Question: If it is not like in its place, [when he intended] immediately (the same day), why is it Kosher?

Answer: [The Gemara] could have said ul'Taimech (also for you, the Makshan, who hold that it is not like in its place, it is difficult).

Support: Now (that we can infer that not in its place is like in its place), it is fine what it says below (36a) that R. Yehudah taught like he holds elsewhere, that not in its place is like in its place;

Rashi explained there that we hear [that he says so] in the Beraisa here, which we establish like him in our Sugya.

Question: What is his source below that R. Yehudah holds like this in general, that it says "R. Yehudah taught like he holds elsewhere"? If it is from the Beraisa in our Sugya, perhaps it holds that it is not like in its place!

Answer: Rather, he relies on what was taught "immediately, it is Kosher." If so, you are forced to say that it is like in its place, and the Seifa of "tomorrow, it is Pasul" is like R. Yehudah, just like [he disqualifies due to] intent to leave over.

Question #1: Below (29b), why do we need Lo Yechashev to teach that intents uproot one another (intent Chutz li'Mkomo uproots Kares for intent Chutz li'Zmano)? We should know this from here - [there is Kares] for what Pigul caused, to exclude this, which Pigul did not cause (it is Pasul even without the Pigul intent)!

Question #2: This is difficult for Rava, who concludes (Menachos 12a) that according to the opinion that if the Shirayim became Chaser (some were lost) between Kemitzah and Haktarah, he burns the Kometz for them, and we hold that one may not eat the Shirayim;

Haktarah helps to fix Pigul, and to uproot Me'ilah! (Why does Pigul apply? Even without intent Chutz li'Zmano, Haktarah would not permit the Shirayim!)

Answer (to Question #2): [The meat or Shirayim] is not forbidden due to eat due to an inferior Zerikah or an inferior Haktarah of the Kometz. Therefore, we do not exclude it from "He'achel Ye'achel";

"What [only] Pigul caused [to be forbidden]" connotes that if not for the [Pigul] intent, it would be a proper Zerikah, and the meat would be permitted;

This excludes this case, which Pigul did not cause. Even without the [latter Pasul] intent, it would not be a proper Zerikah (it was in the wrong place), for it does not permit eating the meat.

Answer #1 (to Question #1): "What Pigul caused" connotes in that Avodah itself. If not for [the Pasul] intent, it would be a proper Zerikah, and it would be permitted to eat the meat;

This excludes this case, in which [blood that should be put] below he put above. Pigul did not cause the Isur. Even if not for the Pasul intent, it would not be a proper Zerikah, for it does not permit eating the meat.

However, if he slaughtered Chatas Lo Lishmah, or with intent Chutz li'Mkomo, and he did Kabalas Dam or Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano, one might have thought that it is Pigul with Kares, since in the Avodah of Pigul, there is no other [Pasul] intent. "Lo Yechashev" teaches that this is not so.

Answer #2 (to Question #1): I would have said that only when it was disqualified first, it cannot become Pigul in a later Avodah, but when it was fixed to be Pigul in one Avodah, and in a later Avodah he intended Chutz li'Mkomo, Kares is not uprooted from it. "Lo Yechashev" teaches that this is not so.

Question: This is difficult for R. Yehudah, who follows the first intent, like a Mishnah teaches below (29b)!

Note: Rosh ha'Mizbe'ach answers that R. Yehudah expounds Lo Yechashev for a Lav, and not to teach that a later Avodah can uproot Pigul. Shitah Mekubetzes says that the following begins a new Dibur that pertains to 26b.

Citation (26b): Immediately (if the intent was for the same day) it is Kosher.

Remark: In the conclusion, this is like R. Yehudah, who holds that not in its place is like in its place (36a).

Question: Since intent is like action according to R. Yehudah, if so "immediately it is Kosher" means that the owner got Kaparah, but the meat is Pasul, like Shmuel said above (26b)...

If so, when he later intended Chutz li'Zmano in a second Avodah, why is it Pigul to be Chayav Kares? Zerikah that does not permit eating the meat does not bring to Pigul!

This is like in the Seifa [if he intended to put blood in the wrong place] "tomorrow', it is Pasul and not Pigul for this reason.

Answer: R. Yehudah makes intent like action only when the action totally disqualifies and the owner did not get Kaparah. If so, immediately it is Kosher, i.e. totally Kosher, and one may eat the meat.

