Explanation: "Mix for me" are extra words, for they were engaged in mixing with hot water. It comes to say and include even cold water.

Question: Perhaps R. Akiva holds like the opinion below (96b) that Kodshei Kodoshim require Merikah and Shtifah (scouring and rinsing), but Kodshim Kalim do not. "Chatas" comes to include Kodshim Kalim!

Question: This requires investigation in Pesachim (43b), in which [Tana'im] argue about [whether we] expound Kol, and in Bechoros (34a).

Question: Since [the Torah] already included Chatas Tzibur, a male Chatas was included, for the Tzibur never brings a female!

Answer: If the text would say oppositely, it would be fine. (First we include a male Chatas, e.g. of a Nasi, and afterwards Chatas Tzibur.)

Question: According to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, who learns from "Hen Lo Huva", we should ask that this teaches only a Chatas Tzibur, which is a male, like the goat of Rosh Chodesh (that the verse discusses). What is his source for Chatas Yachid, and a female?

Question #1: We cannot learn from Chutz, for it disqualifies other Kodshim. Will you say about inside, which disqualifies only Chatas?!

Question #2: You cannot learn from Chutz, for it disqualifies meat. Will you say about inside, which disqualifies only blood?!

Question #3: You cannot learn from Chutz, for it disqualifies in every case. Will you say about inside, which disqualifies only with intent to atone?!

Reference: I explained this above (29a DH l'Makom. He brought six explanations, and questioned all of them.)

Question #1: Since he did not know the Drashah "Shelishi" - this is Chutz li'Zmano, and "Pigul" - this is Chutz li'Mkomo, even without the Kal v'Chomer, intent should not disqualify!

Question #2: Going outside should not disqualify without intent to atone, from a Kal v'Chomer from inside, which does not disqualify the remainder! Also, it should disqualify only Chatas, from a Kal v'Chomer!

Answer (to Question #2): Since we learn from a verse that meat is disqualified, the same applies to all blood.

Observation: Above (11a) we expounded "the blood of this, and not the blood of another."

Question: Why do we need to exclude its meat? It is written "Lechaper"!

Explanation (Rashi): We learn that blood that leaves [is disqualified] from a Kal v'Chomer from meat;

We learn also from "Hen Lo Huva." Moshe asked [Aharon and his sons why Chatas Rosh Chodesh was burned] - perhaps you entered the blood inside? They said "Hen Lo Huva Damah El ha'Kodesh." He said "perhaps it left its Mechitzah (Chatzer ha'Mishkan)?" They said that it was "Penimah" (inside). So we expound below (101a).

Rebuttal: He was not precise. Below, we expound that it was "ba'Kodesh".

Question #1: This requires investigation. In Pesachim (82a), it expounds [Hen Lo Huva] regarding meat that left! (Tzon Kodoshim - however, it concludes unlike this.)

Question #2: In Chulin (68a) there is a Tana who does not expound there "v'Vasar ba'Sadeh" regarding Yotzei!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): E.g. [Derech Meshupash] is going through roofs and Aliyos (upper stories) above the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim through windows.

Question: In Menachos (27b) Rabanan expound that to enter "El ha'Kodesh" is forbidden due to "Lo Yavo", but for "mi'Beis la'Paroches" and "El Pnei ha'Kapres" it says [that he will not go, and] "Lo Yamus";

It asks that the Torah should write "El ha'Kodesh" and "mi'Beis la'Paroches" and it would not need "El Pnei ha'Kapres", and answers that it excludes Derech Meshupash;

Why do we need a verse? We should know already [to exclude] through roofs, for it is written "v'Al Yavo", which connotes Derech Bi'ah (the normal way to enter), like we exclude in Shevuos (17b) a Tamei who entered through roofs to the Heichal!

Answer #1: In Shevuos it discusses when he made a hole in the roof, but in Menachos it discusses when he entered through a window in the Aliyah above the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim;

Through it, they used to lower workers in boxes. This is Derech Bi'ah, for it was made for this.

Answer #2 (Rashi in Menachos 27b): He dug underneath the wall of the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim and made an opening in the south or north, and entered. He did not enter through the opening in the east, so that he would face west.

Answer #3 (Rashi in Menachos): He enters through the opening in the east, and turns and goes on the diagonal on the sides. He is not liable, for [to be liable] we require "El Pnei", that he faces the east side of the Kapores.

Explanation #2: E.g. Derech Meshupash is through a window in back of Beis ha'Kapores", like it says above (55b) "Shnayim (Leviyim guard) l'Parbar" (outside a window that enables one to see into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim from the back).

Question (Ri of Orlins): Why do we need a verse in Menachos to exclude Derech Meshupash? I should know since it says "v'Al Yavo", like we deduce here, for Hava'ah (bringing in) is written!

Answer: We can distinguish between bringing in blood, and a person entering.