Inference: Mid'Oraisa, Me'ilah applies, for a Kal v'Chomer is mid'Oraisa.

Question: Why didn't we ask from here against Rabah, who said in Me'ilah (2b) that if Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered in the south, Me'ilah does not apply to them mid'Oraisa? Why did we need to challenge him there (3a) from [three Mishnayos] that teach about each other?

Answer: According to Rabah, also the Me'ilah of R. Eliezer here is mid'Rabanan, for Olah done below is like Shechitah in the south;

The Kal v'Chomer that R. Eliezer said [is not mid'Oraisa. Rather,] Beis Din should enact Me'ilah.

Question: Chatas ha'Of in which there was Shinuy Shem to Chatas ha'Of of Yoledes should be Yochi'ach. He changed its name to something without Me'ilah, and Me'ilah applies to it, for it is Pasul!

This is like it says above (9b) [that Chatas slaughtered] l'Shem Chatas Yoledes or l'Shem Chatas Nazir is Pasul, for these are [like] Olos (they do not atone)!

Answer #1: According to what we conclude in the Gemara that R. Eliezer understood R. Yehoshua's reasoning, because it is drawn to be Chatas ha'Of, this is fine. (Here it is not drawn, for the Hakravah does not show that it is Chatas Yoledes.)

Answer #2: R. Yehoshua could have answered Zos Toras ha'Chatas - there is one law for all Chata'os, like R. Shimon said in Menachos (3b). If so, there is no Me'ilah, for it is Kosher.

Question: When does Me'ilah apply?

It cannot be after Zerikah, for there is no Me'ilah then, for one may eat it then;

If it is before Zerikah, like Rashi explained, also Olas ha'Of before Haza'ah and Mitzuy, R. Yehoshua agrees that Me'ilah applies, for it was not yet drawn to be like Chatas ha'Of!

Answer: We must say that R. Eliezer says like he taught elsewhere, that Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul like Chatas, and he discusses after Zerikah. This is from R. Baruch.

Question #1: [R. Yehoshua] should say to [R. Eliezer that there is no proof from Asham slaughtered l'Shem Shelamim, for] he changed its name to something forbidden and something permitted, like he said in our Mishnah!

Question #2: When [Rava] asked below "[R. Eliezer] should say to [R. Yehoshua that we learn from Asham slaughtered in the south l'Shem Shelamim with] Shinuy Ba'alim", perhaps [R. Eliezer] did not say so because [R. Yehoshua] would have answered what he asked in our Mishnah (that he changed its name to something with Isur and Heter. How did Rava infer that he did not ask because he understood R. Yehoshua's reason?)

Observation: Likewise, he could have said that Asham Metzora whose blood was received in the south in a Kli l'Shem Shelamim is Yochi'ach, for he changed its name, and its place, and its Ma'asim, for Kabalah must be [partially] in the hand, like it says above (47b) that two Kohanim receive its blood - one in the hand and one in a Kli.

Implied question: Why didn't he ask from other Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the south, that they should be drawn [to be Kodshim Kalim]?

Answer: [He asked] only from Kinim, for we say (Yoma 41a) that Kinim become specified [which will be Chatas ha'Of and which Olas ha'Of] only when the owner buys them or when the Kohen offers them. Therefore, [Hakravah like the other Korban] should help also to draw it [to be the other Korban].

Inference: From Rav Ashi's words it connotes that if [the place for Olas ha'Of] were below, even though [Melikas Chatas ha'Of] is in one Siman and [Olas ha'Of] is in two Simanim, it would not be drawn to become Chatas ha'Of.

Question #1: If so, regarding Chatas ha'Of, since it was taught that Melikah is Kosher anywhere on the Mizbe'ach, why must [Rav Ashi] say "once he did Melikah of one Siman it is Pasul"? He should say that since there is no Shinuy Makom, it cannot be drawn [to Olah]!

Question #2: It connotes that if it were disqualified above, it would be drawn to Olah, for the place causes it to be drawn;

If so, regarding Olah, why do we need the reason that [Chatas] is in one Siman and [Olah] is in two Simanim? Even without this, it would be drawn due to the place, and become Chatas ha'Of!

Answer (R. Chaim): The general rule is, a Korban is never drawn to become another Korban unless two reasons draw it, that [these reasons] would disqualify its initial [kind of Korban], and are Kosher in the second;

Therefore, regarding Olah we need two reasons, that it is Pasul below, and also two Simanim are needed for it to be Kosher;

Similarly, Chatas ha'Of that was done above - if above were Pasul, it would be drawn due to two reasons.

