Answer #1: A Kli Shares is Mekadesh only if it is full, and this little [added after the Haza'os were done] does not join with the other that already became Kadosh.

Answer #2: This small [addition] they put in the [Kli to measure a] Log with intent to receive [only] Kedushas Damim.

Inference: Now it connotes here that even though it is not Kadosh for the Mizbe'ach, it is not like Chulin b'Azarah, since it has Kedushas Damim, like we conclude.

Observation: We answer like this in Menachos (48a) regarding one who slaughtered two lambs [brought with Shtei ha'Lechem] with [intent to be Mekadesh] four loaves. Two of them are eaten through Pidyon.

And we answer like this in Bava Basra (81b) regarding [Safek] Bikurim. He is Makdish them [and the Kohen eats them through Pidyon].

Question #1: In Menachos (80b), regarding a Todah that became mixed with its Temurah and one of them died, there is no solution for it...

[The Gemara] asks that he should bring bread, and say "if the living animal is the Todah, this is its bread. If not, [the bread] should become Chulin!", and answers "do we bring Chulin b'Azarah?!"

Why isn't he Makdish [the loaves], and later he will redeem them?

Question #2: In Chulin (130a), it says that the Torah needed to write "v'Zeh". If not, one might have thought that Chazeh v'Shok applies to Chulin. (How is this possible?) Tenufah is required!

Citation (130a): Where could he do Tenufah? It cannot be outside [the Mikdash] - it is written "Lifnei Hash-m"! If it is inside, he brings Chulin b'Azarah!

Why is this a problem? He should be Makdish it, and later redeem it!

Answer (to Question #2): There, it is fine. We expounded a verse. The Torah did not obligate doing so (we properly challenged the Havah Amina that it applies to Chulin).

Question #3: In Menachos (104b), regarding "I specified [to offer a Minchah], and I do not know what [size] I specified", Chachamim say, he brings a Minchah of 60 Esronim. Rebbi says (he must bring Menachos of every size, from one until 60).

It says that they argue about whether or not one may enter Chulin in the Azarah. Rebbi forbids, so he forbids mixing Chovah (the amount he vowed) with Nedavah (the excess of 60 Esronim above what he vowed);

He should be Makdish [the excess] Kedushas Damim, and later redeem it!

Answer: Regarding Todah, he does not want to say that he is Makdish it and redeems it, lest people say that Lachmei Todah can be redeemed;

And similarly in Menachos (104b), that [the amount he would redeem] has a Shi'ur for a Minchah, people will say that it has Pidyon;

Distinction: However, here there is not a Shi'ur [in what he added to complete the Shi'ur after the Haza'os]. People know that it has Pidyon because it does not have a Shi'ur. Therefore, it does not get Kedushas ha'Guf.

Similarly, people know that Bikurim [were made Kodesh] only due to Safek, for Bikurim cannot be redeemed, like Terumos and Ma'aseros. Also now after Pidyon, only Kohanim eat it, and there is nothing to err about.

Similarly, in Menachos (48a) regarding one who slaughtered two lambs for four loaves, people know that only two of them become Kodesh, and regarding [Todah slaughtered for 80] Lachmei Todah that only 40 become Kadosh.

Implied question: We should say that he burns the Shirayim here like wood!

Answer #1: The Torah said that it is a Mitzvah to eat them.

Answer #2: We permit to burn like wood only something that became mixed with something that is offered, e.g. limbs of Olah in limbs of Chatas.

Question #1: If R. Shimon says that mid'Oraisa one may not offer a Nedavah of oil, how is it permitted in order to fix the person?!

Question #2: Since one may not offer a Nedavah [of oil], it is total Chulin! (Mar'eh Kohen - in the conclusion that it is like R. Shimon, he is Makdish it Kedushas Damim. Minchas Aharon - Tosfos holds that Tosfos Menachos 80b, that one may not be Makdish Kedushas Damim something with which Avodah is done. Shalom Rav, citing Maharam Shapiro - the Isur to be Makdish Kedushas Damim and redeem, lest people say... is mid'Rabanan. When we need to fix a person, we did not decree.)

