Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (a), 42b): [Kometz] was taught for no reason.

Question #1: Granted, [we can say so about] Kometz. [Why did the Beraisa teach] Levonah and Minchas Kohanim? I already know [that Pigul does not apply to them] because they have no Ritzuy!

Question #2: Regarding blood, the Gemara (Sof 46a) explicitly says that [Pigul does not apply to it] because [it is a] Matir. [Even without this,] how could we find that one is liable for Pigul? If he ate it before the Matanos were done, if so there is no Ritzuy;

If [he ate] blood left in the bucket after the Matanos were done, it is not a Matir!

If [he ate blood] that he threw on the Mizbe'ach, Pigul was uprooted from it!

Answer #1 (to Question #2): Perhaps "its Pigul was uprooted" does not apply to blood, only to Haktarah, because it became the food of the Mizbe'ach.

Question: Why is he not liable for Shirayim of blood? It has Matirim. The Matanos permit pouring Shirayim on the Mizbe'ach, just like they permit Eimurim!

Answer: Perhaps since initially, every drop was proper to be thrown, all of the blood is considered a Matir.

Answer (to both Questions): The reason for the Kometz and all of them is because if one were liable for them, their law (liability) would be from the time of Kidush in a Kli. Kidush in a Kli is its Ritzuy;

Since they themselves permit others, Kidush in a Kli does not help for them, like it says above (34a) regarding Tum'ah. If it has Matirim, (one is liable for it) from when its Matirim are offered. If it has no Matirim, (one is liable) from the time of Kidush in a Kli.

Question: The Kometz permits [Haktaras] Levonah!

Implied question: One can be Maktir [the Levonah] before the Kometz, like it says in Menachos (16b)!

Answer: In any case, it seems that surely one may not be Maktir it before Kemitzah.

Answer #1: In any case, Levonah is not like Shelamim, for Levonah itself is a Matir, for it permits eating the Shirayim, and the primary Pigul we learn from [meat of] Shelamim.

Implied question: Pigul applies to Eimurim, even though it permits the meat, for until Haktaras Eimurim, Kohanim may not eat!

Answer: In any case, [Eimurim] are not considered a Matir, since if they became Tamei or were lost, one may eat the meat.

Answer #2: No Avodas Mizbe'ach permits the Levonah. It is unlike Shelamim, for Avodas Mizbe'ach permits Shelamim, e.g. Zerikas Dam.

Question: Why doesn't it list here wood, just like it lists Levonah, even though it is not proper to eat? If [wood] had Matirim, one would be liable for it for Pigul, just like one is liable for it for Tum'ah, but nothing permits it, and it permits itself!

Answer: It is not applicable to teach wood. In what case [need it teach that Pigul does not apply]?

Suggestion: One volunteered wood, [and] according to Rebbi, who says in Menachos (20b) that it requires Kemitzah and Hagashah.

Rejection: Its law is like a Minchah. One is exempt for the Kometz, and liable for the Shirayim!

Suggestion: It discusses wood for the Ma'arachah.

Rejection: Intent does not apply to it. If he intends at the time of Holachah (bringing it to the Mizbe'ach) in order to do be Maktir it tomorrow, all agree that Holachah of wood to the Ma'arachah is not Avodah!

Answer #1: According to the sharp ones of Pumbedisa, in Menachos (17a) we find this regarding one who is Maktir Shumshum (the volume of a sesame seed at a time), in order to be Maktir Shumshum tomorrow, for Haktarah is Mefagel Haktarah.

Answer #2: Perhaps even though one is liable for wood due to Tum'ah, one is not liable for it due to Pigul, for it is not a proper Korban according to Rabanan who argue with Rebbi in Menachos (20b), and do not require salting it, for it enables [offering] a Korban, but it is not a Korban.

Question: Why is Pigul different than Tum'ah?

Suggestion: It is because we learn (above, 28b) Pigul from Shelamim.

Rejection #1: Also Tum'ah is written regarding Shelamim!

Rejection #2: Below (45a), we learn Pigul from a Gezeirah Shavah "Avon-Avon" from Nosar, and we learn Nosar "Chilul-Chilul" from Tum'ah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The text does not say Minchas Nesachim, because they argue about this in the Seifa of this Mishnah;

It teaches "and Nesachim that come by themselves. R. Meir says so. Chachamim say, even [Nesachim] that come with an animal";

"By themselves" that [R. Meir] says is both one who volunteered Nesachim, like it says about one who brings Nedavah of Nesachim every day, and also what comes with an animal, e.g. he brought his Zevach today, and the Nesachim (sometime) from now and within the next 10 days.

Explanation #2: We can resolve the text of Seforim (which says Minchas Nesachim). Minchas Nesachim discusses one who volunteers Nesachim every day. The case of "coming by itself" is that he brought his Zevach today, and the Nesachim the next day.

Question: It should not have interrupted with blood. It should have taught as follows. - "blood, Minchas Nesachim, and Nesachim that come by themselves"!

Answer: Perhaps since the Tana taught Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, he taught also Minchas Nesachim. (Chidushei Basra - the Tana taught first matters about which there is no argument. Therefore, he needed to teach blood in between, i.e. before Nesachim that come by themselves.)

Assertion: It seems that R. Shimon here is Rabanan above [who exempt for] Nesachim.

Question: Why didn't [the Mishnah] teach both together? There is one reason for both of them (they need not be brought with the Korban! Tosfos Yom Tov - they were taught separately because Minchas Nesachim is not eaten, but Shirayim of the oil is eaten.)

Version #1: This is Rashi's text, and that of Toras Kohanim.

Version #2: In some Seforim, the text says "and it says below Kol Ish Asher Yikrav mi'Kol Zar'achem El ha'Kodoshim Asher Yakdishu Bnei Yisrael la'Shem v'Tum'aso Alav."

Explanation: It is obvious to [the first Tana] that we discuss Tum'as ha'Guf, for if it were Tum'as Basar, it should have said 'v'Tum'asam Aleihem' in the plural, like it is written "El ha'Kodoshim" in the plural.

Implied question: Now it did not cross his mind to distinguish due to the plural! (Only R. Yosi distinguishes like this.)

Answer: [It did not cross the first Tana's mind] that "Shelamim" is plural, but it is obvious to him that Kodoshim is plural.