Explanation #1: Even if they hold that Yesh Bilah, in any case it is Pasul, for Haza'ah requires a Shi'ur, and we do not join Haza'os.

Observation: Likewise, we could have said that Ein Bilah, and Haza'ah does not require a Shi'ur, e.g. and water fell in the flask like the Shi'ur of Mei Chatas.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): Rabanan hold that Yesh Bilah, like our Mishnah teaches "if he did not consult and put, it is Kosher. This shows that we rely on Bilah, and say that wet that mixes with wet, it totally mixes. There is no drop [of the mixture that contains only] from this [liquid that became mixed] that does not have a little of the other [liquid that became mixed].

Question: If so, what was [the Gemara's] question according to R. Eliezer? Also according to him, we may infer from our Mishnah that Yesh Bilah, for he is Machshir l'Chatchilah!

Answer: You are forced to say that we cannot derive from our Mishnah. Perhaps R. Eliezer is Machshir when the upper blood is the majority, and he put above more than the Shi'ur of lower blood, like we establish below (80b). Also according to Rabanan, if he did not consult and put it is Kosher, i.e. the upper blood;

However, below it proves that Yesh Bilah since it taught that both of them count for him.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The text says "Yesh Bilah" in Reish Lakish.

Source #1: Since he says that Haza'ah requires a Shi'ur, what would force him to say that according to R. Eliezer that Ein Bilah, in order to ask from our Mishnah and to establish our Mishnah with difficult answers like below (80b)?

Source #2: If Ein Bilah, why must he say that [Haza'ah] requires a Shi'ur? Even if it does not need a Shi'ur [the water is Pasul. Whenever he sprinkles, perhaps it is not the Mei Chatas!]

Question (R. Chaim): In Yoma (14a) and Nidah (9a), it says that even according to the opinion that Haza'ah does not require a Shi'ur, that refers to on the person, but he requires a Shi'ur [of Mei Chatas] in the Kli [from which he sprinkles];

If so, when he put (i.e. became mixed) one [drop of water] with one [drop of Mei Chatas], and he sprinkled once, there is not [at the time of the second Haza'ah] a Shi'ur [of Mei Chatas] in the Kli!

Answer #1: Since at the beginning of the first Haza'ah, which is the beginning of his Taharah, there was a Shi'ur in the Kli, this is not a problem. The first Haza'ah joins with the second.

Support: We say like this about Netilas Yadayim (Chulin 107a). Two may wash from a Revi'is, but one may not wash from half a Revi'is.

Answer #2: One [drop] with one is not precise, like Rashi explained, for if there was much [Mei Chatas], all the more so it is Kosher. When he sprinkles two Haza'os, there is more Kosher [Mei Chatas in them]. What would be a source to disqualify?!

Rather, it mentioned [one with one] due to Pesulim (to teach that Chachamim disqualify even when only one drop of Pasul water fell into the Mei Chatas).

Explanation: He holds that Ein Bilah, and that Haza'ah does not require a Shi'ur, and if he did [only] one [Haza'ah], perhaps it is [all] from the Pesulim;

However, when he gives two, it is impossible that there is not any of the Kosher.

Question: Perhaps "Kol she'Hu" means that there is a Shi'ur only for one Haza'ah, and Haza'ah requires a Shi'ur, and it joins, and he holds that Yesh Bilah! Now, between the two Haza'os, you are forced to say that there is a Shi'ur of Kesherim!

Also according to [Rav Ashi's] words, how can it be that the Kol she'Hu cannot be divided into two?! This is from R. Baruch. (L'Shem Zevach - do not say that a Haza'ah must be totally Kosher, and he said Kol she'Hu so that if he sprinkles twice, at least one is totally Kosher. Surely one can split Kol she'Hu, and each Haza'ah is partially Pasul!)

Inference: This shows that Yesh Bilah. This [Beraisa] is in the Tosefta of Zevachim (8:8).

Implied question: Why didn't he ask from our Mishnah?

Answer: He prefers to ask from the Beraisa due to the inference that the lower blood counted.

Implied question: Why couldn't we establish that the majority is lower blood, and he put below more than the Shi'ur of upper blood?

Answer: If the majority were lower blood, R. Eliezer would not say to put above. (That is like intent to put lower blood above.)

Correction: It seems that the text says "he returns and puts above, and he returns and puts below", since we conclude that it counts for Shirayim. What he put below before putting above, obviously it does not count for Shirayim!

Explanation: This refers to two Matanos that are four, e.g. Olah or Shelamim, which are put below;

If it were truly four Matanos, i.e. Chatas, why would he put one Matanah according to R. Yehoshua? Rabanan hold that he spills it to the Amah, since this (Matan Achas) must be put below, and this (Chatas) must be put above!

Comment - Question: In [the Shi'ur of] one Matanah of Bechor, it is impossible [to say that] that it cannot be divided into two;

If so, perhaps he puts from it on two Keranos (opposite edges of the Mizbe'ach)! Even though Ein Bilah, this means that it can be from this blood alone, but likewise one Matanah can be from [both] this blood and this blood. (Why do we say that Bal Tosif does not apply?)

