Implied question: Even though it taught "these", the Tana omitted the matters taught in the Beraisa in the Gemara!

Answer: Perhaps it is because from these [in the Mishnah] we know all the more so those.

Implied question: Also in the Beraisa in the Gemara of those that descend, it does not list an old, sick or disgusting animal, one that resembles [another species], Tumtum or Androginus!

Answer: Perhaps these are included in those taught.

Question: In Menachos (79a), we say that if a Chatas was slaughtered Chutz li'Mkomo, Rava says that Yered...!

Remark: R. Tam's text says Todah, which it was discussing there. However, this does not help at all [to answer the question].

Answer: It does help! Todah is different, for it is Kodshim Kalim, and there is no Me'ilah in the Eimurim before Zerikah;

When he slaughters it Chutz li'Mkomo, the Zerikah does not bring to Me'ilah. Therefore, Yered, for it is lacking an important Zerikah.

However, Chutz li'Zmano Lo Yered, because [Zerikah] causes it to be accepted to make it Pigul, to obligate Kares (for one who will eat it), like it says in Me'ilah (2a) regarding [uprooting] Me'ilah, and likewise Im Alah Lo Yered in such a case.

However, in our Sugya we discuss Kodshei Kodoshim, which have Me'ilah before Zerikah. Therefore, when they are disqualified through Chutz li'Mkomo, Lo Yered, for there is no adamancy about the lack of Zerikah, since it does not affect anything.

Support: We distinguish like this below (85a) regarding Eimurim brought up before Zerikah, both for Kodshim Kalim and Kodshei Kodoshim.

Question: Pesach Lo Lishmah, why is the law Lo Yered? Why is it different than Chutz li'Mkomo of Todah? Both of them are Kodshim Kalim, and intent disqualifies them before Zerikah!

Answer #1: The Pesul of Chutz li'Mkomo is more stringent than the Pesul Lo Lishmah. It is like Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the south, which is Yered according to R. Yehudah in Me'ilah (2b), for also it is Chutz li'Mkomo.

Support: Also in Menachos (79a) it is proven that Chutz li'Mkomo that is Yered, this is only according to R. Yehudah, but R. Shimon holds that Lo Yered.

Answer #2: Lo Lishmah is more lenient, because it is Kosher [b'Di'eved] for all Zevachim except for Chatas and Pesach.

Answer #3: This requires investigation, if we can say that regarding Todah he discusses when he intended to eat the meat outside Yerushalayim, for the place is not proper for any Korban. Therefore, Yered...

However, here we discuss that he intended to eat meat of Chatas or Asham outside the Kela'im, or to burn Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim outside the Kela'im. Lo Yered, since the place is proper for Kodshim Kalim, e.g. to eat Shelamim.

Citation: In the Gemara (below, 87b) R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about whether we discuss when the Pesulim both received and did Zerikah. The Gemara in Me'ilah (5a) is likewise meticulous about this.

Explanation: [The Pesul] occurred after Shechitah or [after] it became Kodesh in a Kli, like I explained above (68b DH Amar).

Explanation: [It says] "Zos Toras ha'Olah Hi ha'Olah" - Zos, Hi and the [initial] Hei in "ha'Olah" are three exclusions;

However, the first ha'Olah comes to teach the first Olah (the first Korban every day must be the morning Tamid), like Rava says in Pesachim (58b);

"Toras" is an inclusion to include the other Pesulim, that Im Alah Lo Yered, like R. Shimon. He excludes only these three.

Question: R. Yehudah holds above (14a) that the floor is Mekadesh like the Mizbe'ach. If so, all of [these Pesulim] ascended. According to him, how do we find all of these Pesulim?

Answer: The case is, there was an interruption between the animal and the floor of the Azarah. (Therefore, it is not as if it ascended.)

Explanation: Rove'a and Nirva do not need an exclusion according to R. Yehudah. All those that R. Shimon includes, also R. Yehudah includes them, like it says below (84b). It is reasonable to include these, for we find that they are permitted [in some case].

Question: If Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered in the south, it says in Me'ilah (2b) that Yered according to R. Yehudah. He does not have a fourth exclusion!

Answer #1: It is because we expound above (36a) "Kol Davar Ra" - this includes a Chatas slaughtered in the south, or its blood was brought inside (he intended to do so);

Even though the verse comes to teach a Lav, we learn also that Im Alah Yered.

Answer #2: Shechitah [of Kodshei Kodoshim] in the south is like Shechitah outside.

