Explanation: Since the owner did not atone, it does not go to waste, like it says "it grazes..."

Explanation: [The Gemara asks why the Seifa] distinguishes when its year passed and it was found to be a Ba'al Mum from these three of the Reisha, and it did not teach all of them in one clause.

It answers that the Reisha is uniform. In every case it dies, whether or not they were Mechaper, but the Seifa is not uniform. In the cases in the Seifa, we say that it dies only if the owner atoned;

However, if he did not atone, we say that it grazes, like it explains in our Mishnah. Therefore it needs to divide them into two clauses.

Citation: In Temurah (21b, a Mishnah) teaches like here. [The Gemara] asks why are both needed?

It answers that there it is due to Temurah. I.e. Agav (along with) teaching there that they do not make Temurah, which applies there, and Temurah is primary, it taught also that Me'ilah does not apply;

Here, [it was taught] due to Me'ilah, that Me'ilah does not apply to it. This is primary, and Agav the law of Me'ilah it taught that it does not make Temurah.

Explanation: It is because they are proper to come all Shelamim. Since he did not specify, if he wants, he can bring all of the coins for Shelamim, and Me'ilah does not apply to Kodshim Kalim.

Explanation: They are for Olas Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach. In Nazir (25a) it explains the reason. (R. Yochanan says that it is a tradition from Sinai. Reish Lakish learns from "l'Chol Nidreihem ul'Chol Nidvosam" that excess Nedarim are Nedavah.)

Explanation: This is like a Chatas whose owner died.

Source: It is written [about the bread] "on the Nazir's hands", and there is no Nazir here.

Explanation: This is mid'Rabanan, like the Gemara explains.

Explanation: We say that its Mitzvah was done. The Gemara explains how one benefits from it.

Explanation: [Turtledoves before their time] are small, and they are not proper for the Mizbe'ach now, and when they will grow, they will be Kosher, and our Mishnah taught that one may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply;

"Doves after their time" was taught for naught, for they will never be proper for the Mizbe'ach, since their time passed. They were mentioned Agav turtledoves before their time.

Explanation: This is said in astonishment. [Did the Torah say to bring turtledoves before their time], which are not proper for the Mizbe'ach [now]? For what does he bring them?!

Consequence: If so, we should not say that Me'ilah does not apply for this reason, that it is proper to bring...

Source #1: If [the text said] so, it would connote that the one who says that Mo'alin, this is mid'Oraisa, and he argues with the Drashos below;

And this is not so, for in Yoma (59b) it says that they argue only mid'Rabanan, but mid'Oraisa, [all agree that] Me'ilah does not apply.

Source #2: R. Shimon says that here that Me'ilah applies, and in our Mishnah he says that Me'ilah applies only at the end, i.e. mid'Rabanan;

Conclusion: Rather, the text says "they argue only mid'Rabanan, but mid'Oraisa all agree that Me'ilah does not apply. What is the source of this?"

Question: We should say oppositely - there is nothing that its Mitzvah was not done, and Me'ilah does not apply to it!

Answer: Eglah Arufah Yochi'ach (disproves this) - taking it down to Nachal Eisan forbids it, but beforehand, no (it is permitted).

Question: One exclusion would suffice! You cannot say that if only one exclusion were written, we would learn from the other [source], for if so, it should not teach the exclusion, for now we are holding like the opinion that Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad (two verses, one of which teaches something that we could have learned from the other verse) teach [to elsewhere]!

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi, R. Peretz): [The Torah] needed to write [the exclusion] "ha'Arufah", for it needs to teach that this is [fulfilled] through breaking the neck, but another is not, to exclude Parah Adumah, like it says in Chulin (24a);

If so, it needed to write "v'Sam'o", lest we learn from there, since we need "ha'Arufah" (so it is not Shnei Kesuvim), like I explained.

Explanation: It was like a skylight.

Observation: This is not the Lul that we say in Zevachim (62b) and in Sukah (49a), for that was truly between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach, in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of throwing meat [onto the Mizbe'ach];

This [Lul] was towards the corner of the Mizbe'ach, and the width of the ramp, which was 16 Amos, already finished. The Mizbe'ach was 32 Amos wide, and the ramp was in the middle of the Mizbe'ach.

Explanation: This is unlike R. Eliezer b'Ribi Tzadok, for since after it descends, it must be burned, if so, its Mitzvah was not done. If so, why do we say in our Mishnah that when it descended to Shitin, Me'ilah does not apply?

It answers that it is even like R. Eliezer b'Ribi Tzadok, if he caught, i.e. he caught from the air, and it did not truly descend on the floor. In such a case, there is no Mitzvah to burn. Therefore, our Mishnah says that Ein Mo'alin.

Version #2A: We should say that our Mishnah is like R. Eliezer bar R. Tzadok and not Rabanan. If it were Rabanan, why does our Mishnah say that [after] it descended to Shitin, Ein Mo'alin? What Me'ilah is relevant - it descended to the depth! How could one be Mo'el (benefit from it)?!

It answers [that Me'ilah is relevant] if he caught.

