Question #1: Above regarding Kodshei Nochrim, we learn Nosar from "Chilul-Chilul" from Tum'ah. Also Chilul of Tum'ah discusses Nosar!

Question #2: In Sanhedrin (83a) it connotes that Chilul is not written in the plural regarding Nosar, and here we find this from Levi's Beraisa!

Reference: Above (15b DH Ela) I explained this. ("Lo Yechalelu" in the verse of va'Yinazru discusses a Tamei who ate, and also Nosar. However, we find a punishment written explicitly about Chilul of Nosar only in "Ki Es Kedosh Hash-m Chilel v'Nichresah.")

Question (R. Tam): In Me'ilah (12b), we say that if one let blood from a Kodesh animal, Me'ilah applies to it. This shows that Me'ilah applies to blood!

Answer (R. Tam): That is in its lifetime, for Kaparah does not apply then. However, after Shechitah, even before Kaparah Me'ilah does not apply.

Question: It was taught there (12a), and brought in Pesachim (22a) that initially, Me'ilah does not apply [to blood]. When it goes to Nachal Kidron (the stream that goes through the Azarah takes it to there), Me'ilah applies!

Answer #1: That Me'ilah is mid'Rabanan.

Question #1: In Me'ilah (2b) [the Gemara] struggles to find Me'ilah mid'Rabanan. It should bring this Mishnah!

Question #2: In Temurah (32b), regarding one who is Makdish an Olah to Bedek ha'Bayis, it says one transgresses two Me'ilos for it, and it asks "if it is mid'Rabanan, why are there two Me'ilos?"

What was the question? There is Me'ilah of blood, which is mid'Rabanan, and also of Kodshim that died, in Me'ilah (2a)!

Answer: There that there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa, due to Olah, people refrain from it (so there was no need to enact Me'ilah mid'Rabanan). There is no Me'ilah mid'Oraisa for blood, so people do not refrain from it, Rabanan enacted Me'ilah.

In Me'ilah (2a) it discusses Kodshim slaughtered in the south. It is as if he choked them. In such a case, [the Gemara] struggled to bring a proof Rabanan enacted Me'ilah, even though people refrain from them when they died.

It brings a proof from R. Yochanan's teaching about Kodshim that died.

Answer #2 (R. Chaim): Blood that goes to Nachal Kidron, Me'ilah applies to it mid'Oraisa. Beis Din is Makdish it, lest people benefit from it without Pidyon.

Rebuttal #1: This is difficult.

Rebuttal #2: Why didn't [the Gemara] in Me'ilah bring from Menachos (52a) regarding ashes of Parah Adumah. It says that there were two enactments. Initially they enacted Me'ilah;

Implied suggestion: Also initially, Me'ilah was mid'Oraisa, for they enacted that Beis Din is Makdish it.

Rejection: If so, how could they sprinkle [on people]?!

Rebuttal #3: In Me'ilah (12a), R. Yochanan said that Kodshim that died, Me'ilah ceased to apply to them mid'Oraisa, but mid'Rabanan there is Me'ilah;

[The Gemara] asks, do we ever find that initially there is no Me'ilah, and at the end there is Me'ilah?! [It counters] do we not?! There is blood, for a Mishnah teaches at the beginning...

If the Me'ilah of Nachal Kidron is because Beis Din is Mekadesh it, what was the question?!

Question: Just the contrary, we should exclude before Kaparah, for we do not find that anything [Hekdesh] whose Mitzvah was not done and Me'ilah does not apply to it!

Implied question: There are Kodshim Kalim (before their Mitzvah was done, Me'ilah does not apply to them)!

Answer: That is because they are not called Kodshei Hash-m.

Answer: We find many cases like this in which there is no Me'ilah until the time of their Mitzvah - Terumas ha'Deshen, and Eglah Arufah [is forbidden] only after it is brought down [to Nachal Eisan].

Implied question: A Mishnah in Me'ilah (11b) teaches that ashes of the inner Mizbe'ach and the Menorah, one may not benefit, and Me'ilah does not apply to them!

Answer: That refers to [ashes] of the gold Mizbe'ach, from the Ketores that is burned on it. Here we discuss from the outer Mizbe'ach. He would scoop a full pan of consumed [Eimurim] on the inside [of the ash-heap] and put them to the east of the ramp.

Question: However, the Gemara connotes there that Me'ilah does not apply even to [ashes] of the outer Mizbe'ach, for it says "granted, there is no Me'ilah for [ashes of] the outer Mizbe'ach, for it says "v'Samo". What is the source for the inner Mizbe'ach?

Inference: It expounds from "v'Samo" that there is no Me'ilah. Our Sugya says oppositely, that "v'Samo" connotes that Me'ilah applies!

Answer: Our Mishnah there connotes that Me'ilah does not apply to ashes of the inner Mizbe'ach, because Dishun (removing the ashes) uproots from Me'ilah, but before Dishun, Me'ilah applies. If so, there is a Mitzvah to remove the ashes;

About this, it says "granted, [regarding] the outer Mizbe'ach it says "v'Samo", and therefore there is a Mitzvah of Dishun, and in any case even after taking the ashes, there is Me'ilah, like we expound in Temurah (34a) v'Samo - gently. V'Samo - all of it. V'Samo - so it should not scatter (this shows that Genizah is required);

However, the inner Mizbe'ach, what is the source that there is a Mitzvah of Dishun, that you say that Dishun uproots Me'ilah? It answers "v'Hesir Es Mur'aso v'Hishlich El Mekom ha'Deshen."