Explanation: Regarding all of these, R. Yehudah agrees. So we said above (27b) - "in any case we taught Nisnim below that was put above, and R. Yehudah does not argue."

And also above (36a), we said that R. Yehudah does not disqualify due to intent for Nisnim below to put it above, or to put Nisnim above below, like he disqualifies due to intent to leave over;

This is because R. Yehudah holds like he taught elsewhere, that not in its place is like in its place.

Question: In Me'ilah (2b) it connotes that R. Yehudah argues about Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the south. Rabah said that Im Alah Yered, and Rav Yosef said Lo Yered;

And it says that according to R. Yehudah, all agree that Yered. They argue according to R. Shimon. Rav Yosef holds like R. Shimon;

And Rabah can tell you, R. Shimon said [Lo Yered] only for Nisnim below and it was put above... but they were slaughtered in the north and Kabalah was in the north...

Since he mentioned below and it was put above, this connotes that they argue about this. It should have said what was slaughtered at night, the blood spilled or the blood was Yotzei!

Answer: It means as follows. Rav Yosef holds like R. Shimon. It connotes to him that Nisnim above and it was put below, even Olas ha'Of, that Melikah and Mitzuy of the blood were below, which is like changing the place of Shechitas Kodshei Kodoshim and Kabalah of their blood from the north to the south;

And Rabah says that you are forced to say that R. Shimon said only about Zevachim Nisnim below and it was put above, and really he slaughtered in the north;

However, Olas ha'Of that was done below, and Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the south, R. Shimon agrees to R. Yehudah that Yered.

Implied question: Why does it say above (27b) "in any case we taught Nisnim below and it was put above, and R. Yehudah does not argue"?

According to Rav Yosef, Nisnim above that was put below connotes even Olas ha'Of done below, which R. Yehudah argues about!

Answer: Since [R. Yehudah] agrees about blood of Zevachim, it is proper to say that R. Yehudah does not argue [with R. Shimon's opinion that] Lo Yered for Nisnim below and it was put above.

Support: This is like Pesulim who did Kabalah or Zerikah. It says below that R. Yehudah does not argue about this [even though he does not totally agree]...

Even though he agrees to R. Shimon only about these [Pesulim] that are proper for Avodas Tzibur, and R. Shimon said even about [Pesulim] that are not proper for Avodas Tzibur, that Lo Yered!

Source: [Even those Pesulim are] no worse than when the blood spilled or was totally lost. R. Shimon says that Lo Yered.

Question: This requires investigation. Perhaps when the blood spilled or it was lost before Kabalah, due to Shechitah alone R. Shimon would not say Lo Yered. He would say so only when it spilled from the Kli and was lost after Kabalah!

And Pesulim that are not proper for Avodas Tzibur, that we do not find for them a Hechsher anywhere, if they also received the blood, R. Shimon would not say Im Alah Lo Yered;

Due to Shechitah alone that was Kosher, he would not consider it Pesulo b'Kodesh, like it connotes in Me'ilah (2b, 3a). Even if he slaughtered in the north and received in the south, Rabah would not consider it Pesulo b'Kodesh;

Rav Yosef challenged [Rabah] from our Mishnah (above, 66b) "all of them are not Metam'ah Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah" regarding Olas ha'Of done below;

Above we established it in the Gemara (there) to discuss Mitzuy (below), and not Melikah, and we bring a proof to [Shechitah] in the south for Kodshei Kodoshim, that it is considered Pesulo b'Kodesh;

Consequence: Even though the Melikah was Kosher, and it is in lieu of Shechitah, Rabah did not consider it Pesulo b'Kodesh, until Rav Yosef challenged him.

Inference: Rabah does not consider Kosher Shechitah alone to be Pesulo b'Kodesh!

Answer: We can compare a Pesul of Mitzuy to a Pesul of Shechitah more than [to a Pesul of] Kabalah, since in Mitzuy he squeezes and extracts the blood from the body, like Shechitah does.

Citation: In Nidah (41a) it connotes that we do not need this verse for when they became Pasul when they were Chulin, rather, for when they became Pasul after they were Hukdash.

Question: Granted, Rove'a and Nirva became forbidden. However, Muktzah and Ne'evad are difficult, for one cannot forbid what is not his [since they depend on intent]!

Answer: We discuss Kodshim Kalim, according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili who says that they are the owner's property. It says explicitly like this below (114a).

