Explanation: One is written regarding Pesach, and one regarding Todah.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes learns that both verses are regarding Todah. Therefore, the coming question of Tosfos is not difficult for him.

Question: He expounds [intent Chutz li'Zmano] from Im Eino Inyan. How do we learn other Nosar from Pesach?

Explanation: I explained this above (9a DH u'Shelamim, that it is Mosar Pesach.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Yakrivuhu refers to the Eimurim, and not to the blood, similar to Yochluhu, which refers to meat;

If Temei'im or Arelim ate a Zevach whose blood was thrown properly, is the Korban disqualified from being accepted!?

Question: If he intended to leave over the Eimurim tomorrow or take them outside, why is it Pasul?

If he left the Eimurim until tomorrow or took them outside, since the blood was thrown properly, the Korban is not disqualified from being accepted!

Answer: This is different. To leave the Eimurim until tomorrow, if he did like his intent, the entire Korban is disqualified if it is Kodshei Kodoshim that are eaten for one day and a night;

Since the Eimurim were intact, as long as they are not burned on the Mizbe'ach, one may not eat the meat. When tomorrow comes, the meat is Pasul due to Nosar.

However, [when he intended] that Temei'im offer it, the meat is not disqualified. Firstly, if Temei'im offered it, Im Alah Lo Yered;

Further, if the Eimurim became Tamei or were lost, one may eat the meat, since the blood was offered properly.

Question: Still, it is difficult from [intent] to take it outside. If it refers to the Eimurim, why does R. Yehudah disqualify? If he did so, this does not stop the blood from being Meratzeh, and also the meat may be eaten!

Since the Eimurim were taken outside, it is as if the Eimurim became Tamei or were lost, and one may eat the meat.

Answer (and Explanation #2): If [intent] to take it outside refers only to blood, it would be fine.

Question: [Before this answer,] that [the Makshan] did not know the reason of Makom Meshulash (a place of all three), he should have asked why Rabanan do not consider [blood] that should be put outside, and was put inside, to be Chutz li'Mkomo!

For this reason we exclude it above (29a) and below (82b)!

Answer: One might have thought that R. Yehudah does not require [a place of all three, but Rabanan do], because we conclude that the source is from reasoning. (He uses "Shelishi" to teach about Chutz li'Zmano, so he has no verse to teach about Makom Meshulash, so one might have thought that he does not require it.)

Remark: We must resolve this Sugya with all of the versions that I explained above (29a DH l'Makom) regarding what is a place of three.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): You may not slaughter it with intent to bring its blood inside. [The Torah] does not warn about literally entering the blood, rather, intent to enter it, for we discuss Shechitah, and it calls it "Davar Ra."

Explanation #2: "Davar Ra" connotes to him evil Dibur (speech), i.e. intent, and not truly entering.

Question: According to the opinion that not in its place is not like in its place, why did the Torah disqualify Chatas (whose blood was brought inside) more than other Korbanos? Also in other Korbanos it is Pasul!

Answer #1: Regarding blood of other [Korbanos], when he put from it on the Paroches or between the staves [of the Aron], we can say that he will gather it, or if there is more blood he will throw it its [proper] place, and it is Kosher. For Chatas, there is no solution for the remaining blood.

Answer #2 (R. Baruch): The Tana who holds that not in its place is not like in its place, he holds that a Chatas is Pasul even if he did not atone.

Question: If so, the law of Pigul is nullified! If one threw some of the blood outside or eats a k'Zayis outside, [the Korban] is not disqualified. If he has [improper] intent [to do so, this is more stringent, and] he disqualifies!

Likewise, granted that entering without being Mechaper does not disqualify. Intent to enter without being Mechaper [can] disqualify!

Answer: "Davar Ra" connotes something that is evil elsewhere, this I (Hash-m) forbade to intend at the time of Shechitah. (Even though entering disqualifies only if he was Mechaper, Kaparah does not apply to intent.)

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes (Kesav Yad) says that the following starts a new Dibur.

Citation: Here that he intended, all the more so (it disqualifies only if there was intent for Kaparah).

Explanation: It is Kosher, for even if he intended to put inside on the golden Mizbe'ach in order to atone, it is Kosher, since Kaparah does not apply to intent at all;

However, truly putting (even though in the wrong place it does not atone, it) is proper to atone in some (i.e. the correct) place.

Explanation: This is unlike [intent for] dogs to eat, for regarding Temei'im, it is disqualified before they eat, once they touch it;

And even if his friend inserts [the meat in the Tamei's mouth, so he is not Metamei it], in any case, in this intent for eating, something else causes that without eating, he can disqualify it through touching.

Implied question: A Beraisa in Menachos (25b) teaches that what is not permitted to Tehorim, one is not liable for [eating] it b'Tum'as ha'Guf!

Answer: That refers to something that needs a Heter through the Mizbe'ach, e.g. meat that became Tamei before Zerikah;

It is unlike meat of Pesach that was not roasted or Lachmei Todah before Terumah was taken.

Question: Here we expound "Asher la'Shem" to include Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim for Tum'ah, and there we establish it to include Linah and Yotzei! (Panim Me'iros - there, Rabanan obligate for wood and Levonah, and all the more so for Eimurim, so they use the verse for Linah and Yotzei. Here, R. Shimon, who exempts for wood and Levonah, uses the verse for Eimurim.)

Explanation #1: Seemingly, this is like Beis Shamai, for according to Beis Hillel, since they are Machshir regarding Chatas below, and he was Mechaper even though he put only once, they do not need a verse for other Korbanos.

Support: It connotes like this at the end of our Sugya (37b). It says 'all these Tana'im who use "v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" for a different Drashah, what is their source that anything that must be put on the outer Mizbe'ach, if it was put once, he was Mechaper?'

Citation (37b): They hold like Beis Hillel, who say that even Chatas, if one Matanah was done, he was Mechaper, and they learn all of them from Chatas.

Retraction (Explanation #2): It seems that it is even like Beis Hillel;

Possibility #1: This Tana holds that we do not learn from Chatas, because two Matanos that are four of [most] other Korbanos, we learn below (53b) since it is written Saviv, and one might have thought that the Torah made two Matanos like one, and he was not Mechaper.

Possibility #2: Saviv is written many times, and the Torah repeated it to teach that it is Me'akev.

Support: Also below (38a), we say [that the Torah said] v'Chiper v'Chiper v'Chiper to override a Kal v'Chomer that we would have made... just like blood that should be put below (on the bottom half of the Mizbe'ach), if he put it once, he was Mechaper, also blood that should be put above is so.