Explanation: If he ate a half-k'Zayis of meat of this Olah, and a half-k'Zayis of meat of another Olah, he is Chayav Korban Me'ilah.

And similarly according to the opinion below (18b) that the Shi'ur of Me'ilah is a Shaveh Perutah, if he ate a half-Perutah from this and a half-Perutah from another, he is Chayav.

Explanation: If he ate a half-k'Zayis from this and a half-k'Zayis from this, he is Chayav Kares.

Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis join with each other for Me'ilah. If he benefited Chetzi Shi'ur from this and Chetzi Shi'ur from this, he transgressed Me'ilah.

Explanation: If he benefited from a half-k'Zayis of meat of Kodshei Mizbe'ach and from a half-k'Zayis of meat Hukdash for Bedek ha'Bayis, they join.

Explanation: It taught that both Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis join, like the Seifa of our Mishnah taught. Need it teach that Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Mizbe'ach join?!

Question: What was the question? Is it not normal for Mishnayos in many places to teach this, and even this [a bigger Chidush]?

Answer: [The Gemara] asks because the Reisha is included in the Seifa, for "both Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis" connotes in every case - Kodshei Mizbe'ach with Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, Kodshei Mizbe'ach with Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis with Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis;

If so, this is not 'this, and even this.' If it wanted to teach 'this, and even this', it should have taught in the Seifa 'Kodshei Mizbe'ach join with Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.'

Explanation: These do not apply to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Therefore, [the Tana] divided it. I.e. therefore he taught it in the first clause by itself, for it is not applicable to teach "and to be liable for Pigul" in the Seifa, which teaches [also] Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis;

And since he taught Kodshei Mizbe'ach with Kodshei Mizbe'ach by themselves in one clause, it taught also like this about Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, even though we know this from the Seifa (which teaches Kodshei Mizbe'ach with Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.)

Explanation: This is a clear matter. However, Kodshei Mizbe'ach, Kohanim have a share in them, and the owner has a share. Therefore, they do not have Me'ilah. Also Olah, its skin is to Kohanim (so there is no Me'ilah).

Below we challenge this greatly, until it says in the conclusion that R. Yanai means that from this verse we do not learn Me'ilah in Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

Question: In Temurah (32b), R. Yanai said that Me'ilah is explicit in the Torah only in Olah, for it says "mi'Kodshei Hash-m." This shows oppositely, that in Kodshei Mizbe'ach Me'ilah is more explicit than in Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Here it says oppositely!

Answer: These are not difficult for each other. It means as follows. He did not say [that Me'ilah is explicit in] Olah to exclude Bedek ha'Bayis, for surely the verse "mi'Kodshei Hash-m" connotes that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis have Me'ilah. No one argues with this;

Rather, R. Yanai comes to say that Chatas and Asham do not have Me'ilah explicitly, for they are not special only for Hash-m, like Olah.

There it means "Me'ilah is explicit in Kodshei Mizbe'ach only in Olah." And here that he says "only Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis", he does not come to exclude Olah, for it is called Kodshei Hash-m, for it is totally burned on the Mizbe'ach;

Even though the skin is for Kohanim, this is not a problem, for in any case Hakravah is primary. He comes to exclude only Chatas and Asham.

Here he says as follows. One is liable for Me'ilah only for Bedek ha'Bayis, for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is a clearcut matter that they have Me'ilah;

However, Kodshei Mizbe'ach is not a clearcut matter, for in them there is Me'ilah only in Olah.

This is what it says "but Kodshei Mizbe'ach, Kohanim have a share in them, and the owner has a share." I.e. in these there is no Me'ilah, i.e. Chatas and Asham, for Olah is properly called special to Hash-m, since it is totally burned.

Inference: If he decreased the value, they have Me'ilah.

Explanation: Me'ilah properly applies. They are no worse than a wasteheap.

Question (R. Chaim Kohen): They are different! A wasteheap is proper to redeem it, but [Kodshim that died], Ha'amadah and Ha'a'rachah cannot be done to them!

Answer #1: Perhaps he holds that Ha'amadah [and Ha'arachah] do not apply to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

Answer #2: We discuss when he did Ha'amadah [and Ha'arachah] in their lifetime, but did not redeem them before they died, and even so, Ula says that there is no Me'ilah.

Question: We should already know that he did not transgress Me'ilah, because we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs!

And even Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, we say in Pesachim (29a) that there is an Isur [to redeem them in order to feed them to dogs]!

Answer: This is like I explained there, that only to feed them to dogs is forbidden, but we may redeem Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis for other Hana'os, e.g. to burn under one's food. Therefore, here Me'ilah applies to Kodshim that died.

