Answer: We can say that it connotes to [the Gemara] that our Mishnah disqualifies in every case, even after Haza'ah, since R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon said "I heard that we divide", i.e. specifically after Haza'ah;

Inference: Rabanan argue with him and say that we do not divide. If so, our Mishnah is unlike him.

Question: Below the [coming] Mishnah teaches that if Chatas ha'Of was done like Olas ha'Of, it is Pasul, and the Gemara (66b) says "how did he deviate?"

If he deviated in Melikah, will we say that this is unlike R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, for R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon said "I heard that we divide in Chatas ha'Of"?

What was the question? Also according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, we find this when he divided before Haza'ah!

Answer #1: Since we establish "like Ma'aseh Olah" that he deviated in Melikah, if so, since it did not teach "like Ma'aseh Olah before Haza'ah", this shows that it discusses both before Haza'ah and after Haza'ah.

Answer #2: According to R. Elazar ben Pedas, R. Shimon ben Elyakim and R. Yirmeyah it asks properly, for they hold that R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon is Machshir even before Haza'ah, for they explain the verse Lo Yavdil to mean that he need not divide.

Explanation #3: R. Tam wrote in the margin of his Sefer regarding R. Shimon ben Elyakim's words 'what is "Lo Yavdil", which connotes both at the time of Haza'ah and at the time of Mitzuy? He need not divide at the time of Mitzuy, and if he divided, all the more so it is Kosher, for all the blood is squeezed out';

He is forced to give a difficult Perush of the verse. Only at the time of Haza'ah he may not divide, but at the time of Mitzuy, he needs the blood. If he wants, he divides. If he wants, he does not divide.

Inference: He wants to explain that the verse forbids [dividing] at the time of Haza'ah, and at the time of Mitzuy the verse means that he need not. Both of these are implied from [the verse].

Suggestion: Perhaps he expounds since the verse said an expression of a Lav, that at the time of Haza'ah he may not divide;

The verse does not come to forbid even at the time of Mitzuy, for from "v'Hikrivo" we expound in Chulin (21a) that the Torah distinguishes between Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of [and Olas ha'Of requires Havdalah. If the Torah forbade Chatas, perhaps Olah is different, for one may divide! Rather, we must say that the Torah does not command about dividing Chatas, and Olah is different, i.e. one must divide.]

Therefore, we can explain also that the verse comes to say that at the time of Mitzuy, if he wants, he does not divide.

Implied question: R. Yirmeyah said "did they not hear?" This implies that he comes to argue with Rav Chisda, Rabah and Abaye!

Answer: This is because R. Yirmeyah comes to teach that when he divides after Haza'ah, there is not Ma'aseh Olah in a Chatas, for also the Mitzvah of Chatas is so, for the verse means that he need not divide.

Question: According to Rav Huna, who said in the name of Rav in Me'ilah (8b) that Mitzuy of Chatas ha'Of is not Me'akev, and therefore he taught in our Mishnah there "Haza'ah of its blood was done", why do Rabanan disqualify when he divided after Haza'ah?

There is no Ma'aseh Olah in a Chatas, for he merely cuts flesh, like I explained, since Avodas ha'Dam was already finished, since Mitzuy is not Me'akev!

Answer #1: According to what I explained, this is fine. Perhaps Rav Huna holds like R. Shimon ben Elyakim, who establishes their argument before Haza'ah.

Question: However, according to R. Tam it is difficult, for even R. Shimon ben Elyakim argues only after Haza'ah!

Answer #2: Rav Huna establishes our Mishnah, which teaches "if he divided, it is Pasul" before Haza'ah, and even like R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon;

Our Sugya, which said that our Mishnah is unlike R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, is like Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who said in Me'ilah (8b) in the name of Rav that Mitzuy of Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev;

There are Rabanan argue with R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon even according to Rav Huna, since R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon said "I heard that we divide." This implies that Rabanan argue with him.

Even though Rav Huna holds that Mitzuy is not Me'akev, he agrees that there are Rabanan who argue with R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, and hold that Mitzuy is Me'akev.