Proof: If not, he should argue [about one who intended for blood that should be] put above [to put it] below, that the meat is forbidden to eat, just like through action. (On 36a, we say that he is Machshir, because not in its place is like in its place.) This is from R. Baruch.

Question (R. Chaim): It is not written Davar Acher!

It says like this in Bava Kama (25a) - this refers to one whose Kiryo (a chance occurrence) caused [his emission]. It excludes [a Zav], for Kiryo did not cause [his emission], rather, something else (his Zivah) caused it. [The Gemara] asks "it is not written Davar Acher!"

Answer: He relies on the verse "Lo Yechashev" - he may not mix in other intents (28b).

Implied question: We need both verses!

Answer #1: Even so, it is logical that something else will cause a Pesul to uproot from Pigul, since we find that intents uproot one another.

Answer #2: He expounds an extra verse here.

Implied question: It says in Chulin (101a) "this refers to one whose Gid is forbidden and its meat is permitted. This excludes [a Tamei species], in which its Gid and meat are forbidden!"

Answer: That is unlike here. (Chidushei Basra - the verse says "therefore (due to the injury to Yakov), Bnei Yisrael do not eat Gid ha'Nasheh." This does not apply to Tamei species, which Bnei Yisrael would not eat even if not for the injury!)

Implied question: Reish Lakish must answer like Rava, and in Menachos (5b) it connotes that he does not hold like him regarding something proper for Avodah! (Yad Binyamin - if Kemitzas Minchas ha'Omer was Lo Lishmah, Reish Lakish holds that it does not permit eating the Shirayim. Rava disagrees. The Omer itself is Chadash, which is not proper for Avodah, therefore intent does not take effect on it.)

Answer: In any case, regarding the other matters (that intent takes effect only if the Oved is proper for Avodah), he properly holds like him.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We cannot say that it is because he holds that not in its place is like in its place, because he [already] atoned, for it was taught like other Pasul Zerikos.

Question: Below (36a), we conclude that R. Yehudah holds that not in its place is like in its place!

Explanation #2: R. Yehudah said that it is like in its place, not regarding that he got Kaparah, rather, only regarding intent it is like its place;

Since Zerikah helps regarding Im Alah Lo Yered, it helps also not to disqualify through intent. Therefore, immediately it is Kosher.

Question: If so, after it answers "it is like its place", what was the question from "he intended blood [that should be put] outside inside, or inside outside?

Also there the Mizbe'ach absorbed it, for Im Alah Lo Yered!

Explanation #2 (Rabbeinu Yosef): The support is as follows. What is the reason? Is it not because the Mizbe'ach absorbed it, that even regarding inside and outside R. Yehudah says that the Mizbe'ach absorbed it?

Even though inside and outside, all agree that not it is not like its place, even so R. Yehudah says that the Mizbe'ach absorbed it regarding that Im Alah Lo Yered;

Also here, the Mizbe'ach absorbed it regarding that one may not gather it.

Disclaimer: We cannot explain like this according to what I explained above (26b DH Amar) that the one who holds that it is like in its place says so even regarding inside and outside;

Source: [The Gemara] challenged R. Yochanan "if not in its place is not like in its place, it should be as if [blood] spilled from the Kli. He should gather it", and it did not challenge Shmuel and Reish Lakish.

Explanation #3 (R. Chaim bar R. Mordechai): It is proven from "what should be put outside that was put inside." According to everyone it is not like in its place, and his Zerikah does nothing, because it was disqualified before, when it entered the Heichal.

Implied question: It does not help to gather [the blood], for it was disqualified before Zerikah! (How does this prove that the Mizbe'ach absorbed it?)

Answer: All the more so we should say that it is as if the blood spilled from the bucket to the ground, about which R. Yehudah says Tered, for any Zevach whose blood was not thrown at all, if the Eimurim Alu, Yerdu according to R. Yehudah;

Even so, it says that the Mizbe'ach absorbed it for Zerikah, and we say Lo Yered. The same applies to [blood that] should be put below that was put above, which R. Yochanan said is not like its place, and it was not Mechaper at all;

We should say that Zerikah helps, and the Mizbe'ach absorbed it so we do not gather it to help for another Zerikah! This is from R. Baruch.

Remark: It is better than a Kli Shares, which is not Mekadesh Pesulim to be offered, and the [inner] Mizbe'ach] is Mekadesh [them to be offered].