1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that Kodshei Kodshim that are Shechted on the south side of the Azarah (instead of on the north), and whose blood is then received on the north - are nevertheless subject to Me'ilah.

(b)In spite of having taught us that the above case is subject to Me'ilah, the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to add the reverse case (where the Shechitah is performed on the north side and the Kabalas ha'Dam on the south) - because the Avodas ha'Dam is the main Avodah regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and the Tana is therefore teaching us that even though the Kabalas ha'Dam took place in the south, the Korban is still subject to Me'ilah.

(c)The Tana writes that - the same Din applies in a case where one Shechts Kodshim by day and performs Z'rikas ha'Dam by night or vice-versa, or if one Shechts them with the intention of eating them in the wrong time or in the wrong location.

(d)Having taught us the first ruling (Kodshim by day and Z'rikas ha'Dam by night) - the second ruling ('vice-versa') is obvious, in which case it is a case of 'Zu ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu' (This is the Din in the first case, and no need to mention the second).

2)

(a)In all of the above cases - the Korban had not yet become permitted to the Kohanim by the time that it became Pasul, because if it had - Rebbi Yehoshua explains, they would no longer be subject to Me'ilah.

(b)Besides she'Lanah (if the Basar remained uneaten until the morning) and 'she'Nitme'ah', the third example of Hayah lah Heter le'Kohanim presented by Rebbi Yehoshua is - she'Yatz'ah (if it left the Azarah), all after the Z'rikas ha'Dam).

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua learns this distinction from the Pasuk (in connection with the Din of Me'ilah) in Vayikra "mi'Kodshei Hash-m" - precluding Korbanos that have become permitted to Kohanim, from Me'ilah.

(d)The P'sul that the Tana adds to those mentioned in the Reisha (that did not yet have a Sha'as ha'Kosher) is - where Pesulim received the Dam or sprinkled it.

3)

(a)The problem with the opening ruling in the Mishnah ('Kodshei Kodshim she'Shachtan be'Darom ... ') is - why it is necessary to teach us that Shechting an animal in the south will negate the Din of Me'ilah.

(b)We answer with a statement of Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan that Kodshim that died - are no longer subject to Me'ilah.

(c)Nevertheless, Kodshim that have been Shechted in the south are subject to Me'ilah - since the south side is fit to Shecht Kodshim Kalim there (as opposed to Kodshim that died, which are not fit by any animals).

4)

(a)We already explained in our Mishnah why the Tana sees fit to add the second case of 'Shachtan ba'Tzafon ve'Kibel Daman be'Darom'. And he needs to add 'Shachat ba'Yom ve'Zarak ba'Laylah' - because, unlike Shachtan ba'Laylah ve'Zarak be'Yom, nighttime is not fit to bring Korbanos at all.

(b)And he omits the case of Shachat ba'Laylah ve'Zarak ba'Yom' - because he does not hold of the principle Zu ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu.

(c)In spite of Ula's earlier ruling 'Kodshim she'Meisu, Yatz'u mi'Yedei Me'ilah', one is nevertheless Mo'el in the case of ...

1. ... Shachtan ba'Yom ve'Zarak Daman ba'Laylah - because nighttime is not considered Mechusar Z'man (premature), seeing as no act is required to render it eligible.

2. ... Shachtan Chutz li'Zemano ve'Chutz li'Mekomo - because the Shechitah is valid inasmuch as it still requires the other Avodos for the animal to be performed be'Kashrus in order to become Pigul (see Rabeinu Gershom).

5)

(a)In answer to the question as to whether the Pesulim in our Mishnah may remain on the Mizbe'ach, if they were inadvertently placed there. Rabah rules 'Im Alu, Yerdu'; Rav Yosef - ' ... Lo Yerdu'.

(b)Their Machlokes does not go according to Rebbi Yehudah, who, based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "Zos ... hi ha'Olah"(incorporating three Mi'utin) in connection with Nishpach Damah, Lanah and Yatz'ah - holds 'Im Alu, Yerdu'.

(c)So they are arguing according to Rebbi Shimon, who Darshens from "Zos Toras ha'Olah" that - 'Nitnin le'Matah she'Nasnan Lema'alah' or vice-versa (similar Pesulim) 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.

(d)Rav Yosef holds like Rebbi Shimon, whereas Rabah maintains that even Rebbi Shimon will agree in the cases under discussion that Im Alu, Yerdu - since (as opposed to 'Nitnin le'Matah she'Nasnan Lema'alah'), not even the Shechitah and Kabalah were performed correctly.

6)

(a)The problem with Rabah from our Mishnah 'Kodshei Kodshim she'Shachtan be'Darom, Mo'alin bahen' is that - the ruling 'Im Alu, Yerdu' indicates that the Kedushah has departed, in which case, there is no reason for them to be subject to Me'ilah.

(b)We answer that according to Rabah, Mo'alin bahen - means mi'de'Rabbanan ...

(c)... which, unlike Me'ilah d'Oraysa - does not require payment of an extra fifth.

(d)We extrapolate from the statement of Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan 'Kodshim she'Meisu, Yatz'u mi'Yedei Me'ilah D'var Torah' that - they are however, subject to Me'ilah mi'de'Rabbanan (like the previous answer).

7)

(a)Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless needs to issue his ruling by Kodshim she'Meisu - because unlike the Kodshim in our Mishnah, people tend to keep away from Kodshim that have died, in which case we may have thought that the Chachamim would not have found it necessary to institute Me'ilah de'Rabbanan (even according to Rav Yosef).

(b)We query Rebbi Yochanan however, from a Mishnah in the fourth Perek, which discusses someone who derives benefit from a Chatas. The Tana rules there that if he benefits from a Chatas with a blemish ...

1. ... whilst it is still alive - he is only Mo'el if his using causes the animal to depreciate (by pulling out some of its hair, or by weakening it through work).

2. ... after it is dead - he is Mo'el in any case.

(c)The difference between a Chatas Ba'al-Mum and a golden cup belonging to Hekdesh, which is subject to Me'ilah even though using it does not cause it to depreciate (as we will see later) - is that whereas the Kedushah of the former lies in its value (since it stands to be redeemed [see Shitah Mekubetzes 10]), the Kedushah of the latter, which stands to be used, is intrinsic.

(d)And we explain that even though the Mishnah already teaches us that Me'ilah mi'de'Rabbanan applies to a dead Chatas, we nevertheless need Rebbi Yochanan's ruling with regard to other Korbanos, because we would otherwise have thought that a Chatas Ba'al-Mum is different - in that it is not fit to atone, and that already in its lifetime, people do not separate from it, so the Chachamim decreed Me'ilah on it exclusively, whereas Kodshim Temimim, which are fit to atone, and which people separate from anyway, we might have thought that the Chachamim did not decree Me'ilah.