Explanation #1 (cont.): However, it is not Meratzeh for eating. I.e. Zerikah does not help [to permit] that it will be eaten.

Rebuttal #1: This is difficult. Why should it mention Ibur Tzurah, which R. Akiva did not discuss? It should have said "R. Akiva said only to fix for Me'ilah, and to obligate for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei!"

Rebuttal #2: In Pesachim (82a) it connotes that Zerikah does not help to mandate Ibur Tzurah, for a Mishnah there teaches "if Pesach became Tamei or was Yotzei, it is burned immediately"!

Explanation #2: It seems that this is what [R. Chanina] says here. R. Akiva said that Zerikah helps for Yotzei, i.e. for matters said in the Mishnah, [for Me'ilah and] to fix for Pigul, but in any case it is burned immediately, for it is not accepted to eat it.

Remark: Until here [the first Perek] discuss the law of Pasul Kodshim, when Me'ilah applies to it them. From here and onwards it discusses Kesherim.

Explanation: [There is Me'ilah from when they were Hukdash,] i.e. verbal Kedushah, when he was Makdish them.

Explanation: If a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim touched it, it is Pasul to forbid eating it.

Explanation #1: It becomes Pasul through Linah of blood at Shki'ah.

Explanation #2: It becomes Pasul through Linah of the meat after one day and a night.

Implied question: Afterwards, it taught "if the blood was sprinkled." This connotes that now, we do not discuss when it was sprinkled;

And Linah of one day and a night is possible only after Haza'ah, for Haza'ah is only the day of Melikah. If not, the blood was disqualified at Shki'ah.

Answer: In any case, it mentioned regarding Melikah the Pesul of Linah of meat, for immediately from the time of Melikah begins Linah of one day and a night, for we count from the time of Melikah. (Keren Orah asks why this matters, for in any case it ends at the end of the night! Rashash answers that if Haza'ah was exactly at Shki'ah, if we counted from the time of Haza'ah, we would give the night and the following day.)

Observation: According to the opinion above (5a) that we learned Heter Achilah, this means that actual Haza'ah was done, that it was proper to eat;

And according to the opinion [that we learned] Heter Zerikah, this means that it was proper to do Haza'ah;

And according to the opinion Heter Shechitah, just like above we require for an animal of Kodshei Kodoshim, to which Kabalah applies, that it is proper to receive in order to do Zerikah and Haza'ah (enough time remains in the day), also here for birds, that Kabalah does not apply to Chatas ha'Of, we require that it is proper to do Haza'ah.

Implied question: [The Tana] should have taught Olas ha'Of together with Parim ha'Nisrafim, for both of them are totally offered to Hash-m!

Answer: He needed to teach Chatas ha'Of before Olas ha'Of, for it has precedence (for Hakravah (Zevachim 10:4) and to be Makdish it (Tosefta Zevachim 10:4));

And he teaches Olas ha'Of before all [other] Korbanos, because Me'ilah applies to it more, even more than Olas Behemah, for Me'ilah does not apply to the skin of Olas Behemah, for its skin is given to Kohanim, and in Olas ha'Of Me'ilah applies even to its skin;

And even after Haktarah, until [Olas ha'Of] goes to Beis ha'Deshen, Me'ilah applies to it. So it seems to my Rebbi, R. Peretz.

Explanation: Like I explained about Chatas ha'Of (regarding verbal Kedushah, Pesul through a Tevul Yom and Linah), so is Olah.

Explanation: Regarding Chatas ha'Of it said that Haza'ah was done, for in Chatas ha'Of there is Haza'ah and Mitzuy, but in Olah there is only Mitzuy, i.e. he squeezes the meat with pressure and the blood is squeezed out. Haza'ah is that he sprinkles the blood on the Mizbe'ach from the neck.

Explanation: [Me'ilah applies] even after it was burned, because still one must take the ashes outside the Machaneh. However, from here (taking the ashes outside) and onwards the Mitzvah was done, and Me'ilah does not apply.

Explanation: This refers to Par Helam Davar of the Tzibur, Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and Par Yom Kipur. Se'irim ha'Nisrafim are the [inner] goat of Yom Kipur and Se'irei Avodah Zarah (for Helam Davar).

Question: For what Halachah were they Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom...?

It cannot be for eating, for Kohanim do not eat from Parim ha'Nisrafim!

Suggestion: It is to disqualify the Eimurim from Hakravah.

