Observation: From here we learn that Chibas ha'Kodesh is Machshir.

Question: It says in Pesachim (16a) that liquids of Bei Midbechai (the Mizbe'ach) are Tahor (are not Mekabel Tum'ah), e.g. wine and oil. They should be Huchshar through Chibas ha'Kodesh, just like wood and Levonah (frankincense)!

Answer: Chibas ha'Kodesh helps to make like a Huchshar food, something that resembles food, e.g. wood and Levonah, which is thick and hard, like a food;

However, Chibas ha'Kodesh does not help to make a liquid like a Huchshar food.

Question - Citation (Pesachim 24a): Why do we need "veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel"? If it is not needed for the law itself, which we learn from Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha, use it to teach about all Isurei (Achilah) in the Torah (that one may not benefit from them).

We need it for the law itself, that one is lashed for wood and Levonah!

Answer: Since we include wood and Levonah from the extra verse "veha'Basar", automatically we know that one is lashed due to Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha.

Question: What is the source that it comes to include wood and Levonah? Perhaps it is only for meat, that Chibas ha'Kodesh helps for it, and it does not require Hechsher!

Opinion #1 - Inference: This is an absolute Drashah, and not an Asmachta.

Support: Also Chulin (36b) connotes like this, that Chibas ha'Kodesh is mid'Oraisa.

Opinion #2: This is unlike Rashi explained below (46b). It says there 'it was taught that "veha'Basar" includes w7f', and answers that it is a mere Pesul. Rashi explained that this is mid'Rabanan.

Opinion #2 (cont.): Also in Pesachim (34b) it is called a Mailah (attribute). Rashi explained that Mailah is mid'Rabanan.

Rejection: We cannot say so. Also "after he brought his Kaparah, he may eat Kodshim", it says there that it is a Mailah. It is mid'Oraisa, for we learn from verses in Yevamos (74b)!

Below it is called a mere Pesul, i.e. there are no lashes, but there is an Isur Torah.

Question: We must be meticulous [to determine] whether Abaye's teaching here is like the two versions below (46b).

Question: What Kidush through a Kli applies to wood?

Suggestion: They chop it with an ax when removing wormy [parts of dry wood].

Rejection: The ax is not a Kli Shares, like the Tosefta connotes, like a Beraisa taught "if one borrowed a Hekdesh ax and chopped with it, and his friend came and chopped with it, all of them transgressed Me'ilah. If he gave it to his friend, and his friend gave it to his friend, the first was Mo'el, and the second was not Mo'el";

Citation (Tosefta - cont.): The law of an Olah is different. If he gave it to his friend, and his friend gave it to his friend, all of them were Mo'el, and the second was not Mo'el. (Since it has Kedushas ha'Guf, it is not profaned through Me'ilah. If an ax were a Kli Shares, likewise it would remain Kodesh, and everyone would be Mo'el!)

Answer #1 (Rashi): Here we discuss wood that he scooped in an incense pan, which is a Kli Shares, from the Mizbe'ach, with coals.

Rebuttal: It does not connote like this. In Tamid (28b), it connotes that he scooped inner consumed (coals, i.e. the wood was totally burned).

Defense: We can say that [Tamid] does not discuss Terumas ha'Deshen, rather, on Yom Kipur, when he scooped coals for the Ketores (but for Terumas ha'Deshen, we do not require consumed coals).

Answer #2: Kidush Kli of wood is when he smoothes it into logs;

Even though the ax is not a Kli Shares, its cutting and fixing is considered [like] a Kli Shares [to give to the wood Kedushas ha'Guf], like it says in Menachos (101a) that wood is not Kosher [for the Mizbe'ach] until it is smoothed into logs.

Implied question - Citation (Menachos 21a): This excludes wood, which is not Mekabel Tum'ah.

Answer: That is before Kidush Kli.

Explanation: He relies on the Seifa. It teaches in Toras Kohanim "I would know only that an Aseh (forbids other species). What is the source that there is a Lav?"

Implied question: (Why do we say that he did not transgress the command, rather, he added to it?) He brought only a Chayah!

Answer: Since he brought a Korban on his volition, he does transgress, since [the Torah] made it dependent on his will (he brings if he wants).

Question: This requires investigation in Me'ilah (20b) and Kesuvos (98b) regarding "sell for me half a [Beis] Kor", and [the Shali'ach] sold a full Kor.

Explanation #1: [Does he make Shirayim] the blood in the animal's neck, and there will be no solution? Or, can a Kosher go back and do Kabalah and Zerikah?

If a Pasul did Kabalah, we do not ask. The Mishnah (32a) taught that a Kosher goes back and does Kabalah! Rather, we ask about a Pasul who did Zerikah, like Rashi explained.