Observation: According to this text, we do not make the inference [that if it must be burned, Me'ilah applies in Version #1 according to R. Eliezer b'Ribi Tzadok.

Version #2B: We should say that our Mishnah is like R. Eliezer bar R. Tzadok, e.g. it was caught, that he caught the wine before it descended to the floor;

If it descended to the floor, the floor is Mekadesh, and he must burn it. If so, its Mitzvah was not done!

It answers that really, it is like R. Eliezer, and even if it was not caught, and [he requires burning] mid'Rabanan.

It asks that he brought a verse. I.e. R. Eliezer bar R. Tzadok expounded from a verse, and answers that it is a mere Asmachta.

Explanation: They burned the Ketores on the inner Mizbe'ach, and there were ashes on it, and they carried it to the place where they throw the crop and feathers [of Olas ha'Of], 10 Amos from the base of the ramp, like it explains in Tamid (28b), because it says "v'Hishlich", and casting is not less than 20 Amos. (Olas ha'Of is offered at the southeast corner of the Mizbe'ach, past the top of the ramp; the ramp was 30 Amos long.)

Explanation #1: Some say that this refers to one who is Makdish ashes of his oven.

Rebuttal: Is this worse than one who is Makdish dung of his wasteheap? It says below that Me'ilah applies to it. If so, what was difficult here? Surely anyone can be Makdish to Bedek ha'Bayis!

Explanation #2: Therefore, it seems that we discuss a man who took Terumas ha'Deshen after it was taken off, and he was Makdish it. Me'ilah applies to it mid'Oraisa.

Explanation: Turtledoves must be big.

Citation: And doves whose time passed.

Explanation: For doves, big ones are Pasul, like we say in Chulin (22a) "one may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply." I.e. Me'ilah does not apply at all, even mid'Rabanan we say that there is no Me'ilah at all.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps Me'ilah does not apply mid'Oraisa, but there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan!

Rejection: Above (11a) regarding blood, that it says that Me'ilah does not apply to it, you are forced to say that it means that Me'ilah does not apply at all;

If it is only mid'Oraisa, why does it say "when it went out to Nachal Kidron, Me'ilah applies to it"? Also when it went out to Nachal Kidron, Me'ilah is only mid'Rabanan, like I explained above (11a DH Mai)!

Support: Also regarding Chata'os ha'Mesos, it says that Me'ilah does not apply, i.e. even mid'Rabanan, like it connotes above (2a).

Inference: This shows that wherever it says (Shitah Mekubetzes - in a Mishnah) that Me'ilah does not apply, it means even mid'Rabanan.

Explanation: This is like the Gemara explains. And doves whose time passed, one may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply.

Implied question: Why is this unlike a Chatas whose year passed? It says above (10b-11a) that Me'ilah applies to it before Kaparah!

Answer: There, it is because it grazes, and it has Pidyon. However, here, there is no Pidyon of birds, and it is not called Kodshei Hash-m.

Explanation #1 - Inference: It connotes that it says here "granted, ashes of the outer Mizbe'ach, Me'ilah does not apply, because it says "v'Sam'o".

Rebuttal: One should not explain like this, for ashes of the outer Mizbe'ach have Me'ilah, like it connotes that above (at the top of this Amud), that it asks "there is Terumas ha'Deshen [which has Me'ilah after the Mitzvah was done]!"

And just the contrary, v'Sam'o connotes that there is Me'ilah, like it says above 'and it is written there "v'Sam'o Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach"!'

Explanation #2: Therefore, it seems to explain that he infers from our Mishnah, which taught "ashes of the inner Mizbe'ach - one may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply, because its Mitzvah was done", i.e. Dishun. However, before Dishun, Me'ilah applies, for its Mitzvah was not yet done, for it is a Mitzvah to remove ashes;

And this is only for the inner Mizbe'ach, but the outer Mizbe'ach, Me'ilah applies even after Dishun;

And regarding this, the Gemara said that granted, Me'ilah applies to the outer Mizbe'ach even after Dishun, like we derived above from "v'Sam'o";

However, the inner Mizbe'ach, what is the source that there is a Mitzvah of Dishun, that we should say that Me'ilah does not apply from the time of Dishun and onwards, for its Mitzvah was done?

Objection: This is wrong, for if so, it connotes that before Dishun, Me'ilah applies to the ashes of the inner Mizbe'ach;

And this is not so, like we say in Pesachim (26a) that Ketores, from when its smoke goes up, Me'ilah does not apply to it!

Explanation #3: Rather, it seems to explain as follows. Granted, the outer Mizbe'ach, that it is written v'Sam'o, we learn from this that it is a Mitzvah to do Dishun. However, the inner Mizbe'ach, what is the source that there is a Mitzvah of Dishun? [The Gemara] does not ask from Me'ilah at all.

Objection #1: This is difficult, for it should have brought "v'Herim ha'Deshen"!

Objection #2: Below (12a), it asks "what is the source for the Menorah?", it does not ask from Dishun, for it is written explicitly "b'Heitivo Es ha'Neros"!