Question: Esnan and Mechir - if he gave it to the Zonah [or traded it for a dog], regarding Kodshim Kalim like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, it is not an Esnan, like we expounded in Temurah (30b) "l'Chol Neder" excludes what was already vowed!

Answer: An animal of Kodshim was pregnant and he gave to her the fetus. He holds that offspring of Kodshim become Kodesh when they are born, after they enter the air of the world;

In any case, it is like after it was Hukdash, since it became Kodesh through its mother.

Support: Below (114a) this is called proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, even though it is Chulin until it leaves [the womb].

We find that Kil'ayim and Yotzei Dofen [received Kedushah], in a case of offspring of Kodshim.

Alternative text: Rashi in Nidah (41a) explained that the text does not say that they become Kodesh when they are born. According to what I explained, it is fine.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes' text explains that all the more so, according to the opinion that they are Kodesh in the womb, we need to exclude from "Zos"! We can say that it means as follows. Even according to the opinion that they become Kodesh when they are born, it is fine that we need a verse to exclude, since the Pesul did not come first, rather, together. However, the text cannot say "he holds that they are Kodesh in the womb", for we need to exclude from "Zos"!

Assertion: You are forced to say that we know that R. Shimon holds (Kerisus 23b) that they become Kodesh when they are born, and also due to Esnan and Mechir in our Sugya. We find them only through Vlados Kodshim, and [like the opinion that] they become Kodesh when they are born.

Question: How do we find Kil'ayim and Yotzei Dofen, that the Vlados are Kedoshim, since they are not proper to be offered?

Even if he holds that they become Kodesh when they are born, Kedushah does not take effect on the Vlados at all, like the Mishnah in Temurah (24b);

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that if it gave birth to a Tumtum or Androginus, Kedushah does not take effect on it at all, and it says that he holds that they become Kodesh when they are born, and even Kedushas Damim does not take effect on them!

Answer: He is verbally Makdish them while they are in the womb. Even though the mother's Kedushah does not take effect on it, verbal Kedushah takes effect on it.

Question #1: R. Shimon holds that they become Kodesh when they are born. The Mishnah in Temurah (33b) says "these are buried - Kodshim that miscarried"! (He should say that they never received Kedushah. Why must they be buried?)

Question #2: Even without this, it is difficult from meat and milk which was taught with [those Isurei Hana'ah that must be buried]. It connotes that R. Shimon argues only about Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah;

Kodshim that miscarried, Kedushah does not take effect on them, since he holds that they become Kodesh when they are born, just like Tumtum and Androginus!

Also meat and milk, R. Shimon holds that one may benefit from it, in Bechoros (10a). If so, why must it be buried?

Answer #1: R. Shimon argues with them. He holds that they are not buried.

Answer #2: He agrees that Kodshim that miscarried are buried. Kedushah takes effect on them, for if they were viable, they would be proper for Hakravah. Therefore they are unlike Tumtum and Androginus.

Support: We must explain so in Chulin (77a) regarding an animal that miscarried a fetus. If [the mother] was Kodesh, [the fetus] is buried. It explains that this is because most [offspring] can become Kodesh.

Question (R. Tam): If he holds that [Vlados Kodshim] are Kodesh in their mother's womb, even all of them should be Kodesh;

And if he holds that they are Kodesh when they are born, Kedushah should not take effect on anything not proper for Hakravah, like R. Shimon ben Gamliel said about Tumtum and Androginus!

Answer: We can say that a Nefel is different, since if it were viable, it would be proper for Hakravah, and Kedushah takes effect on it.

Support: This is why it says there "most can become Kodesh", to exclude Tumtum and Androginus.

Explanation: He discusses Yotzei of limbs of Olah. However, R. Yehudah disqualified Yotzei of blood.

Question: For this reason (Yotzei of limbs of Olah is Kosher), also Yotzei of blood should be Kosher!

Answer #1: Hechsher of blood is stringent. We do not learn from a Bamah, unless we find a Hechsher inside.

Answer #2: [We do not learn from a Bamah, for] on a Bamah it is Kosher [l'Chatchilah].

Implied question: Regarding Eimurim, we learn improper [Linah] from what is proper (Linah of meat), due to the inclusion "Toras"!

Answer: Regarding blood, which is a Matir, we do not learn [improper from proper], like I explained above (51a DH Mipnei);

[The Gemara] infers that a Binyan Av returns to teach through a Binyan Av, since we learn Linah of blood from Linah of Eimurim, and Linah of Eimurim from Linah of meat;

Question: What is the reason [to learn in two steps]? We should learn [directly] that blood, which is disqualified at Shki'ah, Im Alah Lo Yered, from Eimurim, which are disqualified only at dawn!

