1)

(a)According to Rabah, if the Sheriri were removed before Chatzos (midnight) and returned after Chatzos, the following Chatzos renders them Ikul - which means that from then on, there is no Me'ilah, and Im Yardu, Lo Ya'alu.

(b)According to Rav Chisda - Amud ha'Shachar already renders them Ikul.

(c)Amri de'bei Rav explains Rav Chisda's ruling with a Kal va'Chomer from Chatzos - which renders Sh'riri Ikul (even though it does not create Linah), Amud ha'Shachar (which does creates Linah) should certainly render them Ikul.

(d)If the Sheriri were removed before Chatzos and returned after Amud ha'Shachar, Rabah issues the same ruling as he issued in the previous case. According to Rav Chisda - they will never become Ikul.

2)

(a)Rav Yosef objects to the current Machlokes - on the grounds that Chatzos renders the Sheriri Ikul, whether they are on the Mizbe'ach or not.

(b)Consequently, according to Rav Yosef, when Chatzos arrives (even if they are not on the Mizbe'ach) ...

1. ... Me'ilah - no longer applies.

2. ... they are - Asur be'Hana'ah mi'de'Rabbanan.

3. ... Pak'u - Lo Ya'alu.

(c)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba and Tana bar Kapara corroborate Rav Yosef's opinion. Assuming that Rabah and Rav Chisda also concur with Rav Yosef, we establish their Machlokes - by particularly fatty limbs, which do not become completely Ikul, even if they have dried up from the heat.

3)

(a)Rava asked Rabah whether Linah invalidates a Korban that is on the Mizbe'ach when dawn breaks. He cannot be referring to a Korban that remains on the Mizbe'ach even after that - because even a Korban that is lying in the Azarah when dawn breaks, is Kasher if it is subsequently taken up on to the Mizbe'ach (how much more so one that is already on the Mizbe'ach at that time).

(b)He must therefore be referring to a case - where after dawn break, the Korban is taken down into the Azarah.

(c)According to one side of the She'eilah, we compare the top of the Mizbe'ach to the Shulchan, which means that - whatever is there when dawn breaks, does not become Pasul (and that even if Yarad, Ya'aleh), like the Mishnah in Menachos, which rules that if the Lechem ha'Panim remain on the Shulchan for a whole extra week - they do not become Pasul.

(d)The other side of the She'eilah is that - we compare the top of the Mizbe'ach to the floor of the Azarah, which renders Pasul whatever is on it as soon as dawn breaks.

4)

(a)Rabah replied Ein Linah Mo'eles be'Roshah shel Mizbe'ach.

(b)We ask whether Rava accepted Rabah's ruling or not, and we answer by citing a Machlokes between them. Both agree that limbs that remain overnight ...

1. ... in the Azarah - are burned (on the Mizbe'ach) until dawn break.

2. ... on top of the Mizbe'ach' - are burned even after that.

(c)Rabah then rules that if, in the latter case, Yardu, Ya'alu. Rava holds - Lo Ya'alu (a proof that he did not accept Rabah's answer).

(d)This is no contradiction to his previous ruling (that limbs that remain on top of the Mizbe'ach may be burned at any time) - which is due to the principle Pesulin she'Alu, Lo Yerdu. Note, that the criterion for Linah is not being off the Ma'arachah all night, but being off the Ma'arachah at dawn-break.

5)

(a)We know that the Mizbe'ach sanctifies whatever is fit for it from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash". The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Pikudei "u'Mashachta es Mizbach ha'Olah" that - the Kevesh sanctifies, too.

2. ... in Tetzaveh "Kol ha'Noge'a bahem Yikdash" that - so do K'lei Shareis.

(b)Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether the K'lei Shareis sanctify Pesulin as well. When Rebbi Yochanan cited him our Mishnah "ke'Sheim she'ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh ... Kach Keilim Mekadshin', he meant that - whatever is sanctified in a K'li Shareis, can no longer be redeemed (because that is what the Tana is speaking about).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan's reply therefore, did not satisfy Resh Lakish - since he was speaking about bringing the Pesulim on the Mizbea'ch Lechatchilah.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan then tried to resolve Resh Lakish's She'eilah from our Mishnah 'she'Kiblu Pesulin Ve'zarku es Damo', which he interpreted to mean that Pesulin both received the blood and sprinkled it - implying that had Kesheirim subsequently sprinkled the blood, it would be Kasher ...

(b)... a proof that - K'lei Shareis sanctify Pesulin even to the point that they may be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)We refute Rebbi Yochanan's proof however - by interpreting the Beraisa to mean that either Pesulin received the blood or they sprinkled the blood ...