Implied question: In Kidushin (55a), if an animal was found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eder, it connotes that if a male second year animal is found, that perhaps it is an Asham, there is no solution!

Answer: We must say that it argues with R. Eliezer, for if one may bring [Asham Taluy] for Nedavah, he should bring an animal and stipulate [that if the found animal was not an Asham, this is a Nedavah of Asham Taluy].

Question: What is the reasoning, that according to R. Eliezer "v'El ha'Mizbe'ach" (which teaches about the ramp) does not refer to all of them, and "l'Rei'ach Nicho'ach", which is after it, refers to all of them, even Shirayim?!

Answer: R. Eliezer holds that it is unreasonable to be more stringent about Shirayim that Se'or and honey. The Drashah that the ramp is like the Mizbe'ach is a stringency, and it refers only to Se'or and honey, which are stringent.

Observation: This Sugya is like R. Elazar, who said in Menachos (57b) that one who puts any of them on the ramp is exempt. R. Yochanan obligates there.

Implied question: It says there 'what does R. Yochanan learn from "Osam"?' It should say that he needs it for like Rabanan expound here!

Answer: It prefers to answer even like R. Eliezer.

Strengthening of Answer: [It wants to answer like R. Eliezer because] in several places the Sugya is like him - above, that it answers that he burns it like wood, and in Menachos (106b).

Explanation: R. Akiva's teaching is below (84a). The Mishnah says that R. Akiva is Machshir Ba'alei Mumim, and in the Gemara R. Yochanan said that R. Akiva is Machshir only Dukin sheb'Ayin (cataracts), since they are Kosher in birds;

The only Pesul of birds is missing a limb, like we expound in Toras Kohanim and in Kidushin (24b) "one might have thought that [it is Kosher even] if its leg was cut off or its wing dried [so much that it will fall off...]"

Question: Why doesn't it count also [a Mum in] Niv Sefasayim (the base of the lips)? It says in Gitin (56a) that [Bar Kamtza] made a Mum in Niv Sefasayim, a place that is a Mum for us, but not for [Bnei Noach]. The only Pesul for Bnei Noach is if it is missing a limb!

Answer: Perhaps Niv Sefasayim does not apply to birds.

Question #1: It is still difficult, for there are several Mumim that do not disqualify. Why did he discuss Dukin sheb'Ayin? (Tzon Kodoshim - above (35b DH Ela), Tosfos said that other blemishes are only mid'Rabanan. Ayeles ha'Shachar asks why it would be better to discuss a different Mum. Perhaps Tosfos means that he should have said "like Dukin sheb'Ayin "! - PF)

Question #2: Also in Gitin, he could have blemished it elsewhere! (Ayeles ha'Shachar asks why it would be better to make a different Mum. Chidushei Basra says that he should have blemished it in a covered place, lest the king find out.)

Question: He should answer that he addressed them according to their opinion, like it answers at the end! (Tzon Kodoshim - if so, it would be difficult why R. Eliezer did not teach that they are accepted without a mixture.)

Implied question: We expound in Bechoros (37a) through Klal u'Ferat that [a Korban with] a temporary Mum, [after the Mum goes away] it is accepted!

Answer: We need to teach a temporary Mum of Kodshim. One might have thought that once it was Nidcheh, it is never Kosher again. (What is the added Chidush? Ayeles ha'Shachar says that one might have thought that there is Dichuy if the Mum came after it was Kadosh. Sedeh Tzofim brings from Achiezer (2 YD 35:3) that the Chidush is for a Mum that will not pass by itself, rather, only through a Refu'ah.)

Note: Tzon Kodoshim says that the following begins a new Dibur.

Citation: Rabanan do not expound [the difference between] Bam and Bahem.

Inference: [Rabanan] do not expound two Drashos from this. Even R. Eliezer expounds [two] only because it is written Bahem, and not Bam.