Rejection: Regarding the bull and goat of Yom Kipur, one cannot say so, for they are of the Tzibur, and they [can] come b'Tum'ah, for Tum'ah is permitted to the Tzibur (for Korbanos with a fixed time)!

Answer: It is to be burned in Beis ha'Deshen where we burn Pesulim;

Pesulim had their own Beis ha'Deshen, like we say in Zevachim (104b) that there were three Batei Deshen there.

Explanation: [The blood was sprinkled] towards the Paroches and on the gold Mizbe'ach, like we say in Zevachim (47a), and Me'ilah applies to it until the meat melts. However, from when the meat melts Me'ilah does not apply, for its Mitzvah was done.

Explanation: After Zerikas Dam [Olah] the Mizbe'ach acquired the meat, and it is Kodshei Hash-m, and the Kohanim [acquired] the skins, and they cease to be Kodshei Hash-m.

Source: This is like we say (Zevachim 103a) that whenever the Mizbe'ach did not acquire the meat, the Kohanim did not acquire the skin.

Explanation: The Mitzvah was still not done, for one must take it out to Beis ha'Deshen.

Distinction: Regarding Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim there is no taking it out to Beis ha'Deshen, for they are burned there. Therefore, Me'ilah does not apply to it from when the meat melts.

Explanation: This is because the oven is Mekadesh the bread through forming a crust on the faces.

Alternative text: Some texts do not say "and through Linah", for a Mishnah in Menachos (100b) teaches that Shtei ha'Lechem are baked during the day (before Yom Tov) and they are not Docheh Shabbos or Yom Tov;

If Linah disqualified them, if so, when they are baked on Erev Shavu'os, they would be Pasul the next day due to Linah!

Rebuttal (Ri): The text can properly say ["and through Linah"]. Since it taught "when its faces formed a crust in the oven, it is Huchshar to become Pasul..." this teaches that he holds that the oven is Mekadesh bread. If so, you are forced to say that Linah disqualifies. If so, baking the bread is Docheh Shabbos;

The Gemara infers like this in Menachos (72b), and a Mishnah in Menachos (95b) holds that the oven is not Mekadesh. Therefore it says that baking it is not Docheh Yom Tov, and it is not disqualified through a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim, since the oven is not Mekadesh.

Question: Why do I [care about] entering it in the oven at all? From when it was Hukdash, it was Huchshar to become Pasul, for Chulin made Al Taharas ha'Kodesh are like Kodesh!

Answer: He mentioned so due to a Tevul Yom. He holds that Chulin made Al Taharas ha'Kodesh are not like Kodesh (Chulin 35b).

Question: Since the Tana of our Mishnah holds that the oven is Mekadesh, why do we need that the faces formed a crust? Entering it in the oven should be Mekadesh it, for a Kli Shares is Mekadesh (what one puts inside it)!

Answer: A Kli Shares is Mekadesh, i.e. only when everything proper to do was done in it, i.e. when it formed a crust.

Explanation: Once the faces formed a crust, immediately it has the law of bread to slaughter the Zevach on it;

However, if they did not form a crust, no, for regarding the Zevach it is written "[Al] Lechem", and it is not called Lechem unless it formed a crust.

Explanation: "Aleihen" (for them) means for the bread.

Question: "There no Me'ilah" connotes that there is an Isur. (Why is this?) It is the Kohen's property, like we concluded above (7b)!

Implied suggestion: We can say like it says above, that it is needed only according to R. Akiva (it was Yotzei, and Zerikah takes effect on Yotzei for Me'ilah, Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, but not to permit eating it).

Rejection: Even according to R. Akiva, Me'ilah does not apply to Shtei ha'Lechem, since it is not the body of the lambs!

Answer: It mentioned "Me'ilah does not apply to it" Agav (for parallel structure with) those above. And so we must say so about Lechem ha'Panim.

Explanation: The spoons [of Levonah] permit the Lechem [ha'Panim]. Removal of the spoons is like Kemitzah, and Holachah to the Mizbe'ach is like Holachah of the Kometz, and we are Maktir [the Levonah in] the spoons like we are Maktir the Kometz.

Explanation: This is because they have a Heter to Kohanim.

Reference: I explained this at length in Zevachim (45b DH Aval. According to R. Shimon, who holds that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, for something with Me'ilah, other Isurim take effect on it only for one who became Bar Mitzvah afterwards.)