Implied question: We should infer from our Mishnah! If [a Pasul] did Kabalah, yes (a Kosher can fix this), but if he did Zerikah, no!

Answer: We can reject this like we said above (26b) - do not say that if [a Pasul] did Zerikah, no (it cannot be fixed), rather, say that if he slaughtered, no.

Observation: However, according to the opinion that [blood put] not in its place is like in its place, it is proven above that the same applies if a Pasul did Zerikah. A Kosher returns and does Kabalah.

Explanation #2 (R. Efrayim): This question (of our Sugya) refers to all Pesulim that Im Alu Lo Yerdu (if they ascended on the Mizbe'ach, we offer them. We do not take them down.) L'Chatchilah, one may not take them up;

We ask, if a Pasul did Zerikah, does he make the remaining blood Shirayim, to spill it l'Chatchilah on the Yesod, like all Shirayim of blood?

Or not, and it is forbidden to spill it l'Chatchilah [on the Yesod], and it is spilled to the Amah (a stream that goes through the Azarah)?

Question #1: According to this, [Reish Lakish] should have said "does he make Shirayim, or Dichuy?", like he said in the other question "does a cup make another [cup] Shirayim, or Dichuy?"!

Question #2: We say explicitly in Me'ilah (5a) regarding a Pasul Chatas that its blood (spilled on a garment), it does not obligate laundering it (in the Azarah), the Chidush is that even though a Pasul did Kabalah and Zerikah, and a Kosher did Kabalah and Zerikah, it has no effect. What is the reason? It is Shirayim.

Citation (5b) Question: Reish Lakish asked R. Yochanan whether a Pasul makes Shirayim, and he answered that only Chutz li'Zmano [and Chutz li'Mkomo] make Shirayim. Doesn't this mean that other Pesulim do not make Shirayim?!

What was difficult? Reish Lakish agrees that at least [the remaining blood] is Shirayim, just he asks whether it is even Dichuy! If so, in any case it need not be laundered!

Answer: This is not difficult at all! If it is Shirayim, it is like other Kosher blood, for Shirayim are spilled on the Yesod;

However, the Shirayim that it says there that they do not obligate laundering, that is Pasul Shirayim. (Since the Mishnah exempts from laundering, we infer that a Pasul disqualifies Shirayim, unlike R. Yochanan's answer!)

Question: However, it is difficult that [in Me'ilah, it says] "doesn't this exclude other Pesulim?!" What is difficult if other Pesulim do not make Shirayim? If so, it is Dichuy, and all the more so the blood does not obligate laundering!

Remark: However, according to Rashi it is fine. If he does not make Shirayim, a Kosher returns and does Kabalah and it is Kosher blood, and obligates laundering. This is from R. Baruch.

Implied question: It says above (25a) that he must receive all the bull's blood!

Answer: That is the Mitzvah l'Chatchilah. (We discuss if not all was received.)

Question #1: If he gave to a Pasul, what is the problem? [The Pasul] merely served as a platform [on which he rested the blood]! Is this any worse than putting [blood] on a rock?!

[The Gemara] does not ask so (it should be Dichuy) on our Mishnah in Yoma (53b) which taught "he went out and left [the blood] on the gold base in the Heichal"!

Question #2: It is difficult for [the Makshan] the verse brought above (14a) "the Kohanim threw from their hands" (Yisraelim held the buckets). You are forced to say that at the least, [the Yisraelim] acted like a platform!

Answer: The question "it should be Dichuy!" does not refer to when he gave to a Pasul, for [the Pasul] merely served as a platform;

Rather, he asks about when he put [the blood] into a Chulin Kli, or when it spilled from the Kli to the floor.

Implied question: When a myrtle branch has more berries than leaves (Sukah 33a), it is Pasul. It says that if it was black (more berries than leaves) before Yom Tov, it is Dichuy Me'ikara, even though it is b'Yado to fix it!

Answer: This is not b'Yado, since we may not diminish (detach berries) on Yom Tov.

Implied question: Regarding Kisuy ha'Dam (Chulin 87a), it is called Dichuy when the wind covered the blood and it became exposed (even though it is b'Yado to uncover it and cover it again)!

Answer: Since there is no Mitzvah to be Mevatel the Dichuy, for there is no Mitzvah to expose [the blood], it is not considered b'Yado. It is unlike here, that it is a Mitzvah to gather [the blood].

Implied question: If one separated a Korban and became a Mumar (above, 12b, it is not called b'Yado even though he has a Mitzvah to repent)!

Answer: It is not called b'Yado because he does not intend to repent.