Explanation: "He did Melikah" refers to both of them, but "he did Mitzuy" refers only to Olas ha'Of.

Question: Why don't we bring from the Reisha of this Mishnah taught there in Zevachim (64b), Kodshei Kodoshim that he did Melikah and Mitzuy of its blood Lishmah and Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul?

Answer: From there it is not difficult at all. Is it any stronger than our Mishnah, which taught "he did Mitzuy", and Rav teaches [that it means] "he did Haza'ah"? Likewise, he can say there that Mitzuy is Haza'ah!

However, this that we brought here, one cannot say so, for it taught "and the same applies to Olas ha'Of", to which Haza'ah does not apply at all. You are forced to say that Mitzuy is precise.

Reference: [He said so] in Zevachim (52a) regarding the argument of R. Yishmael and R. Akiva, and he said that "Shirayim are Me'akev" refers to Chatas ha'Of.

Explanation: This is in Zevachim (85b), and refers to bones, sinews and hooves, which the Reisha of this Mishnah discusses, and it teaches that if they separated, they are not brought up;

I.e. the bones and sinews separated from the meat that they were [initially] attached to. This Seifa refers to it, and says that all of them, whether attached or they separated, that they flew off the Mizbe'ach, he does not return [them], and similarly a coal that flew off the Mizbe'ach, he does not return [it]. This implies that if it is on the Mizbe'ach, he returns [it to the fire];

Granted, according to R. Yochanan, who said above regarding Me'ilah that also after Terumas ha'Deshen, its Mitzvah was not done, it is fine, for here we say that he returns;

However, according to Rav it is difficult. Why does he return, since its Mitzvah was done? We are thinking that a coal is like ashes.

Question: We should say that surely, after Terumas ha'Deshen, its Mitzvah was properly done, and we do not say here that he returns due to removing the ashes, rather, because he needs to take Terumas ha'Deshen, for here we discuss before midnight, which is the time of Terumas ha'Deshen!

Strengthening of question: [Surely here we discuss before midnight,] since we distinguish between before midnight and after midnight in the Seifa regarding limbs, and here regarding a coal we do not distinguish.

Further strengthening of question: The Sugya in the Gemara connotes like this, that there we discuss a coal even before midnight.

Answer (ha'Sar mi'Kutzi): Surely, he is not obligated to returns coal due to Terumas ha'Deshen, for there are many ashes to take aside from this [coal];

Granted, regarding Me'ilah there is adamancy that Terumas ha'Deshen was not taken, like it connotes above, because the Mitzvah was not done, for there are still ashes standing on the heap in order to take from them;

However, here that a coal flew off, we should not say that he returns it to fulfill Terumas ha'Deshen, since it is possible to fulfill it with the rest of the ashes.

However, according to R. Yochanan, who says that in removing the ashes there is adamancy, it is fine that he needs to return it, for the Torah said "he will take out [all] the ashes." (The verse does not say "all", but the Mitzvah applies to all the ashes.)

Explanation: [A coal] is unlike ashes, for it has substance. Therefore he returns it, for Haktarah applies to it.

Explanation: Then [before Zerikah] they are Kodshei Hash-m, and they were still not permitted to Kohanim.

Citation: Or from Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim after Zerikas Dam.

Explanation: Then they are Kodshei Hash-m, for Hash-m's portion was clarified.

Rav explained that what he benefited goes to Nedavah, for Olas Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, and the skins are given to Kohanim.

Observation: This is not Lemedim Lifnei Chachamim of Sanhedrin (17b), for it explains there that this is Levi. We never find Levi mentioned in a Beraisa!

Support: Also, this is not the [Gemara's] style to bring a proof for Levi from Levi himself.

Implied suggestion: This connotes that he found out that he was Mo'el before the Chatas was offered.

Rejection: If so, below, that it says that if the Chatas was already offered, [the coins] go to Yam ha'Melach, we must explain similarly, that the Chatas was offered before he found out;

One cannot say so, for Rabah said below that if he found out after Kaparah, [the coins] fall to Nedavah!

Explanation: Rather, it means as follows. If the Chatas was not offered, that he comes to pay before the Chatas was offered, he adds and brings a Chatas. I.e. he adds money that he is obligated from principal and Chomesh onto the Chatas that he must offer, and brings a fat (expensive) animal;

However, the Beraisa does not discuss at all the Asham of Me'ilah.

Explanation: He brings a fat Asham, like I explained about Chatas.

Explanation: It became known to him before he offered his Chatas, like I explained above, but he did not come to pay for the Me'ilah until he offered his Chatas;

They go to Yam ha'Melach, for if [the coins] were a Chatas, it would die, since he atoned through another. Therefore, now that they are coins, they go to Yam ha'Melach.

Explanation: If it was an Asham, it would graze, for any case in which a Chatas dies, an Asham grazes.

Remark: This is even if the owner atoned through others. Below, we ask [a contradiction] between the Reisha and the Seifa.

Explanation: E.g. if one transgressed Me'ilah with Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis and he brought principal and Chomesh, they are for Bedek ha'Bayis, and even if the [transgresser] who brought them died, for his name is not on them. (Chidushei Basra - one might have thought that once he died, he already received Kaparah, and there is no need for the payment to Bedek ha'Bayis.)

Explanation: Even if that generation of an Olas Tzibur died, the Tzibur persists, for a generation passes and a generation comes.