Explanation: We discuss the second Matanah of Olah, which is in the southwest corner. This is the place of Shirayim of Chatas.

Opinion #1: However, if the first Matanah of Olah [became mixed], it is spilled to the Amah according to Rabanan, for this is not the place of Shirayim [of Chatas], for [the first Matanah of] Dam Olah is in the northeast corner, and Shirayim are in the southwest corner.

Rebuttal: (We need not say so.) We can say that since the southern Yesod is not from a verse, rather, from the reason "we require what is nearby", similar to inner Shirayim, if so it is not a problem if we put them in the northeast corner in order to be Machshir the initial blood of Olah.

Support (of Rebuttal): It is somewhat proven like this below (81b), regarding one who put above and did not consult. He puts again below. [The Makshan] wants to prove that the place of Olah is the place of Shirayim. It connotes that he did not yet put at all Matanos Olah.

Opinion #2: Alternatively, he turns to the left and puts first in the southwest corner, which is the place of Shirayim, and he puts Shirayim in two corners.

Question: This teaches a lot! [If Olah became mixed with Bechor], it is offered according to this [Tana] like he holds, two Matanos that are four, and according to this opinion, one Matanah, even though he transgresses Bal Tigra or Bal Tosif!

Answer: Since he puts for the sake of water, there is no Bal Tosif, and also not Bal Tigra, since he is passive and fixes his Korban, and also without a verse [we know this]. This is from R. Baruch.

Question #1: Why does he give a difficult answer that Tana'im argue about this? In Menachos (22b), it asks "say [that there is no Bitul] only when they are Min b'Mino, and Olim! This is left difficult;

He should say that the verse "Kodesh Hem" is needed. Im Eino Inyan (if it is not needed) for Min b'Mino and Olim, use it for Olim alone, even b'Eino Mino!

Question #2: Here we hold according to R. Yochanan, and there R. Yochanan [learned this from] the Drashah "v'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par"!

Question #3: We should say that we need it, for one might have thought that it is poured to the Amah, lest he transgress Bal Tosif or Bal Tigra!

Question #4: Why is it different when Nisnim below were mixed with Nisnim above? R. Yehoshua agrees that they are poured [to the Amah], and we do not deviate in this [Korban] to be Machshir this;

When blood that needs one Matanah [became mixed] with blood that needs four Matanos, [he holds that] we deviate, and transgress Bal Tigra!

Suggestion: It is because blood of one Matanah [mixed] with blood of four Matanos, if you will say that it is poured to the Amah, one cannot pay (bring another Korban to compensate) for them, e.g. Bechor or Ma'aser that became Pasul. (Any animal brought to compensate, if it was not a firstborn, and it was not the 10th to leave the pen, it cannot become Bechor or Ma'aser.) However, if Olah or Chatas became Pasul, he can pay in place of them!

Note: Acharonim ask that Pesach has one Matanah, and one can pay in place of it. They also ask why inability to pay changes the Torah law. In any case this animal is lost!

Rejection: How can you answer for Olas Nedavah?! (There is no Achrayus. If he brings another Nedavah, it is not payment or compensation.)

Answer: We can say that Nisnim above [mixed] with Nisnim below is different. We should not overtly disqualify Dam Olah in order to be Machshir Dam Chatas;

However, here that he does not overtly disqualify it, rather, he [puts one Matanah, and] stands in his place passively [and does not give more.

Question: However, this is difficult for R. Eliezer, [who says that] he deviates to put two Matanos [that are four], and Bechor should have only one Matanah, and he transgresses Bal Tosif;

And regarding Nisnim above [mixed with Nisnim] below, he is Machshir above only because we view it as if it were water!

Answer: Also this is the same reason. Because he holds that [one may put] l'Shem water, he does not transgress Bal Tosif!

Also, when he transgresses Bal Tosif, he does not deviate with blood to disqualify. However, regarding Nisnim above and below, and Nisnim outside [mixed with] Nisnim inside, in all of them he deviates with the blood to disqualify.

Question: Just like according to this Tana we need the verse for Todah, Olah and Asham (and we need another Drashah to teach about Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach)...

Also according to the opinion that learns from v'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par umi'Dam ha'Sa'ir that Olim are not Mevatel each other, perhaps this is only for the bull and goat, which have exactly the same Matanos. What is the source for Nisnim one Matanah [mixed] with Nisnim four Matanos, or Olah with Korbanos that are eaten?

And similarly according to the one who learns from Kodesh Hem, what is his source for [other Korbanos] that became mixed with Olah? Perhaps it discusses [only] Korbanos that are eaten!

Question: Since Tana'im argue about this, why did [the Gemara] retract in Temurah (5b? Initially, it said that Rava expounds "Hem" to forbid offering Temuros Bechor and Ma'aser. It said that Abaye learns this from "la'Shem Hu");

It said that indeed, Rava [also learns from "... la'Shem Hu."] Rather, what does he learns from "Hem"? [It teaches that if blood mixed with Dam Bechor or Ma'aser...]

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He puts below for the sake of Shirei Chatas, but this is not Machshir Olah, for he puts above more than the amount of lower blood. (Perhaps all the Dam Olah was put above.)

Explanation #2: Even if you establish it to discuss a mixture of Chatas and Olah, you may not derive that the place of Olah is the place of Shirayim, for since it is not Machshir Olah, he does not throw in the place of Olah (against the northeast and southwest edges), rather, [he pours] on the top of the Yesod;

Question: According to Rabanan, who say that Ein Bilah, and it is a Kosher Olah, and Dam Olah remains below and it is proper for Zerikah (we learn that the place of Olah is the place of Shirayim! Shitah Mekubetzes answers that the Sugya above holds that the place of Olah is the place of Shirayim. Our Sugya argues; also according to Chachamim, he is Yotzei this and this, i.e. initial Chatas and its Shirayim.)

Explanation: The case is, he put inner blood outside l'Shem water. If not, how could he return to put inside? He already atoned according to Shmuel, based on what I explained above (26b) that the outer Mizbe'ach is considered like the place of inner blood!

The Seifa discusses such a case, that he put [blood of the mixture] inside, and the outside. He entered the outer blood l'Shem water.

Question: Why is it Pasul when he enters it l'Shem water? It is written "Lechaper"!