Question: Why do we need the verse? We should learn [from a Gezeirah Shavah] "Leidah-Leidah" from Bechor, like we learn regarding Kodshim below!

Answer: If not for the verse, we would have expounded from "Teled" to include a Yotzei Dofen, like R. Shimon expounds.

Explanation (Rashi): Rabanan do not need a verse [for R. Shimon's Drashah], for they hold above (26a) that most [fetuses] are not dissolved (they always assume that there was a proper fetus).

Implied question: However, it is needed for when a midwife stuck her hand inside a woman's womb and mashed the fetus. She is Teme'ah, according to Rabanan. (Here, Chachamim expound it to exclude Yotzei Dofen!)

Answer: We learn both from it.

Reference: In Bechoros 57b, regarding R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that Yotzei Dofen is Kadosh, it says that he holds like R. Shimon, who says that Yotzei Dofen is a proper child.

Question: This is astounding! R. Shimon agrees about Kodshim that it is not Kadosh, like R. Yochanan says here, and like is proven from the Beraisa brought below!

Answer: He holds like R. Shimon, and even more extreme than R. Shimon. He holds that even regarding Kodshim, it is Kadosh.

Reference: In Me'ilah (13a) we forbid the child of Ma'aser Behemah to nurse from its mother. We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Imo-Imo" from Bechor. This is all one, like is clear from our Sugya. (Here, one of the reasons we learn Kodshim from Kodshim, i.e. from Bechor due to "Leidah-Leidah", is because it says "Imo" regarding both of them.)

Question: In Bava Kama (77b), it says that whenever it says "Seh", this excludes Kil'ayim, and it asks what this excludes;

Citation (77b): It need not exclude Kodshim. It is explicitly written regarding Kodshim "Oh Kesev" to exclude Kil'ayim!

Citation (cont.): It need not exclude Ma'aser. We learn Ma'aser from a Gezeirah Shavah "Tachas-Tachas" from Kodshim. It need not exclude Bechor. We learn Bechor from a Gezeirah Shavah "Ha'avarah-Ha'avarah" from Ma'aser.

Summation of question: Why do we need to learn Bechor from Ma'aser, and Ma'aser itself is learned from Kodshim? We should have learned Bechor from Kodshim, from a Gezeirah Shavah "Leidah-Leidah" or "Imo-Imo"!

Answer: We learn from "Leidah-Leidah" or "Imo-Imo" only in a case like here, which discusses birth, or in Me'ilah, which discusses mothers.

Question: In our Sugya, why do we need a Gezeirah Shavah "Leidah-Leidah" or "Imo-Imo"? We should learn from the Pesul of Yotzei Dofen of Kodshim from a Gezeirah Shavah "Tachas[-Tachas]" from Ma'aser, and Ma'aser from a Gezeirah Shavah "Ha'avarah[-Ha'avarah]" from Bechor!

Answer: The Gezeirah Shavah of Leidah and of Imo is needed for some other Drashah.

Question: In Bechoros (47b), R. Shimon said that a Yotzei Dofen is a Bechor for inheritance. He learns from "v'Yaldu Lo Banim", and the Gezeirah Shavah "Leidah-Leidah" from a woman, like he holds here that [Yotzei Dofen] is a child.

He should learn from Bechor of animals, for both are Bechoros and apply only to males!

Answer: It is better to learn people from people, for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei do not apply to them, for they are not Kodshim, and Tum'ah and Taharah apply to them (people. I.e. the Isurim of Pigul, Nosar and Tamei apply to eating Kodshim, but not to eating human flesh. Indeed, the Isur of Tamei is for a Tamei person to eat Kodshim!)

Implied question: In Chulin (137a), it says that it is better to learn Pashut (a non-firstborn) from a Pashut, even though there are more similarities for the other way to learn!

Answer: There, we learn animals from animals. Here we learn animals from people, so [learning Pashut from Pashut does] not [override a greater number of similarities].

Explanation: The verse says "Zos Toras ha'Olah Hi ha'Olah." These are three exclusions - Zos, Hi and the Hei in the second ha'Olah;

The first ha'Olah, Rava expounds it in Pesachim (58b) ha'Olah - the first Olah (the morning Tamid must be the first Korban of the day).

From these three exclusions we exclude these (it was slaughtered at night, and the blood spilled or left the Azarah), and from Toras we include the other Pesulim, that Im Alah Lo Yered (if it was brought up, we do not take it down), like R. Shimon.

Question: R. Yehudah holds in Zevachim (14a) that the floor is Mekadesh like the Mizbe'ach. If so, all of them (Pesulim) should go up [on the Mizbe'ach];

How do we find a Pesul among all of these, other than these three, since Im Alah Lo Yered?