Suggestion: It is because we cannot learn Linah of blood after dawn from Eimurim.

Rejection #1: This is not a problem! We do not find a Pesul of blood at dawn at all!

Rejection #2: Since we learned that after it is disqualified, Lo Yered, there is no distinction between Shki'ah and dawn.

Proof: If you will not say so, what is the source for two nights for blood? We do not find like this Kosher regarding meat!

Answer: Rather, surely we do not learn Pasul blood from what is Kosher. Therefore it is considered a Binyan Av from a Binyan Av, for we can learn only from Linah of dawn of Eimurim.

Support: Also, this is why we do not teach them together, to say Linah of meat and Eimurim is Kosher, because Linah of meat is Kosher.

Support #1 (for Answer #2): Also, this is why we need to say "Chutz li'Mkomo, since it is equated to Chutz li'Zmano", and we cannot say "because it is Kosher on a Bamah."

Support #2 (for Answer #2): Also when Pesulim did Kabalah, we are Machshir only for those who are proper for Avodas Tzibur, but not a Zar, even though he is Kosher on a Bamah.

Distinction: However, we find that we learn Pasul from Kosher l'Chatchilah regarding blood from blood, e.g. Nisnim above and below, because each is Kosher for the other. Also, here we did not need to explain the reason (why this is Lo Yered), because it is obvious.

And similarly Lo Lishmah of Pesach and Chatas (we did not need to explain why Lo Yered), because it is Kosher for other Korbanos.

Question #1: Above (68b) regarding [Melikah through] a knife or Zar is Metam'ah b'Beis ha'Bli'ah, [the Gemara] asks that we should learn a Zar from a Bamah, for a Beraisa teaches "what is the source for Yotzei [Im Alah Lo Yered]...?"

What was the question? This Tana himself does not learn [a Zar from a Bamah], like I explained, that he establishes [the Pesulim] to be those proper for Avodas Tzibur, and also he does not learn from blood from a Bamah!

Question #2: We are Machshir there Melikah with the left hand because we find that [Smol] is Kosher on Yom Kipur. We do not learn [Pasul] from Kosher!

Question #3: Similarly, night from limbs and Chelev. R. Yehudah disqualifies it here!

Answer #1: Above (68a DH Malak bi'Smol, 68b DH Amar) I explained that that Sugya is like R. Shimon, and the entire Mishnah there that distinguishes regarding Tum'as Beis ha'Bli'ah between Pesulo b'Kodesh [and Ein Pesulo b'Kodesh] is like R. Shimon here;

In Me'ilah (3a) it compares Tum'as Beis ha'Bli'ah and Im Alah Lo Yered to each other.

Explanation: [The Gemara there] says as follows. We should learn from a Bamah according to R. Shimon, just like the Beraisa learns a Pesul of Eimurim from a Bamah according to R. Yehudah.

Disclaimer: However, [the Sugya above] is not totally like R. Shimon, since it disqualifies Melikas Smol, and R. Shimon is Machshir it, according to R. Tam's text above (24b). His text says "but the Mishnah taught, if he did Melikah bi'Smol...!"

Answer #2: [I explained above (68a DH Malak) that] alternatively [that Sugya is R. Yehudah;] R. Yehudah would not establish the exclusions to discuss a bird;

However, above (83b) we disqualify a bird more than an animal regarding the argument of R. Yosi ha'Gelili and R. Akiva. Just like lambs are proper [for the Mizbe'ach...]

Question: According to R. Yehudah, Yotzei of blood should be Kosher, for we should learn from Yotzei of Eimurim, and Eimurim from a Bamah, just like [he learns] Linah of blood from Eimurim, and Linah of Eimurim from meat!

Alternatively, he should learn Yotzei of Eimurim from meat of Shelamim, which is Kosher outside the Kela'im, and automatically you learn outside of Yerushalayim, for there is no difference between one Pesul and two, like we explained.

Implied question: Why does [the Gemara] mention here from a Bamah?

Answer: It prefers to find a Hechsher of Yotzei for Eimurim themselves;

However, regarding Linah, which it learns from meat, it could not find in Eimurim Linah of a Bamah that is Kosher, for a Mishnah (below, 113a) says that time (Chutz li'Zmano), Nosar and Tamei are the same [on a Bamas Yachid or Bamas Tzibur, which is like in the Mikdash].