Question: In Yoma (64a), R. Yochanan expounds from Bahem three Drashos - these, when their Mum goes away, they are accepted, but others, since they were Nidcheh, they are [permanently] Nidcheh;

He expounds also Bam (when their Mum is in them) they are not accepted, but when their Mum goes away, they are accepted, and also Bam (by themselves) they are not accepted, but through a mixture they are accepted!

Answer: Perhaps because it is written also Bam, which is extra, and Bam and Bahem are both extra, and R. Yochanan expounds one from Bam and two from Bahem;

Rav expounds two - one from Bam and one from Bahem, but he does not expound [from the change from] Bam [to] Bahem.

Explanation #1: The entire Sugya there, both according to Rav and R. Yochanan, is according to R. Eliezer.

Remark: This is not difficult, for also above (76b) and in Menachos (106b) [the Sugya] is like R. Eliezer.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is even like Rabanan. Both R. Eliezer and Rabanan of our Mishnah hold that they are accepted in a mixture;

There (in Yoma) it means "by themselves they are not accepted, but they are accepted in a mixture."

Source: Our Mishnah teaches that if limbs became mixed... The Mishnah connotes that Rabanan agree that those that were offered and went up on the Ma'arachah, he offers them, for Lo Yered.

Inference: This shows that they expound this Drashah (that they are accepted in a mixture), only l'Chatchilah they forbid mid'Rabanan;

If they did not expound it, they should say that even those that ascended, Yerdu, since they are not Batel, if not that the Torah permitted a mixture;

Since Rabanan were stringent that they are not Batel, because it is Darko Limnos, we should not say that because Alu, we permit through Bitul in a majority b'Di'eved. (Chak Nasan - since in general Chachamim said that Es she'Darko is not Batel, all the more so we should be stringent about offering to Hash-m.)

Implied question: Why does it say here that Rabanan do not expound [a second Drashah due to the difference between] Bam, Bahem? We should say that also they expound it, but mid'Rabanan they forbid l'Chatchilah to offer, like the Tana'im of our Mishnah!

Answer: It connotes to [the Gemara] that Rabanan say that mid'Oraisa we do offer them, just like the Reisha of the Beraisa says that we do not offer Rove'a and Nirva. Even b'Di'eved, Yered.

Support: Now it is fine that Rav and R. Yochanan did not abandon Rabanan and say like R. Eliezer.

Proof: It brings there Rabanan's teaching. If they said according to R. Eliezer, it should not have brought Rabanan's opinion.

Implied question: Rabanan of the Beraisa do not expound like this!

Answer: Our Mishnah is primary.

Implied question: There, R. Yochanan expounds his teaching from the Hei in "Bahem" (only a temporary Mum, when it goes away the Korban is accepted, but anything else Nidcheh is permanently Nidcheh), and from the two "Bam"s he expounds [that they are accepted] after the Mum goes away, and in a mixture...

And here, [R. Eliezer] expounds a mixture from Bam, and [that they are accepted] after the Mum goes away from the Hei in "Bahem", and Bam is extra for R. Yochanan's teaching, like I explained!

Answer: This is not difficult at all. The Gemara is concerned only that it can expound three Drashos. It is not concerned to mention the Drashah of R. Yochanan, rather, the simpler [two Drashos that Rav agrees with].

Implied suggestion: Perhaps limbs of Ba'alei Mum are not Batel in [limbs of] Tamim mid'Oraisa!

Rejection: For what reason are they not Batel?!

Suggestion: They are not Batel because Olim (things that are offered on the Mizbe'ach) are not Mevatel each other (below, 81a).

Rejection #1: Ba'alei Mumim are not Olim!

Rejection #2: Even if they were Olim, it seems that Rabanan hold that mid'Oraisa they are Mevatel each other regarding something that does not mix, just like Min b'Mino according to R. Yehudah. It does not mix, so it is not like blood and flour. It is Batel mid'Oraisa (like R. Tam said in Tosfos 73a DH R. Yehudah).

Implied question: R. Eliezer himself did not hold like this reason (we consider it like wood), since he needed a verse!

