Observation: We ask like this in Sanhedrin (51b).

Question: In Kidushin (72b), Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav that the Halachah follows R. Yosi, that Mamzerim will be permitted in the future [and we did not ask that this is not relevant now]!

Answer #1: Perhaps it is relevant now, that we should not distance families that it is not known (whether their lineage is Kosher).

In Kidushin I explained whether R. Yosi and Rabanan argue about a known Mamzer or an unknown Mamzer. (This is not in our Tosfos there.)

Implied question: In Yoma (13a), we rule like R. Yosi, that (if a Kohen Gadol could not serve on Yom Kipur, and another substituted for him), the first returns to his Avodah, and the latter may not serve...!

Answer #1: This is relevant now, to a Nasi, Rosh Yeshivah or leader that the Tzibur appointed, and he passed [from his position] due to Ones, and the Ones passed.

Implied question: In Pesachim (69b) we rule like R. Akiva regarding Korban Pesach that any Melachah that could be done before Shabbos does not override Shabbos!

Answer #1: This is relevant nowadays regarding Bris Milah.

Implied question: Also regarding Milah, it explicitly rules like this in Shabbos (133a! Why must we rule about Pesach as well?)

Answer: To strengthen the ruling about Milah, we rule so also about Pesach.

Implied question: In Ta'anis (4b), R. Elazar rules like R. Gamliel, who says that [we do not request rain until] the seventh of Cheshvan, and there we establish this while the Mikdash stands! (We wait two weeks after Sukos ends to allow Olei Regalim to return home before the rain.)

Answer #1: It is relevant also nowadays, for people in Bavel who have Peros in the field [until then, and rain would harm them], like it says there "this is for us (Bnei Bavel), and this is for them (Bnei Eretz Yisrael)."

Question: In Menachos (52b), R. Yochanan rules like Aba Yosi ben Dostai regarding Chavitei Kohen Gadol!

Answer #1 (and Answer #2 to all of these questions): Only Rav Yosef holds here and in Sanhedrin (51b) that we should not rule about Halachos that will be relevant only in the days of Mashi'ach.

Answer #2 (and Answer #3 to all of these questions): We ask [why do you rule about] Halachos [that will not apply until the days] of Mashi'ach only when there are two [shortcomings] - [it is not until] Mashi'ach, and also he transgresses;

There is no relevance for such Halachos only through Isur. It is not applicable to rule about [such Halachos for the days of] Mashi'ach (for everyone will be Tzadikim then - Tosfos Yeshanim Yoma 13a.)

Question: In the Gemara, in the Beraisa it does not teach Shechitah outside, and here it does not teach Temurah and Nesachim, which are taught in the Beraisa. This is astounding!

Question: If R. Shimon holds like R. Eliezer, who says in Menachos (73b) that Nochrim offer only Olos, if so, why does it say that Kodshei Nochrim, one is not liable for them due to Pigul, Nosar and Tamei?

The same applies to [such] Kodshim of Yisrael, for we know that R. Shimon holds in Kerisus (23b) that Pigul and Nosar do not apply to Olin (what should be offered on the Mizbe'ach)!

Answer #1: We must say that he holds like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, that [Nochrim] may offer even Shelamim.

Answer #2: In Kerisus it is proven that R. Shimon's reason [why Pigul and Nosar do not apply to Olin] is because Ein Isur Chal Al Isur;

[One might have thought that they apply to Kodshei Nochrim, for] mid'Oraisa, Kodshei Nochrim are permitted, like a Beraisa in [our] Gemara teaches "one may not benefit mid'Rabanan, and Me'ilah does not apply", for we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from Terumah.

Explanation: In the verse "Ish Ish", from which we include Nochrim, that they may vow [Korbanos], it is written "la'Shem" to teach that Kodshei Nochrim are included in "Kodshei Hash-m."

Inference: Here it connotes that mid'Oraisa, Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

Question #1: Why don't we ask from here against R. Yanai, who says in Me'ilah (15a) that one is liable for Me'ilah only for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, like it asks there, and answers that in all [the places where it says that Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Mizbe'ach], it is mid'Rabanan?

Question #2: A Mishnah in Kerisus (13b) says that for one act of eating [Kodshei Mizbe'ach], one can be liable four Chata'os and one Asham! (The Asham is for Me'ilah mid'Oraisa.)

Question #3: In Chulin (117a), R. Yanai himself said "Ka'asher Yuram..." - just like Me'ilah applies to Par Kohen Mashi'ach, also Me'ilah applies to Shelamim!

Question #4: In Temurah (32b), R. Yanai himself said that Me'ilah is explicit in the Torah only in Olah, for it says "la'Shem" - Kodshim special for Hash-m.

Answer #1: It is a mere Asmachta.

Answer #2: R. Yanai discusses only something permitted to Tehorim, but Eimurim and Olah, the Me'ilah is not uprooted [from them], obviously there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa.

Question: Why didn't it answer so in Me'ilah? When it asked many questions, it should have answered [that there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa in the] Eimurim!

Citation: In Temurah (3a) we expound from what it says at the beginning of the Parshah "Daber El Bnei Yisrael Ish Ki Yafli..."

Citation: In Bechoros (53b), we say that it is equated only regarding a year (each year is tithed by itself).

Question: What is the source for a Lav against one who benefits from Kodshim of Bedek ha'Bayis?