Support: Similarly, there is one Tana in Me'ilah who holds like this.

Observation: However, Rabanan of our Mishnah, Rav Huna cannot say that they hold that [Mitzuy] is Me'akev, for the Gemara tried to establish all the Stam Mishnayos like him, who holds that it is not Me'akev.

Question: Our Mishnah taught that if Melikah of Chatas ha'Of was Lishmah, and Mitzuy was Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul. This shows that Mitzuy is Me'akev!

Answer: Rav Huna would not teach Mitzuy [in the text of our Mishnah], rather, Haza'ah, like he taught [the text in] the Mishnah in Me'ilah "Haza'as Dam was done";

However, the Seifa of our Mishnah that is brought there, the same applies to Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of - if he did Melikah and Mitzuy...

We could not answer [that in place of Mitzuy, the text should say] Haza'ah, for it teaches also Olah, and there is no Haza'ah in Olah. Therefore, we needed to answer that both cases are taught. (Mitzuy must be done if blood remains. If not, it is not Me'akev.)

Implied question: Why doesn't he ask from all Lavim in the Torah, e.g. do not muzzle, do not eat any Neveilah, or do not wear Sha'atnez?

Answer: [Obviously, they forbid.] Why they were written, if not for a Lav?!

However, [Chatas ha'Of], from reasoning I would say that he divides, for he needs the blood. We say that when Lo Yavdil was written, it means that he need not divide;

Also regarding a pit, from reasoning I would say that he is obligated to cover it. When it is written "he will not cover it", it means that he need not cover it!

Remark: This is its Mitzvah. It was taught Agav (along with) the other (deviations).

Explanation: It is Pasul, i.e. one may not eat it, but it atoned for the owner according to Shmuel, who said above (26b) that once the blood reached the Mizbe'ach, it atoned for the owner.

Reference: Above (65b DH Hivdil) I explained that we do not know the source that [changing] is Me'akev in Olah.

Reference: Above (65b DH v'Rebbi) I explained this.

Explanation: He did Melikah of two Simanim and divided. When it says that he deviated in Haza'ah, it means that he did not do Haza'ah, rather, he squeezed, and he did everything below, like the law of Chatas.

We could not explain that he deviated in Melikah, i.e. he did it above, for Melikah in every place [on the Mizbe'ach] is Kosher!

Implied suggestion: We can explain "he deviated in Haza'ah", i.e. he did it above!

Rejection: It refers to the Reisha, which taught "if he did below."

Support: Likewise, in the clause of Olas ha'Of like Ma'aseh Chatas, when it says that he dvid in Melikah, i.e. he did Melikah of only one Siman;

When it says that he deviated in Mitzuy, i.e. he did not do Mitzuy, rather, Haza'ah in place of Mitzuy, and everything was above.

Implied suggestion: We can explain that he dvid in Melikah, and afterwards he deviated in Mitzuy, e.g. he did it below, like the law of Chatas?

Rejection: It refers to the Reisha, which taught "he did it above."

Conclusion: In this way, everything is understood simply.

Question: R. Yehoshua's reason is because he did below, and in the first Siman it is disqualified from Olas ha'Of, and also he did Haza'ah below like Chatas ha'Of. Therefore, it is drawn to be like Chatas. Rav Ashi explains like this below (67a);

However, here he did Melikah of one Siman, like Chatas, above. This is not a Pesul of Olah in the first Siman, and also he did not do Haza'ah. Now it is not drawn to be like Chatas, since he did not do Haza'ah, and it is not disqualified through the first Siman from Ma'aseh Olas ha'Of! This is from R. Baruch.

Inference: This entire clause of Olah (including the Reisha of the coming Mishnah, "all are not Metamei, and Me'ilah applies...") discusses Mitzuy.

Question: How can we establish "like Ma'aseh Chatas l'Shem Olah and like Ma'aseh Chatas l'Shem Chatas" that he deviated in Mitzuy?

