Tosfos' text: The text does not say "that he encounters first." Above (33a DH Ein) I explained this regarding Ein Ma'avirin Al Mitzvos.

Rashi's text: This is also in Zevachim (53b). There, Rashi's text says "both of them are poured on the western Yesod. A Siman (way to remember this) is 'the men drew the man."

Rashi explains that the Talmidim of R. Yishmael, who are a Rabim, drew (persuaded) R. Shimon bar Yochai to say like them.

Objection (Ri): In Zevachim (119b), R. Yishmael and R. Shimon argue about the verse "El ha'Menuchah v'El ha'Nachalah." R. Yishmael says that both of them refer to Shilo, and R. Shimon says that both of them refer to Yerushalayim;

Citation (119b - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael bid'Vei R. Shimon): Both of these refer to Yerushalayim. The Siman is 'the man drew the men."

Explanation (Rashi): R. Shimon, the individual, drew the Talmidim of R. Yishmael to abandon the words of their Rebbi.

Objection #1: This is not a [good] Siman. Just the contrary! Normally, the Rabim overpower and draw the individual!

If so, people will come to err [and assume the Siman refers to the normal case], and switch "men" to "man". If so, what [use] is this Siman?!

Objection #2: In Zevachim 53b, the Siman is opposite, 'the men drew the man.' If so, people will come to err!

Conclusion: Rather, what Rashi explained here is correct. Both of these refer to the southern Yesod. However, the text says 'the men drew the man';

Explanation: R. Shimon bar Yochai, about whom is mentioned his own name and his father's name, persuaded the Talmidim of R. Yishmael, about whom is mentioned his name, but not his father's name, to say like his (R. Shimon's) opinion.

This is the text also in Zevachim 119b. Also the Aruch (Erech Mashach) explains like this.

Answer (to Objections): Even if the text says in both of them 'the man [drew] the men', like Rashi's text there, what I asked is not difficult, that people will come to err and reverse the Siman, and say 'the men drew the man';

It was known that R. Shimon lived many years after R. Yishmael, and R. Yishmael's Talmidim were drawn to learn in front of him after their Rebbi died;

It is normal that whoever is drawn to another's house, whether they are a Rabim or an individual, should say like whom they are drawn to.

Rhetorical question: If mid'Oraisa, Me'ilah did not cease [to apply to the blood], how could they sell it to gardeners for fertilizer?!

Question (R. Tam): In Me'ilah (12b), Ze'iri said that if one lets blood from an animal of Kodshim, Me'ilah applies to it (the blood).

Suggestion: That Me'ilah is mid'Rabanan.

Rejection: A Mishnah there (11a) teaches that initially, Me'ilah does not apply to blood. After it goes to Nachal Kidron, Me'ilah applies;

The Me'ilah after it goes to Nachal Kidron is mid'Rabanan. This implies that initially, even mid'Rabanan there is no Me'ilah!

Answer (R. Tam): We say here that before Kaparah is like after Kaparah. This refers to after Shechitah, when Kaparah applies, but not in its lifetime.

Implied question: In Me'ilah 2b, we ask "is there Me'ilah mid'Rabanan?!", and answer that there is, like Ula taught;

Citation (2b - Ula): If Kodshim died, mid'Oraisa there is no Me'ilah.

We could have answered from blood after it goes to Nachal Kidron. Me'ilah applies to it mid'Rabanan!

Answer: We said there that Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the south are as if they were choked, and asked whether Me'ilah applies mid'Rabanan to something for which there is no need to decree, for in any case people refrain from it;

We bring from Kodshim that died, which is similar to it (Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the south, and Me'ilah applies mid'Rabanan to them),

Implied question: In Temurah (32b), we ask from one who was Makdish an Olah for Bedek ha'Bayis. Two Me'ilos apply to it. We establish that this is mid'Rabanan;

Citation (32b) - Question: Is there Me'ilah mid'Rabanan?!

Answer: We ask that since in any case there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa because it is an Olah, and in any case people refrain from it, why did Rabanan enact another Me'ilah?

We answer that it is proper to have two Me'ilos. Rabanan enacted Me'ilah on the skin because mid'Oraisa, Me'ilah applies only to the meat.

Rabbeinu Chaim's opinion: After it went to Nachal Kodrin, the Me'ilah is mid'Oraisa, for Beis Din are Makdish it. (If so, there was no basis for R. Tam's question.)

Question #1: If so, in Me'ilah (12a), we ask "do we ever find that initially there is no Me'ilah, and at the end there is Me'ilah?!";

We asked "[why do you think that there is] not?" Initially there is no Me'ilah regarding blood...

Question: What was the question? We should say that there is different, since Beis Din are Mekadesh it!

Question #2: Also, how does this (R. Chaim's answer) help? We still find Me'ilah mid'Rabanan in Menachos (52a). It says that initially, they enacted Me'ilah regarding the ashes of Parah Adumah;

There we cannot say that they enacted Me'ilah because they were Makdish it, for if so it would be total Hekdesh. If so, how could they sprinkle from it?!

Question: Just the contrary! We should say oppositely, that after Kaparah is like before Kaparah. We never find that the Mitzvah was not done, and there is no Me'ilah!

Suggestion: [We find this] regarding Kodshim Kalim! After Zerikah, is no Me'ilah, except for the Eimurim after Zerikah !

Rejection: That is because they are not Kodshei Hash-m. (Rather, they are considered the owner's property.)

Answer: [We find this] regarding Eglah Arufah. Before the Mitzvah it is permitted. (All the more so there is no Me'ilah!)

Suggestion: We could bring a proof [also] from ashes [on the Mizbe'ach]. Before Terumas ha'Deshen, there is no Me'ilah.

Rejection: Just the contrary! In Me'ilah (9a) it connotes that one who benefit from ashes of the Tapu'ach (the heap on top of the Mizbe'ach) before Terumas ha'Deshen, all agree that Me'ilah applies!

Question (Ri): Our Sugya implies that Me'ilah applies to Terumas ha'Deshen after its Mitzvah was done;

Citation (Me'ilah 11b - Mishnah): One may not benefit from Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach and the Menorah, but Me'ilah does not apply to them;

Citation (12a) Gemara: Granted, regarding the outer Mizbe'ach, it says v'Samo Eztel ha'Mizbe'ach..."

Summation of Ri's question - Inference: Also regarding the outer Mizbe'ach (Terumas ha'Deshen), one may not benefit from it, but Me'ilah does not apply!

Answer #1 (Ri): We taught regarding Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach and the Menorah that Me'ilah does not apply to them. This connotes only after Dishun, for Dishun removes Me'ilah, for its Mitzvah was done;

This implies that Dishun is a Mitzvah. Regarding this, we say "granted, regarding the outer Mizbe'ach, Dishun is a Mitzvah, for it says v'Samo Eztel ha'Mizbe'ach..."

Distinction: Just the contrary! (Terumas ha'Deshen is more stringent.) There is even Me'ilah, for it says v'Samo, and we expound (Temurah 34a) v'Samo - gently. V'Samo - so it will not scatter. (Since the Torah is particular about this, this shows that the ashes require burial, and are Asur b'Hana'ah. They keep their Kedushah, therefore Me'ilah still applies.)

[The Gemara in Me'ilah asked] however, what is the source that Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach is a Mitzvah?

Explanation #2 (of Me'ilah 12a - Ritzva): It ("granted, regarding the outer Mizbe'ach...") does not refer to the Diyuk (inference, that Dishun is a Mitzvah), rather, to "one may not benefit from them, but Me'ilah does not apply to them", i.e. mid'Oraisa;

Note: This means that Me'ilah does not apply to Terumas ha'Deshen. Below, Tosfos shows how Ritzva can answer the Ri's question.

Suggestion: One may not benefit from them mid'Rabanan, like every "one may not benefit" in the Gemara.

Rejection: It is clear from the Yerushalmi that the Isur to benefit is mid'Oraisa!

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: What is the source for Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach?

Citation (cont.) Answer: It says "v'Hishlich Osah Eztel ha'Mizbe'ach Kedmah El Mekom ha'Deshen." We do not need this (El Mekom ha'Deshen) to fix a place for it, i.e. for the innards and feathers [of Olas ha'Of], for it already says "Eztel ha'Mizbe'ach"!

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: Perhaps it teaches that it must be to the east of the ramp!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: It [already] says Kedmah (to the east)!

Citation (cont.): Also it (this will be explained) we expound from "Etzel-Etzel."

