Explanation: [Rav Yosef] brought three clauses, like he explains, and all of them are not Metamei Begadim...

This is a Mishnah in Zevachim (66b). It refers to the previous clause, which teaches all Pesulim of Melikah;

Now it says that even though a Pasul Melikah was done, in any case Melikah helps to uproot from Tum'as Nivlas Ohf Tahor, and Me'ilah applies to them, except for Chatas...

"Except for Chatas" applies only to "Me'ilah applies to them." Because Me'ilah applies to Olas [ha'Of] even when it is done properly, he said "except for Chatas done below like Ma'aseh Chatas l'Shem Chatas", for it is done like its law. Therefore, Me'ilah does not apply to it, for it has Sha'as Heter to Kohanim;

And it says about this "anything that Pesulo b'Kodesh is not Metam'ah [Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah]." I.e. anything that has a Hechsher elsewhere, e.g. all deviations in Melikah that it says in the Reisha. This shows that it calls Pesulo b'Kodesh anything that is not Metam'ah Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah;

There it taught Olas ha'Of done below is Pasul, and it is not Metam'ah Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah, and in Zevachim (84a) a Mishnah teaches about R. Shimon's opinion "anything that is Pesulo b'Kodesh, the Kodesh is Mekabel it, and Im Alah Lo Yered;

Inference: A Shinuy in Olas ha'Of, that it was done below, i.e. Melikah was below, R. Shimon says that Im Alah Lo Yered. This is like Shinuy of the south for an animal, for Melikah of a bird is like Shechitah of an animal!

However, he does not bring from a Chatas done above, for it said (Zevachim 65a) that if Melikah of a Chatas was anywhere on the Mizbe'ach, it is Kosher.

Implied question: A Beraisa (Zevachim 66a) teaches that Chatas [ha'Of] done above is Pasul!

Answer: That is when he deviated in the Haza'ah [like it establishes there].

Remark: He could not ask from Shinuy of putting the blood, for it is not at all like the Shinuy of Shechitah in the south.

However, he asked properly from Olas [ha'Of] done below, for it was taught that just like Haktarah is on top of the Mizbe'ach, also Melikah is on top of the Mizbe'ach. Therefore, if he did Melikah below it is Pasul. And this Shinuy of Melikah is like Shinuy of Shechitah [in the south, and it taught that Im Alah Lo Yered].

Support: It is fine that he calls Im Alah Lo Yered "one amidst another", for he can prove what is the Perush of Pesulo b'Kodesh only from "anything that Pesulo b'Kodesh..." in Zevachim (68b). Therefore it is called one amidst another;

And also the case of "anything that Pesulo b'Kodesh..." in Zevachim, he can prove [what it means] only from the case above of Olas ha'Of done below. This is another "amidst another one."

Alternative text: Some texts say "one amidst one, and one amidst two." It calls "one amidst one" the case of everything that Pesulo b'Kodesh in Zevachim 68b, because it needs the clause above it;

And the case of Zevachim (84a) it calls one amidst two, because it needs the case of Zevachim 66b, which has two clauses - everything that Pesulo b'Kodesh, and the Reisha of Olas ha'Of done below, like we explained above.

Explanation: I.e. amidst R. Elazar's words it is evident that it was obvious to him, either like Rabah or like Rav Yosef;

Source: R. Elazar said that an Olah of a Bamas Yachid that was Hukdash to be offered on a Bamas Yachid, e.g. after [the Mishkan] came to Nochri, Giv'on and Gilgal, that Bamos were permitted, and one who wants to make a Bamah on his roof does so.

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Zevachim 119b): E.g. he brought [an Olah Hukdash for a Bamas Yachid inside the Mikdash] after Shechitah.

Question: If so, how did [R. Elazar] say that the Mechitzos absorbed it for everything? Tzafon does not apply, since it was slaughtered!

Explanation #2: Rather, he brought it inside alive. After it was Hukdash to be offered on a Bamas Yachid, he entered it to a Bamas Tzibur. The Mechitzah absorbed it for everything, for everything said in Zevachim (112b);

A Mishnah there teaches "what is the difference between a Bamas Yachid and a Bamas Tzibur? [They differ about the need for] Kehunah, Klei Shares and Shechitah in Tzafon;

R. Elazar asked about this "must it descend? An Olah of a Bamas Yachid, that it says that its law is to be slaughtered in the north, because it was entered inside, if it was slaughtered in the south, if it ascended [on the Mizbe'ach], must it descend?

Now, the Gemara infers, since he asks about this, i.e. the one that according to letter of the law, its place was not [necessarily] in the north, rather, on a Bamas Yachid, only because Mechitzos absorbed it [it requires Tzafon]. This implies that the other [case] was obvious to him;

I.e. however, an Olas Bamas Tzibur that Rabah and Rav Yosef argued about, it is obvious to [R. Elazar]. If you would say that he was unsure, he should have asked about this first. Rather, this teaches that it was obvious to him.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Gemara explains that the question is both according to Rabah and Rav Yosef. He asked one amidst another;

I.e. he asked about an Olas Bamas Yachid, which he was unsure about, amidst Olas Bamas Tzibur, which was obvious to him;

We find that Rabah said there Im Alah Yered only because a Mechitzah like its law disqualifies. I.e. he vowed an Olah to offer it on a Bamas Tzibur. Now, the Mechitzah of a Bamas Tzibur is like its law. When he changed the place to slaughter it in the south, he disqualified it;

However, [a Mechitzah] unlike its law, e.g. Olas Bamas Yachid that was slaughtered on a Bamas Tzibur in the south, which is a Mechitzah unlike its law, i.e. he did not vow to offer it on a Bamas Tzibur [perhaps here Lo Yered].