A Mishnah in Makos (13a, about Aveiros for which one is lashed) lists Hekdesh that was not redeemed. This implies that Pidyon applies, i.e. Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis;

We know a Lav for Me'ilah only from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from Terumah, in Sanhedrin (84a), and this Tana learns only what resembles Terumah (Kedushas ha'Guf)!

Answer: Hekdesh that was not redeemed does not discuss Bedek ha'Bayis, rather, Kodshei Mizbe'ach that became blemished. Since initially there was Me'ilah, Me'ilah is not uprooted due to the blemish.

Question: Still, it is difficult from what we learn in Me'ilah (18b) "Chet-Chet" from Terumah regarding Pegam (decreasing the value) and benefit in Me'ilah, and we exclude what is attached to the ground. What is attached is [only] Kedushas Damim, and we do not learn from Terumah!

Answer #1: Only here we require similar to Terumah, because it says la'Shem to include, and we learn only similar to Terumah, which has Kedushas ha'Guf.

Answer #2: According to Rabanan, we learn even Bedek ha'Bayis from Terumah, to exclude [Kodshei] Nochrim. R. Yosi said "what is the case?", and he does not learn Bedek ha'Bayis from Terumah.

Support: The Gemara brings "R. Yosi says, I see to be stringent about all of them..." and he explains "what is the reason? [We exclude Nochrim only regarding what is] similar to Terumah, which is Kedushas ha'Guf;

He means as follows. All Kodshei Nochrim, I see to be stringent about Pigul, Nosar and Tamei;

However, what you say that Me'ilah does not apply - this is only for Kodshei Mizbe'ach, for we learn from Terumah, and "la'Shem" helps so that we learn from Terumah only what is similar to it, but Bedek ha'Bayis, which does not resemble it, Me'ilah applies. So Rabbeinu explained.

Question (Rabbeinu's son, R. Elchanan): In Erchin (5b), Avimi said "[a Nochri's] Erech is buried", and [the Gemara] asks that if so, Me'ilah should not apply. Why does a Beraisa teach "but Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, Me'ilah applies"?

It should answer that [the Beraisa] is R. Yosi, but Rabanan say that Me'ilah does not apply!

Answer: [Rava] answered properly there. (Mid'Oraisa, a Nochri can be Ma'arich. Ezra decreed not to take their money, lest Yisraelim rely on Nochrim and slacken from contributing.) All this Rabbeinu corrected the text.

Question #1: Why must [R. Shimon] say because they are not eaten? He should know that the Isur of Tum'ah does not take effect on them, for Me'ilah applies to them;

It is R. Shimon who said (Kerisus 23b) that Pigul and Nosar do not apply to Olin, because Ein Isur Chal Al Isur! (Likewise, the Isur Tum'ah does not take effect, since there is already Me'ilah.)

Question #2: According to R. Shimon, why must he exclude inner Chata'os from Pigul (above, 43a), and why is one liable for them for Nosar and Tamei? Me'ilah applies to them, and Ein Isur Chal Al Isur!

Answer #1: We can say that we find this after the meat melted, and it is still proper to eat;

A Mishnah in Me'ilah teaches that Me'ilah applies until the meat melts.

Rebuttal #1: In any case Pigul is difficult (why does he need an exclusion), for Pigul was uprooted from when it caught fire!

Rebuttal #2: And it is difficult from wood, for Me'ilah always applies to it!

Answer #2: The Tana (i.e. who taught the opinion) of R. Shimon here, he holds like the Tana of R. Shimon who said there that Pigul and Nosar apply to Olin.

Answer #3: We find [that both Isurim could take effect] b'Bas Achas (when they came at once), e.g. he brought two hairs (became Bar Mitzvah) after (he became Tamei, or the Korban became Pigul or Nosar), like we find in Yevamos (33a, that Isurim that came one after the other, one who became Bar Mitzvah afterwards is liable for both, even according to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur).

Question: It says in Kerisus (23b), according to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, what does he learns from "Kol Chelev"? We establish it to discuss Vlados Kodshim;

We should establish it when he brought two hairs afterwards, for then the Isurim are b'Bas Achas!

Answer: Without this answer, it answered properly.

Implied question: According to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur in Kodshim, why do we need a verse about blood, to exclude it from Nosar and Tamei?

Answer: We need it for when he brought two hairs afterwards, for then the Isurim are b'Bas Achas, like I explained.

Question: However, according to what the Gemara wanted to say in Yevamos (33a) that R. Shimon does not hold [that Isur Chal Al Isur] even b'Bas Achas, this is difficult.

Explanation: This is written regarding a Tamei, and here we include from it everything.

Implied question: This [verse] is brought in the Beraisa above (44a) regarding Pigul!

Answer: It teaches that Tum'ah (i.e. Chiyuv Kares for eating b'Tum'as ha'Guf) applies to birds and Menachos, and then we learn Nosar from Tum'ah through "Chilul-Chilul', and Pigul from Nosar through "Avon-Avon";

After the Torah included everything from Tum'ah, it returns to exclude Pigul from the Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal.

Explanation: We expound this from "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" in Menachos (25b). I will explain this below (46b DH Achas).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "Lamed" alludes to [the Gezeirah Shavah] "Chilul-Chilul."

Question: After this, [the Gemara] asks "just the contrary, we should learn from Pigul, for [it is never] permitted..." Why didn't we say also [there is a Gezeirah Shavah] "Avon -Avon"?

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): The "Lamed" of "Gezel" alludes to "Kulo". Pigul applies to the entire Korban, but Nosar and Tum'ah apply [even] to a piece.