Implied suggestion: He intended at the time of spilling Shirayim on the Yesod, in order to eat from the Korban tomorrow.

Rejection: Obviously it is not Pigul, like a Beraisa teaches in Zevachim (13a). It teaches "this excludes spilling Shirayim and Haktaras Eimurim, which are not Me'akev [Kaparah]."

Implied suggestion: He asks about one who intended during Zerikah, in order to spill the tomorrow.

Rejection: Also this is obvious to him that he was Mefagel, like it says also there. The reason is because we require that he intend in [at least one of] the four Avodos about consumption of man or of the Mizbe'ach, and spilling Shirayim is consumption of the Mizbe'ach, but it is not among the four Avodos.

Explanation (Ri): Rather, it seems that he asks about one who intended during Holachah, in order to throw tomorrow the blood that spilled from the Kli;

A Mishnah in Zevachim (25a, 32a) teaches that if [blood] spilled [from the animal's neck] on the floor and one gathered it, it is Pasul. If it spilled from the Kli and one gathered it, it is Kosher;

Do we say that [the spilled blood] is proper, for if he wants, he can gather it and do Zerikah? Or, since there no Mitzvah to gather it, it [is like blood that] is wasted?

Reference: In Zevachim (35a), it says that one who slaughters a Zevach in order to eat from the Alal, he is not liable for it for Pigul, and Alal is the sinew of the neck, like it explains in Chulin (121a);

Inference: Since Alal has no substance, intent for it does not help. I.e. it is not important and it goes to waste, so it does not become Pigul, even though if he wanted to eat it, he eats it. Also this [blood] that spilled...

Citation: In most texts [here], it says "this Alal, since it has no substance, it is not Mekabel Tum'ah."

Objection: If so, it brings from the case in Chulin. This is wrong, for we should rather bring [a proof] from the case of Pigul itself [and learn from Alal to blood that spilled], than to bring from that case of Tum'ah!

Explanation: If so Rav Asi contradicts himself, for above he said that intent takes effect, and here it is obvious that intent does not take effect on blood that spilled, for it is as if it was lost!

Citation: Rava said "I can say 'on what is destined to be lost'..." I.e. [Rav Asi] said that intent takes effect on what is lost, not that it was already lost;

Rather, it is destined to be lost, e.g. he intends at the time of Kabalah for something destined to be burned or lost before Zerikah, and at the time of intent it was not lost yet, e.g. he threw it in the mouth of a dog or the opening of a furnace, and it still did not reach the mouth of the dog or the opening of the furnace;

Remark: Even so, above [Rav Asi] compares it to what left totally, according to the text that says (above, 6b) "Rav Asi said to R. Yochanan", since it was lost or burned before Zerikah.

Explanation: R. Akiva said in that case of a Chatas that was lost... that Zerikah of one of them exempts meat of the other from Me'ilah, only when they were slaughtered at once.

This does not connote with a long knife. Rather, it is even one after the other;

It is called at once because they are Kosher for Zerikah at once, e.g. he slaughtered one after the other before he did Zerikah at all. If he wants he does Zerikah from this, if he wants he does Zerikah from this;

However, one after the other, e.g. he received the blood of this and did Zerikah before receiving the other, R. Akiva did not say [his law], and he agrees in such a case that the blood thrown does not exempt the meat of the other from Me'ilah.

Explanation: Blood left and he threw that blood itself that left. R. Akiva agrees that Zerikah does not help for Yotzei.

Explanation: It is the name of a place, and [the elder] said to me (R. Shimon) "did R. Akiva say that Zerikah helps for Yotzei?!" The elder was astounded at R. Akiva's words. [R. Shimon] said to him "yes";

When Hirtzeisei the words, i.e. I told [R. Akiva] the elder's astonishment, he said to me incredulously "do you not say so?!" I.e. when you told me the elder's words, it seems that you are doubtful about my words.

Alternative text: Some texts say after [R. Shimon] said to him "yes", he said to him "behold, it is Pasul!" I.e. the elder said so;

This is what it says "when Hirtzeisei the words in front of R. Akiva", that the elder asked him so, R. Akiva said to [R. Shimon] "do you not say so?!" I.e. why were you silent to him? Do you not hold like me?!

Explanation: It is hidden and covered, for one can challenge it.