Answer: The case is, there is a Hefsek (interruption) between the animal and the floor of the Azarah.

Question: How do we exclude these three Pesulim? We need one exclusion for Rove'a and Nirva (an animal that had Bi'ah with a man or woman), and all of the [Pesulim] for which R. Shimon admits that Im Alah Yered!

Answer: If it was slaughtered at night or its blood left [the Azarah], we exclude both of them from one exclusion, for they are equal (there is no reason to exclude one more than the other).

Question #1: If Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered in the south, it says in Me'ilah (2b) that according to R. Yehudah, all agree that [Im Alah] Yered;

What is the reason? There is not a fourth exclusion!

Question #2: Also according to R. Shimon, according to Rava, who says Yered, the Pesul was b'Kodesh, for the south is Kosher for Kodshim Kalim...

This is like I will explain, that when it is Kosher elsewhere, this is called Pesulo b'Kodesh. (If so, we should say Lo Yered!)

Answer: Shechitah in the south [for Kodshei Kodoshim] is like Shechutei Chutz (outside the Azarah). It is as if it was choked, like it says there according to R. Shimon.

In Zevachim (84b), we explain why R. Yehudah agrees about these that Lo Yered more than these three Pesulim (taught above);

Citation (84b): If the blood was Lan (left overnight) it is Kosher, for Lan is Kosher for the Eimurim (the parts that go on the Mizbe'ach), and Lan is Kosher for Eimurim because Lan is Kosher l'Chatchilah for meat [of a Korban] that is eaten for two days and one night;

Citation (cont.): Yotzei (what left the Azarah) is Kosher, for Yotzei is Kosher on a Bamah. Tamei [is Kosher,] for it is proper for Avodas Tzibur;

Citation (cont.): Chutz li'Zmano is Kosher, for it is Meratzeh for its Pigul (offering it on the Mizbe'ach is essential for it to become Pigul). Chutz li'Mkomo is equated to Chutz li'Zmano;

Citation (cont.): If Pesulim did Kabalah or Zerikah [is Kosher], if they were Pesulim who are proper for Avodas Tzibur.

Question #1: Also if it was slaughtered at night or the blood left, it should be Kosher, for night and Yotzei are not Pasul on a Bamah, like it says in Zevachim (102a)!

Question #2: Similarly, [why do we say that] Kabalah of Pesulim [Lo Yered] only regarding those [Pesulim] who are proper for Avodas Tzibur, but not a Zar? [We should say so even for a Zar], for he is Kosher on a Bamah!

Question #3: Why did we need to say that Chutz li'Mkomo [Lo Yered] because it is equated to Chutz li'Zmano? It should suffice that it is Kosher on a Bamah!

Answer: Rashi explained in Zevachim (84b) that Yotzei (a Korban that left where it is permitted) is Kosher, for we learn from a Bamah. However, Hechsher of the blood (if it left) is more stringent. We do not learn from a Bamah, unless we find that there is a Hechsher in [the Mikdash]

Question: Why do we need to learn Lan of blood from Eimurim, and Eimurim from Lan of meat, and we learn from this in Zevachim (51a) that we learn a Binyan Av from a Binyan Av?

We should learn one Binyan Av, Lan of blood from Lan of meat!

Suggestion: We do not want to learn blood from meat, which is not offered. Rather, we learn from Eimurim, which are offered, and Eimurim from meat, for this is meat from meat.

Rejection: In any case, this is astounding! We should learn Lan of blood, which is disqualified at Shki'ah, that Im Alah Lo Yered, from Eimurim that were Lan not on the Mizbe'ach at Shki'ah. They are not disqualified at Shki'ah, for their Mitzvah is the entire night;

Since Lan of blood at Shki'ah, even though it is disqualified, Lo Yered, if so also Lan at dawn Lo Yered, for there is no distinction!

Proof: Lan of two nights Lo Yered, even though there is nothing Kosher like this, even regarding [Kodesh] meat!

Answer: We do not learn Pesul of blood from Eimurim, which are Kosher l'Chatchilah the entire night, because there are two [reasons not to learn]:

Firstly, it is blood from meat. And secondly, it is Pasul from something that is Kosher this way.

Therefore, also regarding blood we do not learn from a Bamah, for also here are two differences. It is inside [the Mikdash] from outside, and it is Pasul from something that is Kosher this way.

