Explanation #1 (Rashbam): At the time of Shechitah, he intended to put the Matanos inside Chutz li'Zmano, either the Matanos of the Heichal or the Matanos of the Mizbe'ach;

This is "he was Mefagel, whether in the first [Matanos] or second or third", like one who slaughtered a Shelamim with intent to do Chutz li'Zmano just Zerikah or just Haktarah. All agree that it is Pigul, since the entire Shechitah was with Pigul [intent. He need not intend to do all the Avodos Chutz li'Zmano.]

[The Gemara] asks if so, what is Rabanan's reason? Even to spill Shirayim tomorrow, we hold (below, 13b) that it is Pigul!

[It answers] who are Chachamim? They are R. Eliezer. Since R. Eliezer does not obligate for one [offering] k'Zayis outside, likewise if he was Mefagel [in only one set of Matanos], it is not Pigul.

Rebuttal: We cannot explain so. According to this, we cannot resolve at all "what is the case? This refers to blood put on the Mizbe'ach."

Explanation #2: Rashi's Perush is primary. ("In the second or third" discusses when the blood spilled after one or two sets of Matanos, and he was Mefagel in Shechitah of an animal brought to complete the Matanos.)

Explanation: We are more lenient about Pigul, for even according to the opinion that one is liable for offering a k'Zayis of a Kometz outside, for Pigul, even [if he intended Chutz li'Zmano] for an entire Kometz, it is not Pigul if he was not Mefagel in the Levonah.

He brings a proof from R. Eliezer alone. He exempts for [offering] outside. All the more so it is not Pigul!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): According to the conclusion, R. Eliezer agrees about blood. I.e. he obligates for some of the blood outside. This implies that it is Pigul!

Rejection (and Explanation #2): This is not a proof, like I explained (that we are more lenient about Pigul). Rather, [the conclusion] comes only to reject what we answered "it is R. Eliezer."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He was not Mefagel in the fourth.

Question: No one mentioned the fourth!

Explanation #2 (Rashi, in Menachos 16b): He was Mefagel in the first and second, and he was silent in the third.

Question: If so, this is difficult. Did it teach "he was silent", like we asked above?

Answer: Perhaps above, that he was silent in the middle, there was more need to explain, since the first and third were with [Pigul] intent, and the second was in silence.

Consequence: According to this Perush, all Haza'os of the gold Mizbe'ach are one - the seven on Tiharo and the four of the Keranos.

Support: It connotes like this in Yoma (61a). A Beraisa teaches "v'Chiper Es Mikdash ha'Kodesh" - this is inside [the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim]. "V'Es Ohel Mo'ed" - this is the Heichal. "V'Es ha'Mizbe'ach" is like it connotes;

Inference: It did not teach at all "on Tiharo." This connotes that [all Matanos on] the Mizbe'ach are considered one Kaparah.

Support #2: It says there (61a) also "before the end of the Matanos in the Heichal and the blood spilled, he brings another [Korban] and starts with Matanos of the Mizbe'ach. If he put some Matanos of the Mizbe'ach and the blood spilled, he brings another [Korban] and starts from the beginning";

However, it did not teach "if he finished the Keranos and the blood spilled", he brings another and starts from Tiharo", for all [Matanos of the Mizbe'ach] are considered one.

Question: Below (42b), it says that we find the case with four Parim and four Se'irim. I.e. one is for Haza'os Bein ha'Badim (between the staves of the Aron), one is for Haza'os [towards] the Paroches, one is for Haza'os of the Keranos, and one is on Tiharo. This shows that Haza'os of the Keranos and Tiharo are not considered one!

Answer: Perhaps the fourth Par below is not for Tiharo. Rather, he holds that Shirayim are Me'akev, and one is for Shirayim.

Consequence: According to this, the text [here] can say "the case is, he was Mefagel in the first, second and third." And so is the text in Rabbeinu Gershom here, and in Menachos (16a);

It is considered Mefagel in half a Matir because there are still the Shirayim, which are Me'akev (and he was not Mefagel in them).

Question: You are forced to say that this Tana holds that Shirayim are not Me'akev, since he counts only 43. The one who holds that they are Me'akev, he counts one more, like is proven below (42b)!

Answer: Even though Shirayim are Me'akev, this Tana counts only Haza'os.

Question (Rashi in Menachos 16a): Also Kometz, Shochet or Mekabel, we should say that it does not become Pigul. When he had intent in Shechitah or Kabalah, it became Pasul. When he does Zerikah, he throws mere water!

Answer #1 (Rashi here): There, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv. (Rashi here asked only about Shechitah.)

Answer #2 (Rashi in Menachos 16b): That Avodah in which he was Mefagel was done totally in its Kedushah - Shechitah with intent for Zerikah or Haktarah, and similarly Kabalah with intent for Zerikah or Haktarah;

However, the other Haza'os are one Avodah, and the Matirim of the Avodah were not offered in their Kedushah.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes says that the following is a comment, which asks like Tosfos asks in the coming Dibur. We do not explain like this, rather, like Tzon Kodoshim.

Explanation #1: [The Gemara] asks that when he was Mefagel in Haza'os of Bein ha'Badim, the other [Haza'os] of the Heichal are mere water!

Implied question: It could ask also about the first Haza'ah Bein ha'Badim! [If it was with Pasul intent,] the other Haza'os Bein ha'Badim are mere water!

Answer #1: We can say that he was Mefagel in the last Haza'ah.

Answer #2: Since it is one place, this is not a problem, like I will explain below.

