Explanation: E.g. Chatas, Asham and Shalmei Tzibur which have Me'ilah before there is Sha'as Heter to Kohanim, i.e. after Zerikah. Until Zerikah they are called Kodshei Hash-m, and [there is Me'ilah in] their Eimurim even after Zerikah;

However, Kodshim Kalim have no Me'ilah until after Zerikah. Then, the portion of Hash-m is clarified, and then there is Me'ilah in their Eimurim.

Explanation: Their law is to be slaughtered in the north, like it says in Zevachim (47a). The Gemara will explain what "Me'ilah applies to them" teaches.

Question: What is the case of Shechitah in the south?

If he received the blood in the north, why is this needed? It is taught below in the Seifa!

If he received the blood in the south, if so it should have taught before this "they were slaughtered in the south and Kabalah was in the north, and similarly they were slaughtered in the north and Kabalah was in the south", which is less of a Chidush [that Me'ilah applies] than when they were slaughtered in the south and Kabalah was in the south!

The order of our Mishnah is to teach the bigger Chidush in the Seifa, like the Gemara makes a Tzerichusa (explains why we need each clause);

According to this, that it teaches this Chidush in the Reisha (when both Shechitah and Kabalah were in the south), if so, it taught this, and there is no need to say this (that Me'ilah applies when Shechitah or Kabalah was in the south, and the other was in the north), and later teaches (regarding Shechitah or Zerikah at night) not only this, rather, even this! The Tana'im did not do so!

Answer: He includes in the Reisha Shinuy Makom of the south, and later explains how this is. I.e. how is Shinuy Makom of the south that was said? E.g. he slaughtered in the south and Kabalah was in the north [or vice-versa]. However, Shechitah in the south and Kabalah in the south, our Mishnah did not discuss this.

Assertion: It seems that in such a case Me'ilah does not apply, since our Mishnah did not explain this. We can give a reason, because he deviated so much.

Objection (R. Peretz): This is unreasonable, for the Gemara explains the reason for our Mishnah that Me'ilah applies, even though he deviated and did it in a Pasul way, because [the south] is proper for Kodshim Kalim. If so, what is the difference between one Pesul and two Pesulim?!

Conclusion: Therefore, it seems to me that the same applies when Shechitah and Kabalah were in the south. Me'ilah applies.

Implied question: Why was it not taught in our Mishnah? It is a bigger Chidush!

Answer: This is the way of the Mishnah. Because it taught each [deviation] by itself, it was not concerned to teach them together.

Source: We find this in Yevamos (53b). It teaches "one who had Bi'ah with his Yevamah, whether Shogeg or Mezid [... whether he was Shogeg, Mezid or Anus (forced) and she was not, or vice-versa], and in the Gemara it teaches even if both of them [were Shogegim, Mezidim or Anusim];

The Mishnah omitted it, even though it is a bigger Chidush, for presumably, since you learned [that he acquired] when there was one Rei'usa (reason to say that he should not acquire), the same applies when there are two.

Reference: The Gemara explains that it taught that Kabalas Dam was in the south for a bigger Chidush. Even though he deviated in Kabalah, which is a primary Avodah (it requires Kehunah), even so, Me'ilah applies.

Version #1: If he slaughtered during the day and Zerikah was at night, or slaughtered at night and Zerikah was during the day - this is the text in most Seforim.

Rebuttal (Ri): This is wrong. It should teach the bigger Chidush at the end, like regarding the south!

Version #2: Rather, the text says oppositely. He slaughtered at night and Zerikah was during the day, or slaughtered during the day and Zerikah was at night, for Zerikah is the primary Avodah;

The bigger Chidush is when he deviated in Zerikah, that there is Me'ilah. Therefore, it omitted Kabalah regarding night, and mentioned Zerikah.

The reason it omitted Kabalah regarding night and mentioned Zerikah, is because it is impossible to be so exact that Shechitah is at the very end of the night and Kabalah is immediately during the day, for Kabalah and Shechitah are adjacent (one may not delay in between).

Explanation: [Whatever had a Heter to Kohanim, i.e.] Zerikah was Kosher, Me'ilah does not apply to it, for it is not called Kodshei Hash-m.

Question: He should answer that the Chidush is that Zerikah does not help to uproot Me'ilah from them!

Answer #1: This is obvious. Since Zerikah was Pasul, it does not help at all.

Answer #2: According to what my Rebbi explained, this is fine. I will explain below (Sof DH Chutz).

Explanation: Since they are wasted (nothing goes on the Mizbe'ach), they are not called Kodshei Hash-m.

Explanation: He should have said that it is as if he choked them, for they are not proper for anything.

Question: What was the question? All those taught in our Mishnah, since there is an opinion that Im Alah Lo Yered, we do not say that it is as if he choked them;

All the more so, Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo are better, that we do not say that it is as if he choked them, for all agree that Im Alah Lo Yered, like I explained below (in the next Dibur)!

Answer #1: Therefore, it seems to me that the text says "why do we need Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo?" I.e. obviously it not is as if he choked them, due to the reason Im Alah Lo Yered, like I explained, that it is better than all of [the others of our Mishnah];

[The Gemara] answers "since it is Meratzeh for Pigul." I.e. Zerikah does not uproot from Me'ilah. One might have thought that even though it is Pasul, in any case it is Meratzeh to fix for Pigul and obligate Kares, for to make Pigul we require like what is Meratzeh Kosher (all the Avodah was Kosher, except for intents Chutz li'Zmano).

If so, it should help also to uproot from Me'ilah! [The Mishnah] teaches that this is not so.

Objection: It is difficult to explain that the Makshan did not know the truth, that it comes to teach that Zerikah does not uproot from Me'ilah, like I explained above, for you are forced to say that it is proven from R. Yehoshua's words (since there was no Heter to Kohanim)!

