Explanation: It means as follows. Before actual Zerikah, that Zerikah was not done, Me'ilah applies to it. Even though there is Heter Zerikah, Me'ilah applies to it, because we learned Heter Achilah!

[The Gemara rejects] no, there was no time [for Zerikah], for he did Kabalah [very] close to Shki'ah, that the Kabalah was not done in a Kosher way.

Explanation: Why does he distinguish between before and after Zerikah? He should distinguish within before Zerikah itself, between before it is proper for Zerikah and after it is proper for Zerikah, and teach as follows;

Before Shki'ah, Me'ilah does not apply, for it is proper for Zerikah. After Shki'ah, Me'ilah applies, for it is not proper for Zerikah!

It answers that indeed, it taught "before it is proper for Zerikah..." I.e. 'before Zerikah' is not precise. Rather, it means before it is proper for Zerikah.

Explanation: The entire Sugya of Pigul is like [above] regarding Nosar.

Question: However, it is difficult - how does it say that it discusses when there was time for Zerikah? If so, when was he Mefagel?

You cannot say that it was in Kabalah, for we establish it when Kabalah was Kosher;

Also you cannot establish [the Pigul] in Kabalah, for R. Shimon is Machshir [Pigul] in Kabalah, in Zevachim (13a), for it is an Avodah that one can be Mevatel, e.g. if he slaughters at the Mizbe'ach and does Zerikah (he need not take the blood anywhere)!

Answer: Therefore it seems to me that we discuss e.g. when he was Mefagel at the end of Kabalah, that there was time to do Zerikah at the beginning of Kabalah;

And it teaches that Me'ilah applies, and we learn that Heter Achilah was taught. This implies that the Seifa of Ein Mo'el discusses after actual Zerikah.

Question: If so, it is difficult for Rav Gidal, who said that Zerikas Pigul does not uproot Me'ilah!

Answer: Rav Gidal answers like we conclude here that "before Zerikah" means before it was proper for Zerikah, and "after Zerikah" means after it was proper for Zerikah, but really it was before Zerikah, for we learned Heter Zerikah.

Question: Still, this is difficult, for it connotes that if it supports the opinion that we learn from Heter Achilah, Rav Gidal's law is wrong;

And this is not so, for the one who holds that we learned Heter Achilah, he can resolve our Mishnah only like Rav Gidal!

Source: Above, regarding our Mishnah which taught what was slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo, you are forced to say that it discusses what was already thrown, since it says that Me'ilah applies. If it is without Zerikah, why is Pigul relevant? Even if he was not Mefagel [Me'ilah applies], since we learned Heter Achilah!

[Rather, surely Zerikah was done,] and in any case, when he was Mefagel, even though he did Zerikah, Me'ilah is not uprooted. This shows that also when we say that we learned Heter Achilah, Rav Gidal's law is true. And here it connotes that Rav Gidal's law is only if we say that we learned Heter Zerikah!

Answer (ha'Sar mi'Kutzi): This is not difficult at all. The one who says that we learned Heter Achilah, he can tell you "all hold like me, that we learned Heter Achilah." (The Tana'im argue about Rav Gidal's law);

And in our Mishnah, R. Yehoshua holds like Rav Gidal, like we explained, that you are forced to say that it discusses when he did Zerikah, and according to R. Shimon of the Beraisa, Rav Gidal's law is not true;

And Rav Gidal can tell you "all hold like me, that Zerikas Pigul does not uproot Me'ilah";

[The Tana'im] argue about the following. R. Yehoshua holds that we learned Heter Achilah, and he discusses when he did Zerikah. R. Shimon in the Beraisa holds that we discuss without Zerikah, for we learned Heter Zerikah.

Inference: It connotes that only Pigul, Me'ilah applies, but if he was not Mefagel, Me'ilah does not apply to it;

And it is only because he did Zerikah, and there is Heter Achilah, but if he did not do Zerikah, even though he was not Mefagel, Me'ilah applies, since there no Heter Achilah.

