] on the north (Yoma 52b)!

Answer: The Lul is called a Pesach, and one can see Kodesh ha'Kodoshim through it. It is no worse than Ohel Mo'ed;

This is like in back of Beis ha'Chalifos, that there were Pishpeshim, and they are called Pesach, and through this Shechitah is Kosher until the western wall, for one can see the Ulam, which is called Ohel Mo'ed, according to the opinion that the Kedushah of the Heichal and Ulam are the same.

Comment - Rebuttal: Granted, the two Pishpeshim of Beis ha'Chalifos were small openings, and they serve for entrance and exit, and they are called Pesach. However, Par Bar was a small window, and it is not called Pesach.

Below (82b), it is called a crooked way. It is not called Bi'ah (normal entrance) through there;

If there were a small hole in Pesach ha'Heichal, one could not slaughter if the opening was locked, relying on that small hole. This [comment] is from R. Baruch.