Answer #2 (to Question (b) - Tosfos' Rebbi): The text properly says "what are Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo proper for?" I.e. surely he knew that it is a bigger Chidush of Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo, to say that Zerikah does not uproot from Me'ilah. You are forced to say like I explained (for all agree that Im Alah Lo Yered);

However, what is the Chidush? There is no Heter through Zerikah. Why should I think that it uproots Me'ilah?!

It answers "since it is Meratzeh for Pigul." Therefore, one might have thought that Zerikah uproots Me'ilah. [The Mishnah] teaches that this is not so.

Explanation: You are forced to say that he refers to Darom. He does not refer to Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo, for it connotes in Zevachim (84a) that all agree that Lo Yered;

Also, he does not refer to [Shechitah or Kabalah] at night, for R. Yehudah and R. Shimon explicitly argue about this.

Explanation: Now, regarding [a Korban] slaughtered at night, that he did not slaughter in the south, [R. Yehudah] says Yered - all the more so when he slaughtered in the south, that he changed its place, Yered!

They argue according to R. Shimon, who says about Shechitah at night Lo Yered. Rav Yosef holds like R. Shimon, who compares changing the place to changing the time.

Question: Why did he abandon [Shechitah or Kabalah] at night, the blood spilled, and the blood left [the Azarah], which R. Yehudah and R. Shimon argue about, and he discussed Nisnim (blood that must be put) above that was put below? Even R. Yehudah agrees that Lo Yered!

Answer (Ri): Here we discuss Olas ha'Of. Its law is to be done above, and it was done below;

Regarding this, R. Yehudah does not agree, for it is like the Pesul of the south. Therefore, Yered.

Implied question: Why is this unlike Nisnim above that were put below? It says in Zevachim (84a) that R. Yehudah does not argue!

Answer #1: There it discusses an animal. It had Sha'as ha'Kosher through Shechitah and Kabalah. However, if Melikah of Olas ha'Of was below, it did not have any Hechsher;

Rabah argues about this, for we find that R. Shimon said Lo Yered only regarding Zevachim, that he deviated in them only on the Mizbe'ach itself, and really, their Shechitah and Kabalah was in the north, i.e. the entire Mitzvah and the entire matter. (R. Y.M. Feinstein - places fixed on the Mizbe'ach, e.g. for Melikah and Matanos Dam, are laws of the Mizbe'ach, and not of Avodas ha'Korban. Deviation in them is not like deviation in the Korban itself);

However, what was slaughtered in the south, R. Shimon agrees that it is as if he choked it. It is like Shechutei Chutz, since he changed the place of Shechitah. Regarding Shechutei Chutz, all agree that Im Alah Yered.

Question (R. Peretz): Below (3a), Rav Yosef challenged one [Mishnah] amidst another. I.e. we find regarding Melikah that when he deviated in it, Im Alah Lo Yered, and the same applies to Shinuy of the south in an animal, and Rabah was refuted;

According to the Ri, why was he refuted from Shinuy Makom of Melikah? [Rabah] properly distinguishes between Shinuy of a bird on the Mizbe'ach, and Shinuy in an animal from north to south!

Answer #2: Therefore, it seems like the simple meaning, that we discuss an animal.

Implied question: R. Yehudah agrees about [an animal]!

Answer: Even so, we bring it for the comparison, that Shinuy Makom is like Shinuy of the south. It is a mere Siman.

Rebuttal: This is a poor answer.

Answer #3 (R. Peretz): Rabah needed to bring this matter of Nisnim above that were put below (and explain why it is unlike Shechitah in the south);

Had he brought only what was slaughtered at night, about this surely one can distinguish properly. There is Shinuy in time, and here is Shinuy in place. They are not like each other at all! The Mishnah of Nisnim above that were put below would still be difficult for Rabah.

Question: What is the relevance of Shinuy Zerikah to Shinuy Shechitah of the south? Regarding Nisnim above that were put below, even R. Yehudah agrees, for it is a Pesul of Zerikah, but here, regarding the south, it is a Pesul of Shechitah!

Answer: This is wrong. According to R. Shimon, a Pesul of Shechitah helps [to say Lo Yered] like a Pesul of Zerikah according to R. Yehudah, for when it was slaughtered at night, that R. Yehudah says Yered, R. Shimon says Lo Yered;

If so, now we can compare Shechitah in the south according to R. Shimon to Nisnim above that were put below. If so, it is difficult for Rabah! Therefore, he needed to distinguish between Nisnim above that were put below and Shechitah in the south;

However, he did not need to distinguish between Shechitah at night and Shechitah in the south, for the distinction is obvious and known to all. There is Shinuy of time, and here is Shinuy of place.

Explanation: He said that it is as if he choked them. If so, they are like Kodshim that died!

Implied question: [The Gemara] could have said that for [Me'ilah] mid'Rabanan, one does not bring Asham Me'ilah!

Answer: It gave a better answer. There is not even a Chomesh, and all the more so he does not bring Asham Me'ilah, for it would be Chulin b'Azarah!

Question: Why was [the Makshan] astounded? There are many [cases of Me'ilah mid'Rabanan], e.g. regarding blood. A Mishnah below (11a) teaches that when [blood] went out to Nachal Kidron, Me'ilah applies to it, and [the Gemara] wants to say that it is mid'Rabanan!

Also regarding ashes of Parah Adumah, in Menachos (52a, we say that there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan)!

Answer: There is different, for people do not refrain from them. Therefore, [Chachamim] should enact Me'ilah;

However, here, regarding Kodshim slaughtered in the south, people refrain from them. About this the Gemara is astounded "is there Me'ilah in such a case?!"

It answers yes, like Ula taught. Even for Kodshim that died, which people refrain from, there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan.