Answer: It seems to me that he asks both according to R. Shimon and Rabanan. They argue only about Tum'as Ochlim, but not about eating;

One can ask according to both of them. R. Shimon said that it is as if it was thrown only regarding Tum'as Ochlim, but they do not cease to be Kodshei Hash-m until after Zerikah;

Or [one could say] the other way. Rabanan said that it is not as if it was thrown only regarding Tum'as Ochlim, because "Asher Yochal" applies only after Zerikah;

However, here, since it is destined to be thrown, immediately they cease to be Kodshei Hash-m, for it is as if it was thrown.

Question: Just like he says that we learned Heter Zerikah when Kosher Kabalah was done, similarly he should say that when Kosher Shechitah was done, we learned Heter Kabalah!

Answer: It is different. Regarding Zerikah, the expression of Heter Zerikah properly applies, because when Kabalah was Kosher, then Zerikah is permitted, and when Kabalah was Pasul, then Zerikah is forbidden;

However, even when Shechitah was Pasul, there is no Isur to do Kabalah. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say "Heter Kabalah", rather, Heter Shechitah, i.e. Shechitah was done b'Heter. It is called "Heter to Kohanim" because it is a Heter for Avodas Kohanim.

Question: According to the opinion that we learned Heter Shechitah, if he slaughtered in the north and Kabalah was in the south, why does Me'ilah apply, since Shechitah was b'Heter?

Answer: We discuss when he received before Shechitah finished. Now, the Shechitah was not finished b'Hechsher.

Question: When he slaughtered during the day and did Zerikah at night, how can we answer?

Answer: Also there discusses when he slaughtered so close to Shki'ah that he needed to do Zerikah at night. If so, the Shechitah is not a Heter for Avodas Kohanim.

Explanation: According to R. Yochanan, our Mishnah is difficult. According to Chizkiyah, it is not precise.

Explanation: If it were Heter Achilah, he should be Mo'el even in the meat until after Zerikah, for then it is proper to eat! This is difficult for R. Yochanan;

According to Chizkiyah it is not precise, since he mentioned Linah of blood, and did not mention a bigger Chidush, e.g. a Pasul did Kabalah, and even though only Shechitah was Kosher, even so Me'ilah does not apply, for we learned Heter Shechitah!

Observation: This inference is not important to the Gemara. It was not adamant about it, only about the question it asked against R. Yochanan.

Explanation: Even so, Me'ilah does not apply, for there is a Heter Achilah.

Question: What did the Makshan think? Obviously, one can answer this!

Answer: It is reasonable that it discusses Linah of blood, similar to the Seifa in which it did not have Heter to Kohanim. It lists when Pesulim did Kabalah and they did Zerikas Dam;

Inference: It discusses a Pesul of blood, and the Reisha resembles the Seifa! So it seems to my Rebbi, R. Peretz.

Alternative text: Some texts say "what is the case? If Pesulim did Kabalah or Pesulim did Zerikah, why do we need both? Rather, Pesulim did Kabalah. This shows that we learned Heter Zerikah";

The Sugya means as follows. If you will say that we learned Heter Achilah, and it means as follows - if Pesulim did Kabalah or Pesulim did Zerikah, i.e. or Kesherim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah, that there is Me'ilah because there was no Heter Achilah...

[It asks] why do we need both? I.e. why did it teach at all that Pesulim did Kabalah? Let it teach only Zerikah of Pesulim, which connotes even if Kabalah was Kosher, Me'ilah applies, because we learned Heter Achilah!

[The Gemara] is not pleased to say that it taught "not only this, rather, even this" in such a case that Pesulim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah, for it is one matter, for it is one reason, due to Heter Achilah!

Rather, Pesulim did Kabalah, i.e. only if Pesulim did Kabalah, Me'ilah applies. However, if Kesherim did Kabalah, that now there is Heter Zerikah, Me'ilah does not apply. This shows that we learned Heter Zerikah!

Question: If so, why did it teach "and Pesulim did Zerikah" at all, since specifically Pesulim did Kabalah?

