Question: Why is one not liable for Kometz and Levonah outside when they are Chaser? Granted, they are Pasul l'Chatchilah. In any case, they are accepted inside, for Im Alah Lo Yered!

Source: This is Pesulo b'Kodesh when they became Chaser between Kemitzah and Haktarah.

Answer #1: According to the opinion in Menachos (9b) that Chisaron is like a Ba'al Mum, this is fine. (It is not accepted inside.)

Answer #2: Even if you will say that Im Alah Lo Yered, in any case it is reasonable to exclude them, since it says "Oso" - he is liable for what is complete, but not for what is Chaser, since l'Chatchilah Lo Ya'aleh.

Question: This requires investigation if [the argument of R. Yosi and R. Shimon] is due to returning Pok'in, for above (83b) there are several verses (teaching that we return) - according to R. Gamliel "Hi ha'Olah Al Mokdah", and according to the other opinion "Asher Tochal ha'Esh";

Also, we expound above (86a) "v'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam" - you return [partially] consumed [meat of an] Olah, but you do not return [partially] consumed sinews and bones.

Inference: We return meat similar to the case of sinews and bones, even partial (limbs). It would be astounding if R. Yosi argues (with all these Drashos, and the Gemara did not mention this, or explain how he expounds the verses.)

Implied question: Why were these taught separately?

Answer: It is because Minchas Kohanim is brought as an Isaron, and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach (Chavitim) is brought half an Isaron [at a time].

Question: Why didn't it teach Minchas Nesachim? (Tzon Kodoshim - perhaps since it is brought with a Zevach, it is included in "Oh Zavach.")

Citation (Me'ilah 15b - Mishnah): Five matters in an Olah join with each other - the meat, Chelev, flour, wine and oil. Six matters in a Todah [join - these five, and also] there is bread.

Question: Regarding what was this taught?

Suggestion: It is regarding Me'ilah.

Rejection #1: The Reisha taught this - Kodshei Mizbe'ach join with each other for Me'ilah...!

Rejection #2: Me'ilah does not apply to Todah, except for the Eimurim after Zerikah, but not to the bread!

Suggestion: It is to be liable [for Ha'alah] outside.

Rejection #1: Our Sugya taught only that Olah and Eimurim join, but not five matters;

Even though one is liable outside [for the five matters], like we expounded above from a verse, this is only by themselves, but not to join.

Rejection #2: One is not liable outside for bread in Todah!

Rejection #3: How do Chelev and wine join? Their Shi'urim are not the same! This (the Shi'ur for Chelev) is a k'Zayis, and this (for wine) is three Lugim!

Suggestion: They join to throw the blood due to them.

Rejection: Regarding a Minchah, it says that even if it is totally intact, we do not throw the blood [due to it]!

Suggestion: They join for intent of Pigul (Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo).

Rejection: [Intent for people] eating and Haktarah do not join!

Answer: We discuss regarding eating, for one who eats to be liable for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei;

Implied question: We can learn from the Reisha, which taught "Kodshei Mizbe'ach join"!

Answer #1: One might have thought that this is only within one Min (e.g. meat and meat, wine and wine...). The Seifa teaches that this is not so. Even several Minim join.

Answer #2: Also, [the five matters] were taught [in the Seifa] to exclude blood, that one is not liable for it for Pigul (above, 45b).

Answer #3: [The Seifa] teaches that Pigul applies to these five and six matters.

Consequence: We must say that it is like R. Meir, for a Mishnah above (43b) teaches "one is not liable for the following for Pigul - Minchas Nesachim, and Nesachim that come by themselves. R. Meir says so. Chachamim say, even what comes with the animal";

And also in Menachos (15b), a Mishnah teaches that the Zevach is Mefagel the Nesachim from when it was Mekudash in a Kli. R. Meir says so.

Implied question: Why do Chelev and wine join? The Shi'ur for Chelev [or any other food] is a k'Zayis, and [the Shi'ur] for liquids is a Revi'is!

Answer: [The Shi'ur for liquids is a Revi'is] only when he drinks them, but in the way of eating, e.g. he soaked his bread in wine, the Shi'ur is a k'Zayis.

Question: Why did it mention five matters in an Olah? Also in a Shelamim they join to obligate for Pigul!