Answer: In any case it is difficult for Rabanan. This is the Gemara's style, like I explained above (72a DH v'Livatlu).

Question: How can one throw blood of a [Chulin] Behemah or Chayah on the Mizbe'ach?

Granted, we view it is as if it were water, and it is not Mevatel other blood. Still, it is not total water, and it does not lose the status of Chulin!

Even according to the opinion that the Isur of Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah is not mid'Oraisa, this refers to Shechitah, but it seems that one may not put [the blood] on the Mizbe'ach!

Answer #1: Since Kosher blood is mixed with it, and the Zerikah is not primarily for the Pasul, rather, for the Kosher, it is permitted, even though regarding limbs we do not view [the Pasul limbs] like wood.

Answer #2: Even without this, it is fine, for in Nazir (29a) it connotes that according to the opinion that (Chulin b'Azarah) is not mid'Oraisa, even offering [Chulin] on the Mizbe'ach is permitted, regarding imposing Nezirus on one's son (a minor);

According to the opinion that it is to train him in Mitzvos, he brings a Korban, for he holds that Chulin b'Azarah is not mid'Oraisa.

Possibility #1: Perhaps he holds like R. Eliezer, who permits l'Shem wood and l'Shem water.

Possibility #2: Even Rabanan agree. They forbid l'Shem wood and l'Shem water only something that is offered, like limbs of a Chatas and limbs of an Olah [that became mixed], and similarly Nisnim (blood that must be put) above that became mixed with Nisnim below, and Nisnim one Matanah became mixed with Nisnim four Matanos...

However, total Chulin, all permit l'Shem wood and l'Shem water. The same applies to [blood mixed with] Pasul blood or Dam Tamtzis (not Dam ha'Nefesh).

Support: It is proven like this below (79b), since the Gemara gives a difficult answer that they argue about making a decree in the Mikdash, and does not say that they argue about "I view", like they argue in the Seifa. Below I will explain (79b DH b'Mai).

Question (R. Shmuel of Vardom): We say in Menachos (22a) "v'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par umi'Dam ha'Sa'ir" - it is known that the bull has more blood than the goat. ("Dam ha'Sa'ir" shows that it is not Batel in the majority.) Rabanan learn from here that Olim (things that are offered on the Mizbe'ach) are not Mevatel each other;

How can one expound from there? Perhaps the reason it is not Batel is because even if [Dam ha'Par] were water, [the mixture with Dam ha'Sa'ir] would have the appearance of blood!

Answer #1: Sometimes there is so much more Dam ha'Par, that if it were water, the appearance of Dam ha'Sa'ir would change until it became weak and Pasul;

"If it has the appearance of blood" that was taught means the appearance of proper blood, and not a mere appearance.

Answer #2: If not because Olim are not Mevatel each other according to Rabanan, or Min b'Mino [is not Batel] according to R. Yehudah, when one poured in the first drop it would be Batel and Nidcheh.

Question: They should have inferred oppositely, for we say that in Yoma (53b) that he poured Dam ha'Par into Dam ha'Sa'ir, and regarding blood that became mixed with water, it says in the Gemara "we learned only when water fell into blood, but blood into water, every first amount that falls in is Batel";

Therefore, Dam ha'Par, every first amount that falls into Dam ha'Sa'ir should be Batel more blood of the bull, i.e. if Bitul applied, the bull's blood would be Batel!)

Even the one who does not say that every first amount is Batel, in Avodah Zarah (73a), here he agrees, because it is Nir'eh v'Nidcheh!

Answer #1: We do not say that every first amount is Batel when one pours a large amount together, like the Gemara distinguishes in Avodah Zarah (73a) between a barrel, which has a large Amud (flow, when pouring from it) to a small flask, which has a small Amud;

Even the one who says that every first amount is Batel regarding a barrel, when [the Amud] is greater than from the mouth of a barrel (e.g. from a bucket of blood) he agrees that it is not Batel.

Answer #2: The case is, he pours Dam ha'Par [from] this Kli and Dam ha'Sa'ir from another Kli. He pours both together into a third Kli.