Answer: He taught "and Pesulim did Zerikah" to teach that [Pesulim] did Kabalah is precise. It means as follows. Even though Pesulim did Zerikah, if Pesulim did also Kabalah, then there is Me'ilah, for there was no Heter Zerikah;

Inference: If Kesherim did Kabalah, even though Pesulim did Zerikah, Me'ilah does not apply, even though there is no Heter Achilah, since there is Heter Zerikah.

Question: Still, it is difficult. Also if it taught only that Pesulim did Kabalah, we would know that we learned Heter Zerikah, for it connotes that if Kesherim did Kabalah, Me'ilah does not apply!

If not, (rather, there is Me'ilah even after a Kosher Kabalah, the Gemara) would have asked "why did it teach Pesulim did Kabalah?" for we would say that we learned Heter Achilah!

Answer (R. Peretz): It properly needed to teach that Pesulim did Zerikah. Had it taught only that Pesulim did Kabalah, one might have thought that the same applies when Kesherim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah, that Me'ilah applies, for we learned Heter Achilah;

Implied question: If so, why did it teach that Pesulim did Kabalah, and did not say that Pesulim did Zerikah?

Answer: It mentioned the first Avodah, for from Kabalah and onwards, it is a Mitzvah that requires Kehunah.

Summation of answer: It taught [also] that Pesulim did Zerikah to teach that this is not so. You are forced to say that we learned Heter Zerikah, for if we learned Heter Achilah, why does it say that Pesulim did Kabalah? Rather, surely we learned Heter Zerikah;

It taught that [Pesulim] did Zerikah to say that even if Pesulim did Zerikah, Me'ilah applies only if Pesulim did Kabalah. However, if Kesherim did Kabalah, Me'ilah does not apply. This teaches unlike the opinion that we learned Heter Achilah;

It is also unlike the opinion that we learned Heter Shechitah, for even when Pesulim did Kabalah, there is Heter Shechitah, and even so Me'ilah applies.

Explanation: [If] we divide so, to say that [only] they did Kabalah is precise - if so, it is difficult, why must it teach both of them?

Explanation: For it says "v'Chol Chatas Asher Yazeh mi'Damah Al ha'Beged Techaves", and we expound "what is proper to sprinkle", to exclude a Pasul Chatas.

Explanation: [If Pesulim did Kabalah and Zerikah,] then its blood need not be laundered, but if Kesherim did Kabalah and Kesherim did Zerikah, its blood must be laundered. And regarding Me'ilah, we can infer that if Kesherim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah, Me'ilah does not apply;

Since you come to say that both of them are precise, you should similarly infer so here. What is the reason? We should apply here "Asher Yazeh mi'Damah", and not that it was already sprinkled!

Rather, [both] are not precise. I.e. this teaches that one may not infer about this, for what was taught "and Pesulim did Zerikah" is not precise. It is mentioned Agav that they did Kabalah;

Likewise, regarding Me'ilah both are not precise (only Zerikah is), and really, we learned Heter Achilah, and it mentioned that [Pesulim] did Kabalah, Agav that they did Zerikah.

Explanation: [Rav Asi asks] why was it taught [that Pesulim did Kabalah and Zerikah] in two places, here in Me'ilah and there in Zevachim (92a)?

He does not want to say that in two places, an expression was taught needlessly. Rather, in Me'ilah it is precise;

Implied suggestion: [Since it taught that Pesulim did Kabalah], we cannot resolve that we learned Heter Zerikah!

Rejection: Really, I can say to you that [we learned] Heter Achilah, and the primary [Chidush] of our Mishnah is when Pesulim did Kabalah and Zerikah.

Implied question: Why do we need both, that Pesulim did [also] Zerikah? (It is already Pasul from Kabalah!)

Answer #1: This teaches that a Pasul makes Shirayim. I.e. [there is Me'ilah] only because Pesulim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah, which implies that there is no Heter Achilah and no Heter Zerikah;

Even if the Kosher will go back and receive blood from the neck and do Zerikah, it is nothing, since a Pasul did Zerikah (and all the more so if a Kosher did Zerikah);

However, if not that Pesulim did Zerikah, rather, the blood spilled, you said in Zevachim (32a) that if there is [still in the animal] Dam ha'Nefesh, a Kosher goes back and does Kabalah;

The case of Dam Chatas, it mentioned both of them, they did Kabalah and Zerikah, due to the case here. Since there are not two Mishnayos that have a doubling without need, one need not be adamant.