If he did Haza'ah and afterwards Mitzuy, why is Olah disqualified through this, since afterwards he did Mitzuy of Dam ha'Nefesh?

Suggestion: It is because we expounded above (65a) "Damo" - all its blood, and since he did Haza'ah, there is not all the blood for Mitzuy.

Rejection: It is unreasonable that if a little blood spilled, it is disqualified through this. Also here [that it did not spill, rather, he did Haza'ah] why is it different?!

Suggestion: We establish to discuss Mitzuy only the clause (the Reisha of the coming Mishnah) "Me'ilah applies to all of them", which applies when he did Olas ha'Of above like Ma'aseh Chatas l'Shem Chatas. However, this Reisha (the Seifa of the Mishnah on 66a) discusses Shinuy in Melikah.

Rejection: If so, without the inferences that the Gemara makes, we could ask that the Reisha and Seifa discuss Melikah, and the middle discusses Mitzuy!

The clause of Chatas ha'Of, we establish the Reisha that he deviated in Melikah, and the Seifa in Haza'ah, and the clause of Olah we establish that he deviated in Melikah, like I explained!

Note: The Seifa of Chatas ha'Of is the middle. (The Shinuy in Haza'ah was doing Mitzuy instead. Tosfos equates Shinuy in Mitzuy and Haza'ah, for both of these correspond to Zerikah.) The clause of Olah is the Seifa.

Answer #1: Really, this clause of Olah discusses Shinuy in Mitzuy. It is worse than when a little [blood] spilled, for immediately when he did Haza'ah and blood reached the Mizbe'ach, it atoned for the owner, like Shmuel taught above (26b), and it atoned for them in a Pasul way;

Mitzuy does not help afterwards, since it already atoned for them.

Question: It is astounding to say that it atoned for them when the Avodah was done improperly!

This is unlike [blood] put on the ramp [or] not over the Yesod, for the Avodah is proper, just he changed the place.

Answer #2 (Rashi): "Like Ma'aseh Chatas" means that he did not do Mitzuy, rather, Haza'ah, according to the opinion that Mitzuy of Chatas is not Me'akev, and it is Pasul because Mitzuy was not done to this Olah.

Implied suggestion: We could explain "he deviated in Mitzuy" that he did Mitzuy below!

Rejection #1: This refers to the Reisha (that he did above).

Rejection #2: The Seifa taught this - "if he did below like the Ma'aseh of any of them"!

Remark: Rashi explained so above about Chatas like Ma'aseh Olah. He explains that he deviated in Haza'ah. He did not do Haza'ah, rather, only Mitzuy.

Question: Still, why did the Gemara infer about this clause "rather, in Mitzuy"? This implies that without this, it could not ask that the Reisha and Seifa discuss Melikah, and the middle discusses Mitzuy;

Without this [inference], it could ask that we established the Reisha [of the clause of Chatas ha'Of] to discuss [Shinuy in] Melikah, and the Seifa in Haza'ah, and the argument of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua (66b) in Melikah!

Answer: The Gemara is not astounded at the Seifa of the clause of Chatas, that it discusses Shinuy in Haza'ah, since we do not find a Pesul in Shinuy of Melikah, for Melikah is Kosher anywhere on the Mizbe'ach.

Note: We said above that our Mishnah can be like R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon. Therefore, we cannot say that the Shinuy of Melikah was cutting both Simanim, for he permits this also for Chatas.

Question #1: If he deviated only in Haza'ah, why does Me'ilah apply, according to the opinion that we learned Heter Shechitah (is enough to uproot Me'ilah) in Me'ilah (5a), and this had Heter (Melikah, which is in place of) Shechitah, and Me'ilah was uprooted!

Question #2: Likewise, if Chatas was done above like Ma'aseh of any of them, and even like Ma'aseh Chatas l'Shem Chatas, and the Seifa teaches that Me'ilah applies to it - what is the reason? It had Sha'as ha'Kosher, i.e. Heter Melikah!