Support: The Yerushalmi in Yoma connotes like this a little. First it asks what is the source that we do Dishun at all on the inner Mizbe'ach, and then it asks what is the source that the ashes removed are Asur b'Hana'ah.

Question: If so, Mur'ah (the innards of Olas ha'Of) and the [attached] feathers, Me'ilah should apply to them until their Mitzvah is done, that they are thrown next to the Mizbe'ach, like Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach;

In Temurah (34a), we say that Olas ha'Of whose blood was squeezed (through pressing the bird against the Mizbe'ach), Me'ilah is uprooted from Mur'ah and the feathers!

Answer: Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach is different, for that is its Mitzvah. However, Olas ha'Of, Avodas ha'Dam permits Mur'ah and the feathers.

Question: In Kidushin (55a) it says that the only case of Mo'el after Mo'el is an animal (Korban) or Kli Shares. There is also Terumas ha'Deshen. It does not become Chulin through Me'ilah, like is proven at the end of Temurah!

Answer: It is included in an animal, i.e. like Eimurim, which do not become Chulin.

Reference: In Me'ilah (11b) it elaborates more, and the conclusion is like here.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We learn from "v'Arfu Sham" in Kerisus (6a).

Implied question: In Avodah Zarah (29b) we learn from that Kaparah is written [regarding Eglah Arufah], like [it is written about] Kodshim!

Answer: There we need to forbid after beheading, lest we say that Me'ilah does not apply to anything whose Mitzvah was done.

Question: One [exclusion] would suffice!

Observation: Similarly [it is difficult] regarding "ha'Izim" in Chulin (113b. Why do we need two exclusions to teach that elsewhere, Gedi need not be a goat? In Yoma (60a DH Trei), Tosfos answered that had the Torah written one Mi'ut regarding one of the Shenei Kesuvim, it would be like three exclusions, and since two of the three are written in one place, this is like Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut, which includes.)

Question: One exclusion should suffice for Nosar and Tum'ah, for we learn from each other "Chilul-Chilul", and even to be lenient, like above, regarding Kodshei Nochrim!

Answer: I would establish the exclusion only for Nosar, but I would think that he is liable for Tum'ah;

This is just like [something] without Matirin, e.g. a Kometz or Minchas Nesachim. Even though Pigul does not apply to it, there is an Isur Tum'ah, for we include it from "Asher Hem Makdishim..." Here we would include [an Isur of Tum'ah] also for blood.

Explanation: This is not truly a Klal u'Ferat, for they are far from each other. Rather, it is something that was in a Klal and left the Klal to teach about the entire Klal, like we expound in Yevamos (7a);

We include all Kodshei Mizbe'ach and exclude Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

Question: Also Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, I should know from "Yikrav", which we expound to teach something Kosher to be offered!

Answer: One might have thought that we require something Kosher to offer only regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach!

Question: It says in Menachos (25b) "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" - what is permitted to Tehorim, one is liable for it for Tum'ah... This excludes meat before Zerikah;

We should know this already from "Yikrav", which we expound to teach something Kosher to offer. What is the case? If it has Matirim, [one is liable only] after the Matirim were offered!

Answer: We need [both of these]. Had the Torah written [only] "Kol Tahor", and not Yikrav, one might have thought that before Zerikah is considered that it was permitted to Tehorim, since he can do Zerikah l'Chatchilah;

We would exclude only what became Tamei before Zerikah (it was never permitted), or Lan and Yotzei. Therefore we need "Yikrav", for something that has Matirim, [one is liable for it for Tum'ah only] after the Matirim were offered.

Also, we need Yikrav to teach that something without Matirim, [one is liable for it for Tamei] from when he is Mekadesh it in a Kli.

Had the Torah written [only] Yikrav, and not Kol Tahor, one might have thought [that one is liable for] even Pigul and Nosar. I would not say that "mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim" is an exclusion, if not for the verse [that teaches that one is liable only for what is] permitted to Tehorim.

Question #1: R. Yochanan said above (46a-b) that three Kerisos were written about Shelamim. One is [to obligate] for matters that are not eaten, at least for Tum'as ha'Guf. We can resolve that R. Yochanan said that just like they argue about [Tum'as Basar], they argue about [Tum'as ha'Guf]!

Question #2: A Beraisa in Me'ilah (10a) teaches that one is liable for Levonah for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei!

Answer: [The one who exempts here] means that he is not lashed. [Things not normally eaten] are included only for Kares.

Objection: It does not connote like this, for it says 'since we apply "veha'Basar Asher Yiga", we apply "v'Tum'aso Alav."' This connotes that [the one who exempts] discusses also Kares!

Observation: The argument here, both according to Version #1 and Version #2, does not pertain to the argument of R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish about a Tamei who ate Kodesh meat before Zerikah, above (34a);

We can resolve [the versions here] both according to Abaye and Rava there. (Tzon Kodoshim - both say that Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan argue only about Tum'as Guf. Abaye says that both agree that he is lashed for Tum'as Basar, and Rava says that both exempt. Abaye can say that there is more reason to obligate there, for one could have done Zerikah and the meat would be permitted to Tehorim. Rava can say that there is more reason to obligate here, for the wood or Levonah became Kodesh in a Kli.) This is easy to understand.