Explanation #1: Above (4a), Rashi explained that we establish "v'Hikrivu" to discuss Kabalah and not Holachah, because v'Hikrivu is said immediately after Shechitah, and Kabalah is the first Avodah after Shechitah.

Question: According to his Perush, how did we want to say here that it is Zerikah?

Explanation #2: We establish it to discuss Kabalah or Zerikah, because they are important Avodos that one cannot be Mevatel them. This does not apply to Holachah (if he slaughters next to the Mizbe'ach, there is no need for Holachah).

Explanation (Rashi): "Kli Shares" refers to Bigdei Kehunah.

Question: We learn below (17b) from a verse that if their clothes are not on them, their Kehunah is not on them, and they are Zarim, and even for an Avodah that is not Me'akev Kaparah!

Answer: If not for the Gezeirah Shavah here, we would say that the Torah was adamant about Mechusar Begadim, i.e. where Begadim are written, but not where Begadim are not written;

Regarding putting fire and arranging limbs, we would not require Begadim from "Kohen" - in his Kehunah;

Rather, since the Torah revealed a Gezeirah Shavah about Kabalah, we learn everywhere that "Kohen" is in his Kehunah.

Implied question: In the conclusion, we are not concerned for this Diyuk, for also regarding Kabalah, there is a Pesul of Pigul! (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

Answer #1: We can say that in the conclusion, it mentioned an expression of Pasul because it discusses Lo Lishmah, which is in all four Avodos;

Answer #2: We find "Deika" that is not sustained at the end, regarding "anything that is evaluated to be money for something else (i.e. Metaltelim, which people trade)" (Kidushin 28b. We conclude that it means "also money can be like Chalipin.")

Question: In Me'ilah (7a), we ask "if he intended for what spilled, what is the law?"

Rabbeinu explained that we discuss when [blood] spilled from the Kli on the floor, and we ask if he takes the small amount of blood remaining in the Kli with intent to throw Chutz li'Zmano what spilled, for it is proper to gather it (and do Zerikah with it);

Or, perhaps since there is blood in the cup (bucket), and what is on the floor is destined to be lost, [the intent] does not disqualify it.

Question: Reish Lakish himself said below (14a) that R. Shimon agrees about Holachah [of blood] of inner Chata'os (even though this does not apply to Shelamim)!

Implied question: We should say that intent [to eat the meat] on the second day should not disqualify Chatas, just like Shelamim (is not disqualified through this, for one may eat it for two days and a night)!

Answer: Obviously, for each [Korban] we follow what is Chutz li'Zmano for it.

Explanation: Now we conclude that from reasoning, we should say so, that something that disqualifies uproots Pigul, and something that is Me'akev brings to Pigul, like regarding Shelamim;

[Now,] one cannot ask [R. Yirmeyah's question that Lo Lishmah] applies to all Korbanos (since for each Korban, it depends on what disqualifies and what is Me'akev).

Explanation: Pigul does not apply to Hagashah, for (it is before Kemitzah, and) Kemitzah corresponds to Shechitah, and there is no Pigul before Shechitah.