However, Yotzei of meat is not stringent, and we learn from a Bamah,

However, if blood that is [meant to be] put below (on the lower half of the Mizbe'ach) was put above, or vice-versa, and similarly if blood that is put inside (on the inner Mizbe'ach) was put outside (on the outer Mizbe'ach), since each of these is Kosher for the other [kind of Korban], Lo Yered;

We learn blood from blood inside, [in a case of] Pasul from Kosher.

Question: If blood left the hangings (the Azarah), why does R. Yehudah say that Yered? He should learn blood that left from Eimurim that left, and Eimurim that left from a Bamah, or from Shelamim meat that left the hangings, which is Kosher!

Since what left the hangings Lo Yered, the same applies even to [what left] outside the wall [of Yerushalayim], for we do not distinguish, like I explained above. (Tosfos leaves this difficult. Merumei Sadeh - it is better to learn Yotzei after Kabalah from Yotzei before Kabalah, which is like blood that spilled from the animal to the floor. Alternatively, Tosfos' assumption that Linah applies to blood at Shki'ah is wrong. It is Pasul, but it is not considered Linah.)

Question #1: In Zevachim (68b), regarding [Melikah of] a Zar or [through] a knife, [the bird] is Metamei Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah (the person and his clothes become Tamei when he swallows it), the Gemara asks "why is this different than the left hand, which is Kosher on Yom Kipur, and night, which is Kosher for [offering] limbs [of Olah] and Chelev?

Also a Zar we should learn from a Bamah, for a Beraisa says "what is the source for Yotzei, that it is Kosher? It is because it is Kosher on a Bamah."

What was difficult? We learn only meat from a Bamah according to that Tana, but not blood, like I explained!

Question #2: The left hand and night, which is Avodah of blood [b'Di'eved], how can we learn it from Avodah [of other matters] that is Kosher l'Chatchilah?

Answer (to Questions #1,2): That Sugya is like R. Shimon, who is Machshir even what was slaughtered at night and blood that left. Even blood he learns from what is Kosher on a Bamah, and from meat.

Note: Maharam (on Tosfos DH veha'Nisnim, cited in Mesores ha'Shas) points out that below, Tosfos disagrees with this answer! Maharam says that in Zevachim, this answer is a marginal addition to Tosfos. It seems that it is not from Tosfos.

If the blood spilled [Lo Yered], since the Shechitah was already Kosher, or perhaps [we require] also the Kabalah, like I will explain.

Proof: Surely, that Sugya is like R. Shimon, for in the Mishnah there it says "anything that the Pesul was b'Kodesh, it is not Metamei Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah, and anything that the Pesul was not b'Kodesh, is Metamei [Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah];

Also R. Shimon in our Sugya said that anything that Pesulo b'Kodesh, Im Alah Lo Yered;

We ask as follows. A Beraisa says that Yotzei is Kosher, for it is Kosher on a Bamah. Just like R. Yehudah learns Eimurim from a Bamah, also R. Shimon should learn Pasul blood from a Bamah!

Question: However, according to R. Tam, whose text in Zevachim (24b) says "however, a Beraisa says that Melikah with the left hand is Pasul!", and it does not say Zerikah with the left hand, for we do not find such a Mishnah anywhere...

The Gemara answers that they argue in a Beraisa, and R. Shimon is Machshir.

[According to R. Tam,] the Sugya in Zevachim (68b) is unlike R. Shimon, for according to him, Melikah with the left hand is Kosher!

Answer: Rather, it is a different Tana, and he holds like R. Shimon (regarding Pesulo b'Kodesh), but regarding Melikah with the left hand he does not hold like him.

Assertion: It seems that according to R. Yehudah, Yered, even if it was received and afterwards spilled, just like blood that left, which is even if Kabalah was done;

If it left before Kabalah, e.g. it went from the neck outside, if so this is like [blood that] spilled, for a Kli Shares [i.e. the bucket in which it is received] is Mekadesh only inside [the Mikdash], like it says in Zevachim (88a. R. Shimon would agree that Yered!)

Explanation: Also R. Yehudah argues only about the three above.

Question: In Menachos (79a), we say that if a Chatas was slaughtered Chutz li'Mkomo, Rava says Yered and Rabah says Lo Yered. Rabah retracted to hold like Rava.

There it is like R. Yehudah, for it taught there "R. Yehudah said, they did not argue about [a Todah slaughtered] Chutz li'Zmano, that it is Mekadesh the bread. What did they argue about? They argued about Chutz li'Mkomo;

Citation (79a): R. Eliezer says, it was Mekadesh [the bread]. R. Yehoshua says, it was not Mekadesh. R. Eliezer retracted to hold like R. Yehoshua.