Implied suggestion: It mentioned Kidush in a Kli due to the Kometz.

Rejection: Also initially, before he put the Kometz in a Kli to be Mekadesh it, it was Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom from when he was Mekadesh it in the first Kli with the entire Minchah, before he did Kemitzah!

Source (Mishnah - 9a): Me'ilah applies to Menachos from when they were Hukdash. From when they were Mekudash in a Kli, they are Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom.

Explanation: Rather, Agav (due to) the others, for which it mentions that he was Mekadesh it in a Kli, it mentioned this [also here].

Explanation: All of them do not have Matirim, and anything without Matirim, one is not liable for it for Pigul.

And Minchas Nesachim, if it discusses when it comes by itself, like we say there (Zevachim 44a) that one may bring his Zevach today, and the Nesachim in the next 10 days, it is like everyone, for it has no Matirim;

And if it comes with a Zevach, R. Meir and Rabanan argue about this in Zevachim (43a). R. Meir holds that he was Mefagel, and Rabanan hold that he was not Mefagel, and our Mishnah is like Rabanan.

Possibility #1: It taught Linah. If it discusses [Nesachim] that come with a Zevach, [Linah] refers to Shki'ah, for in Temurah it considers them something normally offered during the day.

Possibility #2: And if [the Nesachim] come by themselves, it is proven in Temurah (14b) that it is offered even at night, and dawn disqualifies it. If so, we must explain that Linah is dawn.

Explanation: A Tevul Yom does not make Tum'ah to be Metamei others. [We infer that] our Mishnah is Rabanan.

Explanation: If [a Tevul Yom] touched a Kodesh food, he made it a Sheni, and a Sheni makes a Shelishi, and a Shelishi makes a Revi'i.

Explanation: [He is Metamei it] to make another [food of Kodesh forbidden to eat], and he is Posel Terumah so it does not disqualify another [food of Terumah].

Explanation: They hold that a Tevul Yom is merely Posel anything, and even a liquid of Kodesh. We establish our Mishnah like them.

Question: Here it connotes that a Tevul Yom is mid'Rabanan, like it says "Rabanan made a Tevul Yom...", and in Sotah (29b, R. Yosi) learns a Revi'i in Kodesh from a Kal v'Chomer from Mechusar Kipurim;

A Mechusar Kipurim does not disqualify Terumah, but he disqualifies Kodesh. A Shelishi disqualifies Terumah. All the more so he should make a Revi'i in Kodesh!

The Gemara asks that a food that a Tevul Yom touched refutes this. (It is Pasul for Terumah, but it does not make a Revi'i in Kodesh!) It answers that perhaps [R. Yosi] holds like Aba Sha'ul, How can it say so? Aba Sha'ul's teaching is mid'Rabanan!

Answer #1: We must say that a Revi'is in Kodesh is mid'Rabanan.

Support: So Rashi explained in Pesachim (19a), that we do not find a Revi'is in Kodesh according to the opinion that a food is Metamei a food only mid'Rabanan.

Rebuttal: R. Tam explained that we find a Revi'i in Kodesh mid'Oraisa through wood and Levonah. [The Gemara there] means as follows. Perhaps [R. Yosi] holds like Aba Sha'ul, and Aba Sha'ul's teaching is mid'Rabanan!

Answer #2: The Sugya in Sotah (29b) argues with Rava. Rather, it holds that a Tevul Yom [makes a Sheni/ Shelishi according to Aba Sha'ul/ R. Meir] mid'Oraisa, like the Gemara wanted to say here that our Mishnah is Rabanan.

Question: What is the case? If [the bird] left on the side of the head, R. Akiva agrees, like it says above (7a, that he agrees when the blood left)!

If it left on the side of the legs, we say in Zevachim (25b, about a Zevach) that it is inside and its legs are outside, if he did Kabalah and then cut [off what is outside], it is Pasul, because fat of the limb that left mixes with the blood, and he offers the Pesul of Yotzei on the Mizbe'ach.

Answer #1: We discuss when all the blood gathered in the neck, and afterwards the leg left. Now there is no concern for fat, for whatever will later rise to the neck from the limbs, already rose.

Answer #2: It did not leave entirely, and he cut what left with the bone - this is not Pasul in birds, unless it is lacking a limb - and afterwards he did Melikah.