Question: What is his source that we discuss only when he did Zerikah, to infer that if he did not do Zerikah, even though he was not Mefagel, Me'ilah does not apply? Perhaps the same applies without Zerikah!

Answer #1: It means as follows. Is it not that he did Zerikah, that there was time for Zerikah before Pigul, but in any case he still did not do Zerikah, and even so, Me'ilah applies - this shows that we learned Heter Achilah;

For if we learned Heter Zerikah, since Kabalah was b'Hechsher, immediately Me'ilah was uprooted, and this that it says "ha'Pigul" [in Kodshei Kodoshim, Me'ilah applies to it] discusses when he was Mefagel at the end of Kabalah, like we explained above.

It rejects "no, he did not do Zerikah", i.e. it was not proper for Zerikah. Now, there was no Heter Zerikah.

Objection: This Perush is very difficult, for "he did Zerikah" connotes actual Zerikah!

Answer #2 (Ritzva): Is it not that he did Zerikah... he holds that presumably, it comes to teach like Rav Gidal, that Zerikas Pigul does not uproot Me'ilah, and you are forced to say that it discusses when he did Zerikah;

And only if he was Mefagel, Me'ilah is not uprooted, but if he was not Mefagel, Me'ilah does not apply;

And we learn that Heter Achilah was taught, for if we learned Heter Zerikah, it should have taught "always", like above, to teach that that we discuss even after Zerikah, and like Rav Gidal;

Rather, surely we learned Heter Achilah, and if so, you are forced to say that we discuss when he did Zerikah, for if he did not do Zerikah, why does it say that he was Mefagel? Even if he was not Mefagel [Me'ilah applies], for we require Heter Achilah!

Rather, surely we discuss when he did Zerikah, and it is a support for Rav Gidal, for we learned Heter Achilah!

It rejects "no, he did not do Zerikah", i.e. just the contrary, Rav Gidal's law is not true, for we do not discuss when there was Zerikah, for we learned Heter Zerikah.

Explanation: [To bring to Me'ilah], anything done improperly does not bring. This is like Rav Gidal. To uproot Me'ilah, something done improperly also uproots Me'ilah, and above (4b Sof DH Lo) I explained a proper reason. (Pigul requires Ritzuy through Zerikah like for Kosher. It resembles what is proper for man to eat; this suffices to uproot Me'ilah. To bring Kodshim Kalim to Me'ilah, Zerikah must clarify Hash-m's portion. We do not find that Zerikas Pigul is considered proper for this.

Explanation: According to the opinion that we learned Heter Achilah, it is fine. And according to the opinion that we learned Heter Zerikah, we must explain that it discusses before it was proper for Zerikah;

And according to the opinion that we learned Heter Shechitah, it discusses before it was proper for Kabalah, therefore Me'ilah applies, because R. Eliezer holds that Zerikah does not help for Yotzei to uproot Me'ilah;

And one is not liable for it for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, for [to be liable for Tum'as ha'Guf] we require what is permitted to Tehorim, and here, since it was Yotzei, it is not permitted to Tehorim;

And regarding Nosar we learn from [a Gezeirah Shavah Chilul-]Chilul from Tum'ah, like we say in Zevachim (44a);

And also regarding Pigul, we say in Zevachim (28b) "like Ritzuy for Kosher, so is Ritzuy for Pasul." We require that all its Matirim are offered. Since it was Yotzei, after this it is not called "all its Matirim."

R. Akiva says that Me'ilah applies, for he holds that Zerikah helps for Yotzei.

R. Akiva said, one who separated his Chatas [and it was lost and he separated another,] and both of them are standing, i.e. he slaughtered both of them at once, like it says in the Gemara, if he wants, he does Zerikah from this one, or if he wants, he does Zerikah from this one;

It is not just like its blood exempts its meat from Me'ilah? I.e. don't you admit that just like its blood exempts its meat from Me'ilah, so it exempts the meat of the other from Me'ilah, even though it is Pasul;

If so, even for this it is proper that it exempt itself. I.e. all the more so it should exempt itself, even though it was Yotzei.