Question: If Olas ha'Of was done above like Chatas ha'Of it should be drawn to be Chatas ha'Of, for there are two Pesulim for Olah and they are Kosher for Chatas - he did not divide, and he did Haza'ah!

Answer: Melikah draws it and in the first Siman there is no Pesul of Olah, that we should say that it should be drawn to be Chatas. Haza'ah is another matter.

Question: How could he initially think that Leah's Olah is drawn to become Rachel's Chatas?!

Answer #1: Perhaps he thought that she stipulated that if it will be Pasul for her, it will help for her friend, if it can.

[The Gemara] concludes that [R. Yehoshua] did not say about two people (that one's Olah becomes a Chatas for the other). He does not discuss stipulations at all.

Disclaimer: The wording [of the Gemara] does not connote like this.

Answer #2: He discusses when each is obligated a Chatas and an Olah, and they gave one Ken to the Kohen to offer a Chatas for this one and an Olah for this one, and it was clarified which is the Chatas and which is the Olah;

Therefore, [the Makshan] asks granted, Olah was offered below. It should be drawn and becomes a Chatas, and she should be exempt from the Chatas that she herself was obligated!

[The Gemara] answers that [R. Yehoshua] did not say about two people;

I.e. [he did not discuss] two people that when they gave to the Kohen a Chatas for Rachel and an Olah for Leah, and the Kohen erred to offer Leah's Olah below like Ma'aseh Chatas l'Shem Chatas, for he thought that it is Rachel's Chatas for the other). He does not discuss stipulations at all.

How can Leah be exempt from the Chatas that she is obligated, because her Olah is drawn to become a Chatas? [The Kohen] did it for Rachel. There is Shinuy Ba'alim!

Question: Why didn't it ask from the Reisha of the Mishnah in Kinim (3:1)? It teaches "one [Ken] is for this [woman] and one [Ken] is for this, [or] two are for this and two are for this, three are for this and three are for this, if [the Kohen] offered all of them above, half are Kosher and half are Pasul";

If he offered half above and half below, [of those offered] above half are Kosher and half are Pasul, and below half are Kosher and half are Pasul.

Explanation: Every Ken is by itself. He did not offer from each [Ken] half [one bird] above and half below. Rather, he offered three full Kinim above and three full below;

Note: Chak Nasan's text says "mi'Kol Echad" (masculine), just like "Chetzyo". However, "Ken" is feminine - we say Ken Stumah. Perhaps the text should say "Chetyah" in place of Chetzyo. Perhaps Tosfos means that he offered from each woman half of her birds above... If "mi'Kol Achas" means from every Ken, Tosfos could have said "one [bird] above and one below"!

Now, of the full [Kinim] above only the Olos are Kosher, and of those below [only] the Chata'os [are Kosher];

If of those below two [Kinim, i.e. four birds] are of one woman [who was obligated three Kinim], only one bird is Pasul, for she was obligated three Chata'os, and an Olah is drawn and becomes a Chatas. Why does it teach that below, half are Kosher and half are Pasul?

Answer: It says so because I can say that all three [Kinim, i.e. all six birds] are of one woman.

Remark: By the way, I will explain the Seifa of this clause. One [Ken] is for this [woman], two are for this, three are for this, 10 are for this, and 100 are for this. If he offered all of them above... until [if he offered] half above and half below, the largest amount is Kosher.

Explanation: The four women of one, two, three and 10 were not Yotzei their obligations at all, for they do not know if all their Kinim were [offered] above (so they fulfilled their Olos, but they must) bring their Chata'os, or if all their Kinim were [offered] below, so [they must] bring their Olos;

However, the woman of 100 [Kinim], no matter what you will say, [at least] 42 [of them were offered] above, and [at least] 42 below;

Source: In all there are 116 Kinim. When he did 58 above and 58 below, deduct from them 16, about which we are unsure (perhaps they are all the 16 Kinim of the first four women), and at least 42 Chatas [of the woman who had 100] are Kosher, and [at least] 42 Olos.

Observation: [The Mishnah says that Rachel gave a Chatas to the Kohen, and Leah gave an Olah, and they jointly gave a Ken Stumah (they did not specify which bird is for which Korban) and a Ken Mefureshes (they specified which is the Chatas and which the Olah, but not which is for each woman. The Tana] needed to teach only a Stumah and a Mefureshes. He does not gain anything through teaching Chatas and Olah.