Answer #3 (R. Rechavyah): In Zevachim (26a) it means that if he did Kabalah and then cut, it is Pasul, because he throws on the Mizbe'ach l'Chatchilah fat of what was disqualified through Yotzei;

However, if he already threw all the blood it is Kosher, for he fulfilled the Mitzvah of Zerikah from the blood, even though the fat that left already rose and mixed with the blood and he threw it on the Mizbe'ach.

Support: Also the Mishnah teaches "if he did Haza'ah", which connotes already. Therefore, Chatas ha'Of is Kosher, for he fulfilled the Mitzvah of Haza'ah from the blood, even though fat was mixed with the blood.

Explanation: Immediately that he did Haza'ah of Dam Chatas ha'Of, we call this that its Mitzvah was done (so there is no Me'ilah).

Explanation: Even though [blood] remains, it is a Chatas. I.e. even though the only blood is what remains from Haza'ah, still it is a Chatas (its Mitzvah was not finished), and its Haza'ah depends on Mitzuy, which is Me'akev.

Explanation: If remains [blood], he squeezes. If not, he does not squeeze, and it is not Me'akev.

Explanation: "Chatas Hi" does not refer to Mitzuy. Rather, it refers to the beginning of the verse, i.e. Haza'ah and other matters of Melikah written before "veha'Nish'ar".

Explanation: Regarding Minchah, that it is written "veha'Noseres Min ha'Minchah Yochlu Aharon u'Vanav", likewise, if there is left, they will eat, and if no Shirayim remain between Kemitzah and Haktarah, this is not a problem?!

And if you will say that indeed, this is so, a Beraisa teaches "mi'Saltah..." (if any of the flour is missing, it is Pasul).

Inference: Here it connotes that it is obvious to the Gemara that if Shirayim became lacking between Kemitzah and Haktarah, it is Pasul;

Question: In Menachos (9a) R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue. One of them holds that he burns the Kometz [for the remainder]!

Answer: Granted, he burns the Kometz for it. In any case, he agrees that one may not eat the Shirayim, like the words connote "veha'Noseres Min ha'Minchah Yochlu...", and when did not remain, i.e. the Shirayim are lacking, Kohanim will not eat.

Question: In any case, he should answer that here is different, for the Torah revealed "mi'Saltah umi'Shamnah"! (Shitah Mekubetzes - what we said that "Chatas Hi" refers to the Reisha is a poor answer.)

Answer #1: We should consider the verse "Chatas Hi", like "mi'Saltah umi'Shamnah" (so a Chatas should be like a Minchah).

Answer #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): Since we find that "veha'Noseres" connotes that something must remain, similarly we should say that veha'Nish'ar means that something must remain.

Question: Why does it bring here the verse "mi'Saltah umi'Shamnah"? It should bring the verse "Min ha'Minchah", which we expound to exclude a Minchah that is lacking;

And in Menachos (9b) we require both verses, one for a Minchah that became lacking before Kemitzah, and one for Shirayim that became lacking between Kemitzah and Haktarah;

And it connotes there that from "Min ha'Minchah" we learn Shirayim that became lacking. If so, it should have brought Min ha'Minchah, for we discuss such a case here!

Answer #1: The Gemara was not so precise to bring "Min ha'Minchah." It brought one of the two verses. It is as if it says "and also [it says...]"

Answer #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): If not for this verse "mi'Saltah umi'Shamnah", from which we learn a Minchah that became lacking before Kemitzah, we would not expound "Min ha'Minchah" for Shirayim that became lacking between Kemitzah and Haktarah;

Rather, after it is written "mi'Saltah", which connotes that we require at the time of Kemitzah that the Minchah is complete, then we expound "Min ha'Minchah" for Shirayim that became lacking, for it connotes "from the Minchah that already was", i.e. it was complete at the time of Kemitzah;

Therefore, it brings the verse "mi'Saltah" even for Shirayim that became Chaser between Kemitzah and Haktarah.

Answer #2 (cont.): It answers that there it is written "veha'Noseres", an extra verse, for surely there are Shirayim, for it says "v'Kamatz Melo Kumtzo v'Hiktir." It does not refer to the entire Minchah, only to the Kometz, which he is Maktir;

And if so, that it is an extra verse, we should not say that [it means] if remained. (Rather, there must be a remainder);

Here it is written "and what remains", and it is not extra, for it needs to say that if there are remnants of blood [after Haza'ah], he does not sprinkle all of it. It does not come to say that Haza'ah of Chatas depends on Mitzuy, i.e. that Mitzuy is Me'akev.