Answer: It mentioned Olah because also Me'ilah applies to it (even though this is not the Chidush of the Mishnah), and even though Me'ilah does not apply to [Todah, Todah was taught to teach that Pigul applies to its bread].

Question: Why didn't it bring the Reisha (a previous Mishnah in Me'ilah, 15b) "Kodshei Mizbe'ach join for Pigul"?

Answer: We would have established it to discuss [only] an Olah, for [the Reisha] teaches also Me'ilah, but this [Mishnah] connotes that more [matters join].

Question: Why didn't it teach that all Tum'os join?

Answer: This would connote even a Sheretz and a Neveilah and flesh of a Mes, and these do not join, like the Mishnah teaches there (17b).

Version #2: The text in Me'ilah (15b) says "rather, say that Olah and Eimurim join with each other to a k'Zayis, to throw the blood for them. Who taught this? It is R. Yehoshua."

Remark: We can resolve also the text in our Sugya to mean the same.

Question: The wording of the Beraisa, which teaches "to be liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei", is difficult!

Answer: We can explain when a k'Zayis was left over from an Olah and Eimurim, it teaches that it is a fully proper Zerikah, to obligate for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei. This is called "its Matirim were offered."

Consequence: Now, we do not need what it says here "Pigul against Pigul is not difficult. This refers to Pigul, and this refers to intent of Pigul", for through the answer of "they were left over", this answers both Pigul and Nosar. In Me'ilah, the text does not say so (Pigul against Pigul...)

Version #3: Some delete "Tamei" from the Beraisa, because no answer at all is given for Tamei.

Remark: According to what I explained, it is fine, for the answer answers for all (Pigul, Nosar and Tamei).

Rebuttal (of Version #3): You are forced to say that the text says so, for if it is not in the text, what it says there in Me'ilah "[our Mishnah] teaches what a Beraisa teaches", what is his source to say that the Beraisa taught that they join, i.e. regarding eating?

I can say that "Pigul against Pigul is not difficult - this refers to Pigul, and this refers to intent for Pigul. Nosar against Nosar is not difficult - this refers to Nosar, and this refers to when they were left over (the blood was not thrown)" discusses to join to be Machshir the Korban and throw the blood for them, but for eating, they do not join!

However, since it taught Tamei, you are forced to say that it was said regarding eating that they join. (Liability for eating is when the person is Tamei. There is no connotation that the Kodshim are Tamei.) This is why it says "[our Mishnah] teaches what a Beraisa teaches."

Question #1: Why must we say that is not precise? Even if it is precise, Rabanan obligate for a k'Zayis of it outside, just like for a Kometz!

Question #2: Similarly, it is difficult below. Why must I say that Rabanan hold that Kevi'us of a Kli means nothing (i.e. even if Ketores was put in a Kli Shares, one may offer part of it, so one is liable for offering part outside)?

Answer: We can say that Rabanan obligate for [a k'Zayis of] a Kometz only because it is important to become Pigul (with the entire Minchah) through intent to be Maktir a Zayis of the Kometz outside. Therefore it is considered Haktarah also to obligate for a k'Zayis outside. (Ayeles ha'Shachar - Tosfos refers to absolute Pigul, which requires that everything was offered properly, except for intent Chutz li'Zmano. If so, intent for a k'Zayis must be intent for a proper Haktarah. Tosfos distinguishes this below from matters to which Pigul does not apply, even though intent disqualifies them.)

And Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, even though Pigul does not apply to them, since they are Menachos, and we find regarding a Minchah that also a k'Zayis is considered Haktarah, all Menachos are considered one (one is liable for a k'Zayis outside for any Minchah).

However, we do not find that Haktarah of a k'Zayis of Ketores is considered Haktarah, for Pigul does not apply to it.

Also, R. Yosi said that Pigul applies only to something of the outer Mizbe'ach. Therefore, the reason why Rabanan obligate for a k'Zayis of Ketores, you are forced to say that it is because Malei Chafnav is not precise, and Kevi'us of a Kli means nothing.

Explanation: According to the conclusion that the Kli is Kove'a them, Levonah of our Mishnah refers to a full Shi'ur, and he is exempt outside according to R. Eliezer since the Kli was Kove'a it.