Explanation: From the verse "mi'Kodshei Hash-m" we derive only Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and not Kodshei Mizbe'ach. We learn Kodshei Mizbe'ach from the verse above "Kol Chelev."

Opinion #1: Some say that above, the text does not say 'a Beraisa teaches "Kol Chelev"...', rather, it says 'he brought a verse!'

I.e. R. Yanai learns from a verse, in Chulin (117a), that there is Me'ilah, for it equates Par Kohen Mashi'ach to Zevach ha'Shelamim, from "Ka'asher Yuram."

Opinion #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): The text says 'a Beraisa teaches "Kol Chelev"...'

Question: Why don't we learn from R. Yanai [in Chulin, that it is mid'Oraisa]?

Answer: It was obvious [to the Makshan] that [R. Yanai] teaches mid'Rabanan, and it is a mere Asmachta;

Rather, he asks from the verse "Kol Chelev", which is the verse from which we derive in the conclusion that Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

Question: How do we learn from ["Kol Chelev"] Kodshei Kodoshim? The verse discusses only Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim!

Answer: Since ["Kol Chelev"] uproots the verse "mi'Kodshei Hash-m" from the Drashah it says above, that [Me'ilah applies] only to Kodshim special to Hash-m, this shows that we do not expound it at all [like this], rather, we establish it to discuss all Kodshim. So it seems to my Rebbi. (Me'il Aharon citing Keren Orah.)

Remark: [The Gemara] proceeds to explain this.

Explanation: He erred about the text of our Mishnah. It says "b'Olah", and he said 'b'Olam";

[Rabah] said to him 'did you say b'Olam? I.e. are there only five things in the world [that join]? It was taught that six things in Todah [join]!

Rather, teach "b'Olah". I.e. retract, and adopt the text "b'Olah".

Explanation: If he offered a k'Zayis outside, between meat and Eimurim, he is liable, because it is totally Kalil, and it is all considered like Eimurim;

Shelamim does not [join]. I.e. if he offered outside a k'Zayis of Shelamim, between meat and Eimurim, he is exempt, for one is liable for offering outside only something that is accepted inside, like is brought there in Zevachim (111b), and Shelamim meat is not for the Mizbe'ach.

[We ask that] a Mishnah teaches that all Pigulim join with each other, and even Eimurim and meat!

[We answer that] rather, we should say that Olah and its Eimurim join to throw the blood. I.e. if it was lost and a half-k'Zayis of Eimurim and a half-k'Zayis of meat of Olah, he throws the blood as if a k'Zayis remains from one of them, for all is for consumption of the Mizbe'ach, and they should join with each other;

However, Shelamim does not [join], for the Eimurim are for consumption of the Mizbe'ach, and the meat is for human consumption, and consumption of the Mizbe'ach and human consumption do not join.

Who [taught this]? It is R. Yehoshua, for a Beraisa teaches that all Zevachim... this excludes R. Elazar, who said that there is blood, even though there is no meat. According to him, we do not need [anything to join]!

Question: Why did it teach "to be liable for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei"?

Answer: It is in order to throw the blood for it l'Chatchilah, to obligate for the meat for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, for Zerikah fixes Pigul. It is considered that its Matirim were offered.

Explanation: This means or a k'Zayis of Chelev.

Explanation: [We ask] what Zerikah applies here;

Rav Papa said Minchas Nesachim. I.e. there is a Zevach with the Minchah, and the entire Zevach was lost. One might have thought that since the Minchah is intact, it is in place of the meat or Eimurim, and he does Zerikah. [R. Yehoshua] teaches that this is not so.

Explanation: The Gemara explains the reason, because all of them are called Terumah.

Observation: This was already taught in the Reisha. Since [the Tana] needed to teach that all Neveilos join and all Sheratzim join, he taught also all Pigulim.

Explanation: Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser and Terumas Ma'aser of Demai it did not need to explain the reason why they join, for it is obvious, for they themselves are called Terumah.

Observation: The Gemara explains regarding what [they join].

Explanation: I.e. meat of this Neveilah [join with] meat of another Neveilah.

Explanation: Our Mishnah means as follows. All Neveilos join for Tum'ah, but for eating, [all] do not join, only [Neveilos of] Tahor [species join by] themselves, and Temei'im by themselves;

This is because the Isur of [eating] Tehorim is due to Neveilah, and the Isur of Tamei [species] is due to Tum'ah (Lo Sochal any Tamei species). He holds that there is no Isur Neveilah, for he holds that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur. Levi holds that they join also for eating.

Question: Do Rav and Levi argue about an argument of Tana'im elsewhere, who argue about Isur Chal Al Isur?!

Since we ask below according to Rav Asi, and answer that this Tana holds that Isur Chal Al Isur, this implies that all the Amora'im who argue here hold that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur!