Explanation #1 (Rashi): This was mentioned without need, for "Al Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref" was written regarding Par Helam Davar.

Remark: He was not precise. It is not written regarding Par Helam Davar, rather, regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach. In any case, he is correct that this was taught without need.

Explanation #2: It means as follows. Of those burned in Beis ha'Deshen, we find that only these are Metamei Begadim. What is the source to include Par Kohen Mashi'ach...?

Question: This requires investigation whether from this Drashah we also learn burning Par Yom Kipur in Beis ha'Deshen.

Explanation: R. Yehoshua and R. Gamliel come to explain the Reisha.

Support: We find like this in Bava Basra (28a). In the Seifa, R. Yishmael and R. Akiva explain the Chazakah of the Reisha.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "Hi" connotes that it remains in its status from when it ascended on the place it is burned.

Question: The Gemara connotes that "Hi" is an exclusion, and not an inclusion!

Explanation #2: Rather, the Tana relies on "Zos Toras ha'Olah."

Implied question: It is impossible for Nesachim to be totally Kosher since the Zevach is Pasul!

Answer: Rather, "Kosher" means that it has no Pasul of its own.

Explanation: It cannot come to exclude Ketores, for the Seifa (85b) taught this. Also Rove'a and Nirva were taught in the Seifa (84a);

It should not have taught "what is proper for it", rather, "the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh Pesulim."

Explanation #1: It seems that this is even according to R. Shimon, who said below (84a) that of the blood spilled, Lo Yered.

Source #1: We ask according to all Tana'im, to find something not proper for [the Mizbe'ach].

Source #2: It asks about this "why is this different than Ula's teaching?" Ula's teaching is like R. Shimon, for according to R. Yehudah Yered, since R. Zeira said about it below (85a) "a Mishnah teaches this! If the blood spilled..."

Implied question: When it says that this is to exclude Kamatzim that were not Mekudash in a Kli, likewise it could have said according to R. Yehudah, to exclude Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim that were brought up before Zerikas Dam. They descend!

Answer: Because we discuss according to R. Shimon, it said so [to exclude Kamaztim...]

Question (R. Chaim): We know that R. Shimon holds (Menachos 26a) that a Kometz does not need Kidush Kli!

Explanation #2: You are forced to say that here, it says so according to Rabanan, who hold that a Kometz needs Kidush Kli, like we hold everywhere, and unlike R. Shimon;

According to R. Shimon, we find something not proper for [the Mizbe'ach], e.g. Levonah before Kemitzah of the flour. Levonah is permitted through Kemitzah of the flour.

Rebuttal #1 (of Source #2 above): It seems that Ula's teaching is like everyone, for it is brought everywhere - here, and in Me'ilah (7b).

Rebuttal #2: [Here, the Gemara] asks "why is this different than Ula's teaching?", and did not ask 'why this is different than our Mishnah "if the blood spilled..."'

Also in Me'ilah, it brings [a proof] from Ula's teaching, and does not bring from our Mishnah "if the blood spilled..."

Implied question: We can say that [here and there,] it brings [Ula's teaching because] it is more similar [to the law discussed than the Mishnah is]!

Answer: Even so, it connotes that Ula's teaching is like everyone. Even R. Yehudah agrees that [if Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim were brought up before Zerikah, Lo Yered,] because they became 'food' of the Mizbe'ach;

This is unlike when the blood spilled, since [here] there is [possibility of] Zerikas Dam.

Implied question: Why did R. Zeira say below (85a) "a Mishnah teaches this" from [the opinion of] R. Shimon?

Answer: It is because according to R. Shimon, it is properly proven that it became food of the Mizbe'ach;

The Gemara rejected this, that even according to R. Shimon there is no proof.

Likewise, it could have said that according to R. Shimon it is obvious. Ula needed to teach according to R. Yehudah.

Implied question: We should learn from what we expound below (86a) "v'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam" - you return [to the Mizbe'ach] Ikulei (partially burned meat of an) Olah (that flew off), but not Ikulei bones and sinews!

Answer #1: We do not learn from there Pok'in (what flies off the Mizbe'ach), for this Tana holds that we do not learn from it automatically, just like we do not learn below from "Asher Tochal ha'Esh Es ha'Olah." We expound that you return Ikulei Olah, but not Ikulei Ketores;

And the one who holds that we learn from it automatically, also here he could expound Pok'in from "v'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam."

In any case, both [opinions] need "Asher Tochal ha'Esh", for we would not exclude Ketores from "v'Asisa [Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam]", since it is something that is offered, like meat and blood;

And from "Asher Tochal ha'Esh", we would exclude only something not offered on the outer Mizbe'ach, but not Ikulei sinews and bones.

Answer #2: The reason why we do not learn Pok'in from what we expound "you return Ikulei Olah, but not Ikulei sinews and bones" is because we would establish it for when they separated from the Ma'arachah and they are still on the Mizbe'ach, and did not fall to the floor;

However, if they fell to the floor, you do not return even Ikulei Olah.

Explanation: We do not exclude Ikulei Levonah, for we return them, like is proven in Menachos (26b);

The reason is, "Al ha'Mizbe'ach" refers to everything proper for the outer Mizbe'ach.

Question: We must be meticulous [to explain why] in our entire Sugya we include all Korbanos, even though it is written "Olah"! (Olas Shlomo - we learn from "Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash", like Tosfos says below (DH Kol). Alternatively, "Zos Toras" is an inclusion.)

Explanation: [One might have thought that even if they ascended on the Mizbe'ach alive] with cataracts in the eye [we offer them], and according to R. Akiva, like he says below (85a, that Im Alah Lo Yered). The Torah wrote "Olah" - it is proper to ascend [but not while alive].

Question: In Menachos (90b) we exclude Minchah from Nesachim because it is written "Olah"!

Answer #1: There is different, for presumably it is only Olah, since it is Kalil (totally burned), similar to Nesachim, which are totally for the Mizbe'ach.

Answer #2: Here is different, for it is written "Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash." Kol connotes to include.

Answer #3: [Here is different,] for it is written "Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash" to include one law for everything that goes up [on the Mizbe'ach - 84a].