Limitation: Only the Pesul of Yotzei, you learn that Zerikah helps for it, like we explained, but there are other Pesulim in Zevachim that R. Akiva agrees that Zerikah does not help for them. Only the Pesul of Zerikah, it is reasonable to him that [Zerikah] helps.

Explanation: This is because Hash-m's portion was not clarified since it became Pasul through Yotzei, and Zerikah does not help for Yotzei;

And one is not liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, like I explained above (n the previous Dibur) the reason for all of them;

R. Akiva says that Me'ilah applies to them, for he holds that Zerikah helps for Yotzei.

Explanation: [The Gemara] asks why the argument of R. Akiva and R. Eliezer was taught regarding Kodshei Kodoshim and Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim.

Explanation: E.g. [to bring to Me'ilah] Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim, I would say that R. Akiva agrees that Me'ilah applies...

Question: Here it connotes that we should sooner bring to Me'ilah than to uproot Me'ilah, and above it connotes oppositely, for it says that improper Zerikah does not bring to Me'ilah, but even so it uproots Me'ilah!

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi, R. Peretz): Above there is a reason, and here there is a reason;

Above is when Zerikah itself was Pasul, that he was Mefagel in Shechitah or Kabalah. Therefore it does not bring Kodshim Kalim to Me'ilah, for they are not called Kodshei Hash-m;

However, it uproots Kodshei Kodoshim from Me'ilah, for we find that the Torah considers it Zerikah to obligate Kares for eating, for Pigul requires like Ritzuy of Kosher, and even so one who eats Pigul is Chayav Kares. If so, also regarding Me'ilah it is considered proper for people to eat, and they are uprooted from Kodshei Hash-m

This reason and this distinction my Rebbi explained above (4b DH Lo) regarding Rav Gidal's law.

However, here it discusses that Zerikah was Kosher, but Zerikah was done for something improper, that the meat was Yotzei;

Therefore, to uproot Me'ilah, Zerikah does not help, for it is still not permitted to eat, for we do not find that the Torah considered it Zerikah in such a case that the Zerikah is Kosher, but it is for something improper;

However, to bring to Me'ilah, I can say that R. Akiva agrees that Me'ilah applies, for the Zerikah itself is Kosher, just it is for something improper. If so, we call it Kodshei Hash-m regarding Me'ilah, for we likewise say Im Alah Lo Yered (if it was brought on the Mizbe'ach, we do not take it down. Rather, we offer it.)

Question: Amidst that Zerikah helps for this that is inside, it helps also for this that is outside, since we learn from one who separated [his Chatas, and it was lost], which is [like a case in which] it partially left, which resembles it.

Explanation: If half the Korban was lost or burned, and he does Zerikah in order to eat Chutz li'Zmano a k'Zayis of the part that was lost or burned, the intent helps to fix Pigul in the rest of the meat, which is intact.

Citation: What was lost or burned is not around!

Explanation: This is the conclusion of the question. What is not in the world at all, it says that his intent is intent to be Mefagel. If so, also here regarding what left totally, why doesn't Zerikah help? Rather, surely R. Akiva discusses even when it left totally.

Citation: Did Rav Asi say so?!

Explanation: This is a contradiction that the Gemara asks in Rav Asi, like we conclude.

Question: What is the rebuttal that Rav Asi countered to the words of R. Yochanan, that [Rav Asi] equates other Pesulim to Yotzei? I explained in our Mishnah that one may not compare them!

Answer: It seems that the correct text is that of Seforim that say "Rav Asi said, my colleagues already taught..." It is a new matter. It is not a challenge to R. Yochanan's words.

What it says "behold, what was lost or burned, which is not in the world" is the beginning of the Makshan's words. He comes to ask "did Rav Asi say so?!" I.e. even though they are not in the world, intent takes effect. .