Remark: [Reish Lakish] does not come to refute R. Akiva's answer to R. Shimon, for surely he answered him properly. However, the wording is not resolved nicely, that he said "at once";

Since the second is Pasul, and even so R. Akiva says that Zerikah of the Kosher exempts [the other] from Me'ilah, if so R. Akiva holds that we consider it like one Korban and one body. Since we consider it like one Korban, what is the difference between at once, and one after the other?

R. Yochanan said to Reish Lakish "do you not say so?!", incredulously. I.e. surely we require at once, for he does not consider them like one [body];

If he separated two Ashamos for Achrayus (if the first is lost or blemished, he will offer the latter) and slaughtered both of them, and he offered the Eimurim of one of them before Zerikah, do you not agree that Yered? This is the text;

It means as follows. He offered the Eimurim of one of them before Zerikah of the other, and afterwards he did Zerikah of the other, whose Eimurim were not offered. Do you not agree that we take down the Eimurim of the one offered without Zerikah of its blood?!

If you think that it is [like] one body, if so you should consider these Eimurim as if they are of the one whose blood was thrown, and he should not say Yered!

Source: Ula said that if Eimurei Kodshim Kalim [were placed on the Mizbe'ach before Zerikah, Lo Yerdu]. He mentioned Kodshim Kalim for a bigger Chidush, and all the more so Kodshei Kodoshim, which are more Kadosh, and the Mizbe'ach absorbs them (they become the Mizbe'ach's food).

And similarly above that it mentioned Ashamos, all the more so Chata'os!

Explanation: I refuted Reish Lakish's words, for surely R. Akiva's reason is not due to one body, for if so, regarding one who separated two Ashamos... that I brought above, we should say that Lo Yered, like I explained, that they became the Mizbe'ach's food;

Rather, surely R. Akiva's reason is due to [Shechitah] at once.

Question: In any case, since the reason of [Shechitah] at once helps to exempt meat from Me'ilah, why doesn't it help for Eimurim, to make them the Mizbe'ach's food, like we compare them in the reason of one body?

Answer: They are different. Granted, if you will say that to exempt meat from Me'ilah is due to [Shechitah] at once, it is fine, for surely, since if he wants, he does Zerikah from this one, or if he wants, he does Zerikah from this one, it is proper that it exempt from Me'ilah even meat of the other, whose blood was not thrown. (Me'il Aharon, citing the Grach - R. Yochanan holds that since he received Kaparah, neither is called Kodshei Hash-m. However, this does not permit Eimurim to the Mizbe'ach. If the reason were due to one body, like Reish Lakish, this should permit also the Eimurim!)

However, to become the Mizbe'ach's food, and say Lo Yered, this reason is not so important.

Distinction: However, if the reason is due to one body, if so this is an important reason even for Lo Yered!

Explanation: "For this and for this" means for meat and for Eimurim.

Explanation: To be lenient is that through Zerikah there is no Me'ilah, for they are no longer called Kodshei Hash-m. To be stringent is to obligate for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.

Explanation: It is forbidden to eat. "It is the Kohen's property!" is a question, for a verse explicitly says that Kohanim eat them.

Implied question: Why does [the Gemara] not answer like above, that Agav "Me'ilah applies to the Eimurim" it taught that there no Me'ilah in the meat?

Answer: Surely, above it answered properly, that since the Reisha taught that Me'ilah applies to the Eimurim and the meat before Zerikah, it taught also about after Zerikah "there is no Me'ilah in the meat", even though there is also not [even] an Isur;

However, here, regarding Kodshim Kalim, no Me'ilah applies to the meat even before Zerikah, he should not teach "there is no Me'ilah in the meat" Agav (along with) "Me'ilah applies to the Eimurim."

Assertion: It seems that we challenge only the opinion that we learned Heter Achilah, for according to the opinion that Heter Zerikah, if so "after Zerikah" means that after it was proper for Zerikah, even though it was not thrown;

If so, what was the question here "it is the owner's property"? Surely it is forbidden, since the blood was not thrown!

Explanation #1: Indeed, there an Isur, for we discuss meat that left. R. Akiva said that Zerikah helps for Yotzei only to fix Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, and it requires Ibur Tzurah (to become Nosar) to burn it, for this is not called Pesulo b'Gufo, which it says in Pesachim (82a) that it is burned immediately;

Zerikah helps for it and makes it as if it did not leave, and it is Pasul due to something else, which we say in Pesachim (there) that it needs Ibur Tzurah. (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)