Implied suggestion: Perhaps there is not a Shi'ur of Nesinah [of Dam Bechor] for the two Keranos, that its impression would be recognized on two [Keranos].

Rejection: If so, how is the Korban (Bechor) eaten? Perhaps [its blood] was divided on the two Keranos, and [there was less than a Shi'ur on each corner, so Zerikah] did not help at all!

Answer: There is a Shi'ur for two Keranos. Since Ein Bilah, it is only a Safek of Bal Tosif. Due to this Safek, he should not leave his Korban [without Zerikah].

And even when much blood is mixed together, it is [only] a Safek. (Taharas ha'Kodesh - there is an implied question. Also in the Havah Amina, that much blood became mixed, it is a Safek Bal Tosif. Why did the Gemara say "Iy Hachi" (if so)?)

[The Gemara] asks as follows. Granted, when [a Shi'ur for Matan] Arba is mixed with [a Shi'ur for Matan] Achas, [the first question, that perhaps no blood of one Korban was thrown] is not difficult due to Ein Bilah. Still, a different question is difficult that he does not answer. It is not Vadai that Bal Tosif applies (so this is not a reason to refrain)! This is from R. Baruch.

Question: What Bal Tosif is there? The second Matanah can be for Shirayim of Bechor, and if he also does (throws) Shirayim for Olah, this is not a problem. Rather, he does Shirayim for Olah!

Answer: The first Matanah of the two Matanos that are four of an Olah is recognizes on two sides [of the edge against which it is thrown]. This is the Bal Tosif of Bechor, for the Matanah of Bechor is only on one side.

And even if [what came on the second side of] that edge were [considered] Shirayim of the first Matanah, the second Matanah on the other (opposite) edge is an addition. This is a comment.

Implied question: We should say that [the latter Zerikah] counts for Shirayim!

Answer: It was taught "these and these." This connotes that he is Yotzei [Zerikah of] the top blood and the bottom blood.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Shi'ur for one Matanah of this and the Shi'ur for one Matanah of this [became mixed];

It teaches that he gives one Matanah, i.e. for each one, i.e. two Matanos. It turns out that both of them are on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: What was the question? He should say that he puts all the blood in one Matanah. There is from both, no matter what you will say!

Suggestion: He puts in two Matanos because he requires a Matanah for the sake of each one.

Rejection: He should say that he puts half the blood, and returns and puts the other half! Why must he say at all "one and one"?

Suggestion: He asks because he needs to leave over from both bloods to pour Shirayim, and he asks that perhaps what he put was from one of them, and the Shirayim from the second;

Even though the initial [Matanah] of Olah is [in] the place of Shirayim (so Zerikah was done also for the other Korban), in any case he did not do the primary Mitzvah. (Here we discuss two Korbanos that require one Matanah, and not Olah. "Techilas Olah" is not precise. It means the initial Matanah of any lower blood, i.e. of any Korban except for Chatas. Tosfos calls it Techilas Olah like the Gemara below (81a).)

Alternatively, he holds that Techilas Olah is not [in] the place of Shirayim (so Zerikah was not done for the other Korban at all).

Rejection #1: If so, what was the answer "one became mixed with one"? (Still, perhaps neither Korban had both initial Zerikah and Shirayim!)

Rejection #2: He should say "he puts above the Shi'ur of one, and more"! ("Above" means the first Matanah on the Yesod, l'Shem initial Zerikah - Yad Binyamin.)

Rejection #3: Why didn't he ask from the Reisha "if [Kosher blood] became mixed with Dam Pesulim or with Dam Tamtzis"? (Also there he must leave over for Shirayim.) Perhaps he put from the Pesulim, and the Shirayim was from the Kosher!"

Answer #1: Rather, since Shirayim are not Me'akev, we should not disqualify a mixture due to the Mitzvah of Shirayim. (I.e. we can put all the blood in two Matanos!)

Objection: Below (81a) it connotes that we should disqualify due to Shirayim, even though they are not Me'akev. It says "Shirayim need [to poured on] the roof of the Yesod!

Answer #2: It asks as follows. [The Makshan thought that the Mishnah says "one Matanah", i.e. all the blood, but] perhaps he will give [only] from this one... for one who comes to give, he gives only two Matanos, one for this and one for this;

And if we will tell him to put all the blood, he will not heed us;

This is unlike if [Kosher blood] became mixed with Pasul blood. Perhaps he will heed us, since it is known that Pasul [blood] is mixed with it. However, here that both are Kosher, no (he will not heed us. The Gemara answered that only a Shi'ur for one Matanah from each was mixed, so he knows that he must put it all.)

Question: If so, above that it says "he puts above the Shi'ur of lower blood, and more", he will not heed us, since both of them are Kosher!

Answer #3: The expression "[he puts] one Matanah" connotes the Shi'ur of one Matanah, and not more;

Also when it answers "one became mixed with one", it means like Rashi explained, the Shi'ur of one Matanah from each.

Implied question: Why is this unlike the case above "he puts above", and we establish that he puts above the Shi'ur of the lower blood and more?

Answer: It taught Stam "he puts above", and does not explain how much, and similarly regarding Dam Pesulim and Dam Tamtzis.