(d)... and the Tana is coming to teach us that even though the Evarim became Pasul through the Zerikah, Im Alu, Lo Yerdu.

7)

(a)We ask whether Avir Mizbe'ach ke'Mizbe'ach Dami - whether, if a Pasul limb is suspended above the Mizbe'ach, it will be considered to be on the Mizbe'ach (in which case, 'Lo Yeired'), or not.

(b)Assuming that Avir Mizbe'ach La'av ke'Mizbe'ach Dami, that will create a problem regarding the transportation of the Pasul limbs from the Kevesh to the Mizbe'ach, because - bearing in mind that by the same token, Avir Kevesh La'av ke'Kevesh Dami, they will not be considered to be on the ramp. Consequently, how can the Kohen then take them up to the Mizbe'ach?

(c)The Kohen circumvents the problem - by dragging the limbs up the ramp.

8)

(a)The problem that remains regarding the gap between the Kevesh and the Mizbe'ach is - since the gap is no different than the air, part of the limb inevitably remains in the air as he crosses it across.

(b)We resolve it - by considering the remainder of the piece to be wherever the majority is (in which case the tiny gap does not affect the issue).

(c)Rami bar Chama asked whether Yesh Chibur be'Olin or not - whether we consider all particles of Kodshim that are brought on the Mizbe'ach as being joined, or not.

(d)We ask why we cannot then resolve his She'eilah from our previous statement. And we answer that - indeed we can (because otherwise, as each piece reaches the gap, it ought to be forbidden to move it across).

9)

(a)Rava bar Rav Chanan queries Rami bar Chama in that if 'Avir Mizbe'ach ke'Mizbe'ach Dami', how does an Olas ha'Of - specifically, because unlike Olas Beheimah, the Kohen kills it [with Melikah] on top of the Mizbe'ach] ever become Pasul be'Machshavah.

(b)The Kashya is that - seeing as it is already on the Mizbe'ach, even if it does become Pasul, it is burned on the Ma'arachah (rendering his Pasul Machshavah irrelevant).

(c)Rav Shimi bar Ashi answers that - it would become Pasul if the Kohen were to have in mind at the time of the Melikah to take the bird down from the Mizbe'ach, before returning it and burning it. And seeing as it would be Pasul if he carried out his Machshavah, it will be Pasul even he doesn't.

(d)Initially, we establish this answer like Rava, who holds Linah Mo'eles be'Rosho shel Mizbe'ach, but not like Rabah - who holds Einah Mo'eles.

(e)We nevertheless manage to establish it like Rabah too - in a case where the Kohen thought to take the bird down before Amud ha'Shachar and to return it after Amud ha'Shachar, in which case, Linah would take effect even according to him.

10)

(a)After the Kohen has performed a Melikah she'Lo li'Shemah on the Mizbe'ach - he performs Haza'ah.

(b)Rav Shimi bar Ashi tries to prove from there that - Avir Mizbe'ach ke'Mizbe'ach Dami, because otherwise, how can the Kohen sprinkle the blood on the Mizbe'ach, seeing as when he does, the bird and the blood are not actually on the Mizbe'ach (but in its air-space), in which case it is as if it is not on the Mizbe'ach at all (and we ought to say Lo Ya'aleh).

(c)And he brings a further proof from the Pasul blood of Korbanos according to Rabban Gamliel, who said earlier - Dam Pasul she'Alah', Lo Yeired.

(d)From which can bring - the same proof, seeing as the blood goes through the air of the Mizbe'ach.

11)

(a)To answer Rav Shimi bar Ashi's Kashyos, we suggest that the Kohen performs the Haza'ah and the Zerikah respectively - by holding the bird's neck and the bowl right next to the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Besides the fact that this is not the way Haza'ah and Zerikah are normally performed, we ask - that the Haza'ah is in fact, Mitzuy, and the Zerikah, Shefichah.

(c)Rav Ashi refutes Rav Shimi bar Ashi's proof from Chatas ha'Of. Acording to him, the She'eilah of Avir Mizbe'ach ... is not affected by the case of Chatas ha'Of Pesulah - because, since the Kohen is standing on the Mizbe'ach holding the bird in his hand, it is as if the Korban is lying on the Mizbe'ach, too.

(d)And the She'eilah is - in a case where the Kohen is standing at the foot of the Mizbe'ach holding in his hand a long cane that reaches above the Mzbe'ach, from which the bird is suspended.