Answer #3: [The Makshan] understands why [the other Haza'os] of Bein ha'Badim are not [like] water, because Pigul is not completed until he throws all the Haza'os of Bein ha'Badim. (Tzon Kodoshim explains "[the Kohen who sprinkles] does not want [the other Haza'os] of Bein ha'Badim to be [like] water...");

However, [Haza'os] of Bein ha'Badim, completion of Pigul does not depend on them, since if the blood spilled, he brings another Par and begins in the Heichal, and not Bein ha'Badim;

Similarly, Haza'os of the gold Mizbe'ach do not depend on Haza'os of the Heichal, to complete the Pigul of the Heichal.

Remark: There is no question against Rabanan. Since Ein Mefaglin in half a Matir, and he needs to be Mefagel in all the Haza'os, if so Pigul is not finished until he is Mefagel in all of them, from the beginning of Bein ha'Badim until finishing Al Tiharo.

Explanation #1 (cont.): [Rabah] answers with four Parim. He said four in order to have intent and be Mefagel in all the places. The same applies to the first Par Bein ha'Badim, and the blood spilled, and he brought a second Par and did from it Haza'os of the Heichal and Mizbe'ach in silence. It is Pigul according to R. Meir. This is from R. Baruch.

Question: If so, if he was Mefagel in the Kometz but not in the Levonah, we should ask according to R. Meir, why is it Pigul in half a Matir?

This Avodah was not done in its Kedushah. When he is Maktir the Levonah, he burns mere earth!

Suggestion: It is because they are two species.

Rejection: Still it is difficult from two spoons [of Levonah of Lechem ha'Panim], unless we distinguish - since they are two Kelim, it is like two species, and it is Pigul.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): In one place it is obvious that we do not say that it is mere water;

He compares initial Avodah to final Avodah. It is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv. However, the verse does not discuss in two places, and he throws mere water;

Question: Still, how do we find Pigul in the Haza'os inside in one Par? Since he sprinkled the first time with [Pasul] intent, the other [Haza'os] are mere water! (Tzon Kodoshim - in the previous Dibur, Tosfos brought that the Makshan asked this only regarding the Heichal. Tosfos asks according to the truth. Rabah cannot hold like the third answer above, for if so, he would not need to establish the case with four Parim.)

Answer #1: According to R. Tam this is fine, for it is one place.

Answer #2: The case is, he was Mefagel in the last Haza'ah of Bein ha'Badim.

Question #1: Below (52b), Rami bar Chama said "this Tana holds that Shirayim are Me'akev", and he brings [a proof] from the Beraisa, and rejects it. He could have brought from this!

Question #2: He could have brought from the Beraisa above (39a) that blood that needs [to be put on the Yesod] must be laundered, and intent disqualifies it. We establish it to discuss Shirayim, and like the opinion that it is Me'akev!

Question (Rashi in Menachos 14a): Why must we say that it has no Matirim, rather, it permits others, like it says in the Gemara?

Even without this, obviously one is not liable for Pigul for the Kometz, for if he ate it the Pigul is uprooted, for the Matir was not offered properly!

Answer #1 (Rashi): The case is, most of it caught fire. It is considered as if the Matir was offered, like it says in Menachos (26b) "when does [the Kometz] permit eating the Shirayim? It is from when the majority catches fire."

Question: If the majority caught fire, if so Pigul was uprooted from it, like Ula said in the Gemara (43a) that even if Im Yarad Ya'aleh, and likewise even eating it [is permitted], like it connotes in Kerisus (14a! Our Mishnah says that one is not liable for it, i.e. but one may not eat it!)

Answer: We discuss when half was brought up on the Mizbe'ach, and half was not brought up. Pigul was not uprooted from what is on the ground, and one would be liable for it, if not that it itself is a Matir;

Implied question: It says in the Gemara (43b) about a Pigul Kometz, that half was on the ground and half was put on the marh, and it caught fire, its Pigul was uprooted, and we bring up [the other half, on the Mizbe'ach] l'Chatchilah, and in Kerisus (14a) we permit eating it...

Answer #1: That discusses when the half on the ground was already on the Mizbe'ach. However, if it was never on the Mizbe'ach, no;

This is proven in Kerisus (14a), that the part of a limb that is outside the Mizbe'ach, we do not bring it up, and it is Pigul, even though most of the limb is on the Mizbe'ach, if it is true that for limbs, we do not follow the majority, and all the more so a Kometz, which is not [considered] connected, we do not bring up [what was on the ground].

Answer #2: Rashi (43b) connotes that even if [the remainder] had not gone up on the Mizbe'ach, we bring it up l'Chatchilah;

This is unlike the case in Kerisus, like R. Tam explains, for the entire Kometz is considered one Azkarah (regarding Haktarah, the Torah calls the Kometz "Azkarasah", its remembrance), and the half on the Mizbe'ach draws the half on the ground [to be like it, and it is offered];

If not [that the entire Kometz is considered one], the part on the Mizbe'ach would be a deficient Kometz, and it would be brought down. If so, since it draws it, the Pigul is uprooted from it;

Distinction: However, half a limb does not draw the other half, for [a Korban itself] whose Eimurim were not offered is Kosher, even though initially we thought that a Kometz is worse (there is less reason to say that one part draws the other), because it is disconnected (and now we say that a Kometz is better).

Explanation (R. Tam): The reason [why Pigul does not apply to] a Kometz is not because it is a Matir, rather, because Ritzuy does not apply to it;

If he ate it and did not offer it, its Matirim were not offered. If he offered half, Pigul was uprooted from all of it, even from the part on the ground.

Implied question: Why does it say in [a Beraisa in] the Gemara (44a) 'I exclude Kometz" with these others that have no Matirim?