And even according to Rav Yosef, who says that Im Alah Lo Yered, we can ask here, for we can distinguish. There, a Mechitzah like its law, the Mizbe'ach absorbed it, for it is so Kadosh that it absorbs it, that Im Alah Lo Yered;

However, [a Mechitzah] unlike its law, like here regarding Olas Bamas Yachid, it did not absorb it...

Explanation: If he slaughtered with Pigul [intent] and afterwards did Zerikah Stam, the Zerikah does not uproot from Me'ilah, that this should be called a Heter to Kohanim, even though the Zerikah helps to finalize Pigul;

We expound (Zevachim 28b) "like Ritzuy (making acceptable) of a Kosher [Korban], so is Ritzuy of Pasul." This shows that we require in Pigul offering the Matirim in a Kosher way;

One might have thought that similarly, the Torah considers it Zerikah to uproot Me'ilah and bring Kodshim Kalim to Me'ilah, and it is as if it was done in a Kosher way, and then Hash-m's portion is clarified;

Rav Gidal teaches that this is not so. It does not do two matters, to finalize Pigul and uproot Me'ilah.

Explanation: The bread becomes Kadosh only through Shechitah of the Zevach. Since at the time of Shechitah of the Zevach it was not within the wall, the bread did not become Kadosh;

And even if the faces [of the loaves] formed a crust, except for one of them, the bread did not become Kadosh, for Shechitah of the Zevach is Mekadesh the bread only if the faces formed a crust, for it is written "Lechem", which connotes that the faces formed a crust.

Explanation: [It is Kadosh] to get Kedushas ha'Guf, and it cannot be redeemed.

Inference: What [the Mishnah] said "Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo, the bread becomes Kadosh" means to bring the bread to Me'ilah.

Objection: Surely, there is no Me'ilah in the bread, for it is not called Kodshei Hash-m. Even Todah has Me'ilah only in the Eimurim!

Answer #1 (Tosfos' Rebbi): It discusses the four Lachmei Todah that are given to a Kohen.

Objection #1: It seems that also this is wrong. [If it were correct,] a Tana should have taught in some place that they have Me'ilah!

Objection #2: Also Chazah v'Shok that are given to a Kohen, they have no Me'ilah!

Answer #2: It seems that it says that the bread becomes Kadosh, i.e. to become Pasul, but not to bring it to Me'ilah;

It means as follows. Since the bread becomes Kadosh [through Shechitas Pigul], we should likewise say that [in such a case] Zerikah brings [Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim] to Me'ilah.

Explanation: Pigul is not fixed until the time of Zerikah, like it says (Zevachim 28b) "like Ritzuy of Kosher, so is Ritzuy of Pasul." We require that the Matirim were offered;

Therefore, regarding bread, which is Kadosh through Shechitah, we say that that the bread becomes Kadosh (through Shechitas Pigul, for it merely has potential to become Pigul);

However, regarding Me'ilah (which takes effect on Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim through Zerikah), that at the time of Shechitah, Pigul was not finalized, for Zerikah brings to Pigul, for then is finalized the Pigul that he intended at the time of Shechitah, [Zerikas Pigul] does not bring to Me'ilah.

Explanation #1: He was Mefagel at the time of Kemitzah, and offered it. Pigul is uprooted from it, like it explains the reason below, and Kemitzah is [the analog of] Shechitah;

Source: In Menachos (13b) it reckons the four Avodos in a Minchah corresponding to the four Avodos in a Zevach, and it taught a Kometz of Pigul. This shows that Pigul is finalized before Ha'alah (Haktarah on the Mizbe'ach).

Explanation #2: Therefore, it seems that since it says "its Pigul was uprooted from it", this connotes its Pigul that was already was, i.e. Pigul was already fixed from the time of Kemitzah, since it mentioned "uprooted".

Question: How was there a Havah Amina to say that Pigul was fixed from the time of Kemitzah? We require [Ritzuy like] Ritzuy of Kosher (Zevachim 28b)!

Answer: Only to obligate Kares it is not fixed until after Zerikah, but the name of Pigul takes effect from the time of Shechitah, just like [for Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim, Shechitah] brings to Me'ilah. If so, he properly asked;

[Rava] answered "to bring to Pigul." I.e. really, Pigul is not until the time of Zerikah, regarding to bring to Me'ilah. This that it says that Pigul was uprooted refers to an Isur that leads to Pigul at the time of Haktarah.

Implied question: It was taught about this "if it brings others to Pigul, all the more so it itself [is Pigul]"!