Explanation: The Yerushalmi suggested that the verse teaches that we put Terumas ha'Deshen to the east of the ramp, for it says El Mekom ha'Deshen;

We would say that this (the place we put Terumas ha'Deshen, seemingly) comes to teach [about Olas ha'Of], but it turns out that it (Terumas ha'Deshen) is learned [from Olas ha'Of]!

[The Yerushalmi rejects this, for] we do not need this. We already know [where to put Terumas ha'Deshen] from a Gezeirah Shavah. It says here (regarding Olas ha'Of) "Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach", like it says regarding Terumas ha'Deshen";

Just like here, it (Olas ha'Of) is in the east, also there (Terumas ha'Deshen).

Question (of the Yerushalmi): If so, what do we learn from El Mekom ha'Deshen?

Answer: This teaches that [Dishun of] the inner Mizbe'ach is Asur b'Hana'ah.

"El Mekom Tahor" teaches that its place must be Tahor. (This shows that it still has its Kedushah. Therefore it is Asur b'Hana'ah - Si'ach Yitzchak.)

Opinion #2 (in the Yerushalmi): We derive this from a Kal va'Chomer. [Dishun of] the outer Mizbe'ach is Asur b'Hana'ah, and all the more so [Dishun of] the inner Mizbe'ach!

Inference: [Dishun of] the outer Mizbe'ach is Asur b'Hana'ah mid'Oraisa.

Explanation #3 (of Me'ilah 12a, based on Opinion #2): Granted, [ashes of] the outer Mizbe'ach are forbidden mid'Oraisa, for it says v'Samo Eztel ha'Mizbe'ach;

Gemara's Question: What is the source that [ashes of] the inner Mizbe'ach are Asur b'Hana'ah after they were removed, and even before, what is the source that they are forbidden?

We do not know it itself, i.e. that Dishun (taking off ashes) is a Mitzvah [regarding the inner Mizbe'ach]. If so, once it (the Ketores) becomes ashes, we should say that the Mitzvah was done, and one may benefit from them!

Gemara's Answer: We learn from "Deshen".

Question: How was the Gemara able to learn from "Deshen"? [This shows that Dishun is a Mitzvah, but] we still need to prove that the ashes are Asur b'Hana'ah!

Answer #1: The Bavli was concerned only to bring a verse proving that one must do Dishun;

It knew from reasoning that all Dishun is the same, to be Asur b'Hana'ah, or from a Kal va'Chomer, like the Yerushalmi brings.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the primary simple reading of the verse discusses Dishun of the outer Mizbe'ach. However, due to extra, superfluous words, we establish it to discuss the inner Mizbe'ach and Menorah;

This is considered like a Hekesh. All of them are equated to the outer [Mizbe'ach].

Question: If so, we should say here that the outer Mizbe'ach, the inner Mizbe'ach and the Menorah are Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad (three verses that could have been learned from each other. All forbid something after its Mitzvah was done. We may not learn from them to elsewhere!)

Answer #1: There is no extra verse here. We need it to teach that there is a Mitzvah of Deshen, to leave it near the Mizbe'ach.

Answer #2: After we learned a Mitzvah of Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach and the Menorah, to leave them near the Mizbe'ach, all the Dishuns are considered like one matter.

Proof by contradiction: If you would not say so, how was the Yerushalmi able to learn from a Kal va'Chomer? Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad do not teach [even through a Kal va'Chomer! It would be difficult to say that that opinion in the Yerushalmi holds that Shenei Kesuvim Melamdim - Si'ach Yitzchak.]

Question: I explained ((c), in the name of Ritzva) that Me'ilah does not apply to Terumas ha'Deshen. There is only an Isur Hana'ah. Here we say that there is Me'ilah!

Answer (and Answer #2 to Question a)): (There is not really Me'ilah.) We say also regarding Eglah Arufah that Me'ilah applies to it, and there, there is no Me'ilah. Rather, it means that it is Asur b'Hana'ah.

Support - Citation (Me'ilah 12b): One may not benefit from milk of Kodshim and eggs of turtledoves, but Me'ilah does not apply to them;

Citation (cont.): We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Imo-Imo" from Bechor. Just like Me'ilah applies to Bechor, Me'ilah applies to milk of Kodshim.

Implied question: Bechor is Kodshim Kalim. Me'ilah does not apply to it! Also, Me'ilah does not apply to milk of Kodshim, like the Mishnah there says, for it is not Kodshei Hash-m!

Answer: "Me'ilah" is not precise. It means Isur b'Hana'ah.

Question: Since I explained that there is an Isur Hana'ah mid'Oraisa, why does it say (Me'ilah 11b) that if one was Makdish Dishun from the beginning, Me'ilah applies to it?

How can his Hekdesh take effect on it, since mid'Oraisa it is Asur b'Hana'ah?!

Note: Tosfos holds that one cannot be Makdish Isurei Hana'ah, for they are not considered his. Tosfos in Chulin (140a DH Lemi'utei) disagrees (Chasam Sofer 140a DH Ela).

Answer #1: It does not discuss ashes of the Mizbe'ach, for it says "from the beginning." This connotes that we discuss something that was never Hekdesh.

Rather, it discusses one who was Makdish ashes of his oven. Also Rashi explained like this;

It needs to teach that it is Kodesh, even though it is not useful for the Mizbe'ach, and not for Bedek ha'Bayis, like it says there in the Seifa (12b, 13a, that Me'ilah applies to) "anything proper for the Mizbe'ach [... or even if it is not useful for the Mizbe'ach, and not for Bedek ha'Bayis].

Answer #2: We should not say that it discusses oven ash. If it did, it should not have said Stam "Dishun" (rather, Efer (ashes))!

Rather, we discuss Deshen of the Mizbe'ach after it was taken outside of three Machanos. The Mishnah teaches that it is unlike other Deshen, which is forbidden forever.

Support (for Ritzva): I explained that Me'ilah does not apply to Terumas ha'Deshen. This avoids a difficulty from Me'ilah 19b;

Citation (19b - Mishnah): There is not Me'ilah after Me'ilah (after the first Me'ilah, the Hekdesh became Chulin), except for an animal or Kli Shares.

Question: We should say that we find Me'ilah after Me'ilah also regarding Terumas ha'Deshen!

Answer (Ri): Terumas ha'Deshen is included in "animal", for it comes from ashes of Kodshim. (According to the Ritzva, there was no question! Tosfos connotes that the Ri's answer's is weak.)

Retraction of support: Also according to the Ritzva, we need the Ri's answer;

Granted, Me'ilah does not apply to Terumas ha'Deshen. However, the Mishnah should have said that there is Me'ilah after Me'ilah regarding ashes of the Tapu'ach;

We say (Me'ilah 9a) that all agree that Me'ilah applies to it before Terumas ha'Deshen.

Question: Why is Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach different, that even before Terumas ha'Deshen Me'ilah does not apply to it, like it says in Pesachim (26a)?

Citation (26a): Me'ilah does not apply to Ketores after the cloud of smoke rises. All agree that Me'ilah applies to ashes of the outer Mizbe'ach before Dishun.

Answer: Me'ilah applies to ashes of the outer Mizbe'ach because Avodah must be done with them. They require Bigdei Kehunah, like it says "v'Lavash ha'Kohen Mido Vad..."

However, even though Dishun must be done with ashes of the inner Mizbe'ach, no Avodah is lacking, for we do not find that this requires Bigdei Kehunah.

Implied question: We equate all the [three] ashes!

Answer: We equate them after they were placed near the Mizbe'ach, for then all their Mitzvos were done;

Even regarding Terumas ha'Deshen, there is no Avodah after that. Even so, it is Asur b'Hana'ah, for it says v'Samo Eztel ha'Mizbe'ach;

However, there is no Me'ilah because they are not called Kodshei Hash-m, since no Avodah remains to be done.

Likewise, Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach is Asur b'Hana'ah due to a Kal va'Chomer, like I explained.

However, we do not make a Kal va'Chomer to obligate Bigdei Kehunah, since we never find any Avodah with it after it became ashes, other than the Mitzvah of Dishun;

[This is un]like we find regarding the outer [Mizbe'ach], which requires Haramah (Terumas ha'Deshen, which is an Avodah).

Support: In Temurah (34a), we say that after the blood was squeezed from Olas ha'Of, Me'ilah no longer applies to the innards and feathers;

Question: What is the reason? The Mitzvah was not yet done (finished. The innards and feathers) still must be cast near the Mizbe'ach!

Answer #1: This is like I said. We do not find that casting requires Bigdei Kehunah. Therefore, it is as if the Mitzvah was done. (No Avodah is lacking.)

Answer #2 (Ri): There is different, for Avodas ha'Dam permits them.

Summation: The Ritzva derived all of this.