(Mishnah): (Nosar and Tamei apply to Kodshim regarding which Pigul does not apply,) except for blood.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer: Three exclusions teach that Me'ilah does not apply to blood. (Later, we will use two of them to teach that Nosar and Tamei do not apply to blood.)

(Ula): "Va'Ani Nesativ Lachem" - blood is yours (it is not considered Hash-m's, so there is no Me'ilah);

(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "Lechaper" - it is for Kaparah, and not for Me'ilah;

(R. Yochanan): "Hu" - blood has the same status before Kaparah as after;

Just like after Kaparah there is no Me'ilah, also before.

Suggestion: Perhaps just like before Kaparah there is Me'ilah, also after!

Rejection: Me'ilah never applies to something (used for a Mitzvah) after the Mitzvah was done.

Question: Me'ilah applies to Terumas ha'Deshen after the Mitzvah!

Answer: Terumas ha'Deshen and Bigdei Lavan (that the Kohen Gadol wears in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim on Yom Kipur) are Shnei Kesuvim (two verses, one of which teaches something which could have been learned from the other, e.g. that Me'ilah applies after the Mitzvah was done), so they do not teach to other cases.

Question: This is like Chachamim, who expound "v'Hinicham Sham" to obligate Genizah for Bigdei Lavan (they may not be used again);

According to R. Dosa, who says that they may not be used on another Yom Kipur, but a regular Kohen may use them, how can we answer?

Answer: Terumas ha'Deshen and Eglah Arufah are Shnei Kesuvim. They do not teach to other cases.

Question: This is like the opinion that Shnei Kesuvim do not teach to other cases. According to the opinion that they do teach, how can we answer?

Answer: They are not Shnei Kesuvim, because we could not have learned one from the other. Regarding each, a verse teaches not to learn to other cases:

It says "ha'Arufah" and "v'Samo" (but normally, there is no Me'ilah after the Mitzvah).

Question: Why do we need three exclusions to teach that Me'ilah does not apply to blood?

Answer (and culmination of answer (c)): One teaches that Me'ilah does not apply to blood. The others teach that Nosar and Tamei do not apply to blood.

We do not need a verse to teach that Pigul does not apply. Pigul applies only to something that has Matirim, but blood is a Matir for other things.

Question (R. Yochanan): Why does the Torah teach Kares three times regarding eating Shelamim b'Tum'ah?

Answer: One is a Klal, one makes it considered something included in a Klal that received a new law, to teach about the entire Klal (i.e. that Kares for Tum'ah applies to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but not to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis), and one teaches that one is liable for things not normally eaten.

Question: R. Shimon exempts for things not normally eaten. How does he expound the third Kares?

Answer: It teaches that one is liable for inner Chata'os;

One might have thought that since (he holds that) one is not liable for Pigul of inner Chata'os, one is not liable for eating them b'Tum'ah. the extra verse teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): One is liable for things that are normally eaten...

Version #1 - Rav Tivyomi - ((R. Yochanan or Reish Lakish), or, (R. Elazar or R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina)): They argue about eating (Kodesh that is not normally eaten) b'Tum'as Basar (when the Kodesh itself is Tamei. Chachamim Mechayev, and R. Shimon exempts), but all agree that one is not lashed for Tum'as ha'Guf;

(A Chacham from the other pair): They argue in both cases.

Question: Why are Chachamim Mechayev even for Tum'as ha'Guf?

Answer: Since "veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei (Lo Ye'achel)" applies, also "v'Tum'aso Alav (v'Nichresah)" applies.

Version #2 (Rav Kahana): The Amora'im discussed the Seifa (R. Shimon exempts for eating wood, frankincense or Ketores b'Tum'ah.)

(R. Yochanan or Reish Lakish, or, R. Elazar or R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): They argue about Tum'as ha'Guf (R. Shimon exempts and Chachamim are Mechayev), but all agree that one is lashed for Tum'as Basar;

(A Chacham from the other pair): They argue in both cases.

(Rava): Presumably, the latter opinion is correct.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Since R. Shimon holds that "v'Tum'aso Alav" does not apply, neither does "veha'Basar Asher Yiga...".

Question: It was taught that "veha'Basar" includes wood and frankincense (they can become Tamei, or perhaps only Pasul. We must say that one who eats them is liable!)

Answer: Indeed, they are forbidden (Tosfos - mid'Oraisa; Rashi - mid'Rabanan), but one is not lashed for them.

(Mishnah): There are six intents in Korbanos:

Which Korban it is, whose Korban it is, it is l'Shem (for the sake of) Hash-m, l'Shem the fire, l'Shem a smell, and to be pleasing (these will be explained);

Additionally, a Chatas or Asham is offered l'Shem the transgression.

R. Yosi says, even if one slaughtered without any intent, it is Kosher;

Chachamim enacted to slaughter without intent, for everything depends on the intent of the Oved (the one offering the Korban).

(Gemara - Rav Yehudah): "Olah" - an Olah is offered l'Shem Olah (as opposed to l'Shem Shelamim);

"Ishim" - the Eimurim should burn totally, not to merely grill them (Rashi; Ramban (on Chumash) - they are burned on the fire, not on coals);

"Re'ach" - (the meat should make a nice smell on the Mizbe'ach, so) it should not be roasted first;

(Rav Yehudah): If limbs were roasted before they were offered, he did not fulfill "Re'ach".

"Nicho'ach" - he must intend that it will be pleasing to Hash-m;

"La'Shem" - he intends for Hash-m, Creator of the world;

(Rav Yehudah): If a Chatas was slaughtered l'Shem Olah, it is Pasul. If it was slaughtered l'Shem Chulin, it is Kosher.

(R. Elazar): He expounds "v'Lo Yechalelu Es Kodshei Bnei Yisrael" - (intents for other) Kodshim are Mechalel (disqualify) Kodshim, but (intent for) Chulin is not.

Question (Rabah - Mishnah - R. Yosi): Even if one slaughtered without any intent, it is Kosher. This is an enactment of Chachamim (to slaughter without intent).

Inference: It is Kosher because he had no intent. Had he intended for Chulin (or any other improper intent), it would be Pasul!

Answer (Abaye): No. When he had no intent, it is Kosher and Meratzeh (he was Yotzei);

If he intended for Chulin, it is Kosher, but it is not Meratzeh.

(R. Elazar): If Reuven (knowingly) slaughtered a Chatas l'Shem (to be) Chulin, it is Kosher;

If he thought that it was Chulin (and slaughtered l'Shem Chulin), it is Pasul.

Shmuel and Rav Huna agree with the latter law.

Question (Shmuel): What is the source that Misasek (one who did not intend for the action he did) is Pasul in Kodshim?

Answer #1 (Rav Huna): "V'Shachat Es Ben ha'Bakar" - the Shechitah must be l'Shem an ox (Korban).

Shmuel: I knew that l'Chatchilah, it must be l'Shem the Korban! I asked for the source that this is Me'akev.

Answer #2 (Rav Huna): "Lirtzonchem Tizbechuhu" - you must slaughter it knowingly.