Answer: There, R. Yehudah said according to R. Yehoshua, who does not equate Chutz li'Zmano to Chutz li'Mkomo, but R. Yehudah himself equates them;

He said in Zevachim (84b) that the reason why Chutz li'Mkomo Lo Yered is because it is equated to Chutz li'Zmano.

Explanation: This refers to blood that was Lan. Nosar is Lan of the Eimurim;

[Nosar] cannot refer to meat, for even if it is not Nosar, Yered, for anything from which part goes on the fire [on the Mizbe'ach, e.g. the Chelev of a Korban, it is forbidden to burn the rest, due to] Bal Taktiru.

Explanation: Even R. Yehudah agrees that Lo Yered, for inside, he properly learns blood from blood, even from what is Kosher, like I explained above.

Support: It says so in Zevachim (27b). [R. Shimon] taught "blood that is put above that was put below", and R. Yehudah does not argue.

Question - Citation (Me'ilah 2b) Question: If Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered in the south, are they Yered?

Citation (cont.): According to R. Yehudah, obviously Yered. It is a question according to R. Shimon. Rav Yosef says that [R. Shimon says] Lo Yered;

Citation (cont. - Rabah): R. Shimon said Lo Yered only regarding blood that is put below that was put above, or that is put above that was put below, but this is when Shechitah and Kabalas ha'Dam were in the north;

Citation (cont.): Here that they were slaughtered in the south, even R. Shimon agrees that Yered, for it is as if he choked them.

Question: Why did he (Rabah) mention [blood that is put] above that was put below, more than other [Pesulim]? Just the contrary, he should have mentioned what was slaughtered at night, or the blood spilled!

Even though he (R. Shimon) argues with R. Yehudah, and says that Lo Yered, this is because they were slaughtered in the north!

Answer: Rather, we can say that [Rabah] mentioned what is put above that was put below, because from this Rav Yosef brings a proof. He (Rav Yosef) holds that Olas ha'Of is included in "what is put above", for its blood is put above;

If he did Melikah and Mitzuy (pressed it against the Mizbe'ach to squeeze out the blood) below, just like there, Lo Yered, even though Melikah was not in its place, also here regarding Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the south.

Rabah says that "what is put above that was put below" refers only to Zevachim (animals). Therefore Lo Yered, because Shechitah and Kabalah were proper, in the north;

However, what was slaughtered in the south, and similarly Melikah done below, no. (Rather, Yered.)

Summary: According to Rav Yosef, who holds that Olas ha'Of is included in "what is put above", R. Yehudah argues [with R. Shimon], like it says there, that what was slaughtered in the south, according to R. Yehudah, obviously it is Yered;

Summation of question: In Zevachim (27b), he said that R. Yehudah does not argue!

Answer: Since regarding Zevachim, R. Yehudah agrees that Lo Yered, it is proper to say that R. Yehudah does not argue;

This is like when Pesulim did Kabalah or Zerikah. It says there also [about this] that he (R. Yehudah) does not argue...

[It says so] even though R. Yehudah agrees only regarding [Pesulim] that are proper for Avodas Tzibur, and R. Shimon said Lo Yered even regarding [Pesulim] that are not proper for Avodas Tzibur.

It is no worse if the blood spilled than if it was not thrown at all, in which case R. Shimon says Lo Yered.

Disclaimer: This is not a proof. We can say that even according to R. Shimon, regarding [Pesulim] that are not proper for Avodas Tzibur, e.g. a Zar, if he did Kabalah, Yered;

This is because we do not find elsewhere that this is Kosher inside, and we do not learn Avodas ha'Dam from a Bamah, even according to R. Shimon.

Implied question: If it was slaughtered at night, why does R. Shimon say that Lo Yered?

Answer: It is because we learn from Eimurim.

Distinction: Also when the blood spilled, R. Shimon says that Lo Yered only if Kabalah was already done;

However, if it spilled from the animal's neck, Yered. Due to Kosher Shechitah alone, it is not called Pesulo b'Kodesh.

When Pesulim did Kabalah [Lo Yered] only regarding [Pesulim] who are proper for Avodas Tzibur, even according to R. Shimon.

Explanation: [When it says that Pesulim Kiblu v'Zarku] it does not mean that they did Kabalah or Zerikah. If so, he argues with R. Yehudah, for R. Shimon says Lo Yered even regarding Pesulim who are not proper for Avodas Tzibur, for it is no worse than if the blood spilled;

Rather, they did Kabalah and Zerikah of the same blood.

In any case, without a proof, we can say that R. Yehudah does not argue, since he agrees regarding Zevachim.

Support: It connotes like this in Me'ilah (2b), that due to Kosher Shechitah alone, it is not called Pesulo b'Kodesh, even according to R. Shimon.