Answer #2: We can say there like here. The Chidush is that a Pasul makes Shirayim;

Even though we hear from here, in any case one should not be adamant in another Mishnah if it teaches something that is not needed;

However, initially it was difficult to him, because it is like two Mishnayos repeated for no reason.

Support: Now it is fine that in the conclusion, we did not resolve anything from the question. Therefore, we [try to] bring a proof from all these below.

Explanation: [If a Pasul] did Zerikah, does he make everything left in the neck Shirayim?

Explanation: Even a Pasul [who did Avodah without improper intent] is included in the general rule "there is no [Pasul] who makes Shirayim [other than Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo]", and answers "no, aside from the Pesul, [i.e.] except for that Pesul that we were discussing, i.e. Tamei [who makes Shirayim], like it explains below. (Tosfos' text was unlike ours. Right after this Tosfos equates this to our text.)

Alternative text: Some texts say oppositely - "it is not other than a Pasul?" It means the same. "Other than" refers to Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo (nothing else makes Shirayim);

It answers "no. Even Pasul..." I.e. even Pesul is like Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] asks "it taught that there is no [Pesul...]!" I.e. it explicitly connotes that no [other] Pesul makes Shirayim, only Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo;

It means that there is nothing that is not Meratzeh b'Tzibur and makes Shirayim... I.e. every Pesul that is not Meratzeh b'Tzibur does not make Shirayim, except for Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo.

Citation: This Tamei, who has [a Heter to serve] b'Tzibur, makes Shirayim.

Explanation: His Zerikah is somewhat important, since he has a Heter b'Tzibur. Other Pesulim, who do not have [a Heter] b'Tzibur, do not make Shirayim, for it is not an important Zerikah, and it is as if they did not do Zerikah at all. Therefore, the Pesul that it says that he makes Shirayim, is a Tamei.

Explanation: "Always" that was taught is whether he was Mefagel in Shechitah, or he was Mefagel in Kabalah;

And even if he was Mefagel in Kabalah, that there was Heter Shechitah, it taught that Me'ilah applies, and the reason is because he was Mefagel, but if he was not Mefagel, even though he did not do Zerikah, Me'ilah would not apply, and we infer that Heter Zerikah was taught.

[The Gemara rejects] no, he did Zerikah. Therefore it mentioned Pigul, for if he was not Mefagel, Me'ilah does not apply, for there is Heter Achilah, and Heter Achilah was taught.

Question: What was the question "why does it say 'always'?" Just the contrary, it is better, since we discuss when he did Zerikah!

Just the contrary, according to the Havah Amina that it is without Zerikah, it is more difficult "why does it say 'always'?", since Rav Gidal's law is not true!

Source: Above, it brings a support for Rav Gidal from that it mentioned "always", that you are forced to say that we discuss without Zerikah, for if he did Zerikah, what is the Chidush?

Answer (the Sar from Kutzi): Here, even if you think that Heter Zerikah was taught, still, Rav Gidal's law is true;

[Here] it means as follows. Is it not even when he did not do Zerikah? Since it mentioned "always", this connotes that it discusses both before Zerikah and after Zerikah, and it teaches two laws;

When he did Zerikah, it teaches that Me'ilah applies, like Rav Gidal's teaching, that Zerikas Pigul does not uproot Me'ilah;

And when he did not do Zerikah, this teaches that we learned Heter of Zerikah, for it connotes that only if he was Mefagel, Me'ilah applies to it, but if he was not Mefagel, Me'ilah does not apply to it!

[The Gemara rejects] no, he did Zerikah. Why does it say "always"? Since we discuss with Zerikah, if so there is no Chidush in the inference, for obviously, Heter Achilah uproots Me'ilah!

It answers that the Chidush is like Rav Gidal. I.e. the entire Chidush is like Rav Gidal, to say that Zerikas Pigul does not uproot Me'ilah.