Implied question: "They said in Bei Rav" refers to Rav Huna, and Rav Chisda was his Talmid! (It is astounding that a Rebbi would explain his Talmid's words.)

Answer #1: Perhaps also Rav Huna said [Rav Chisda's teaching] and explained the reason. The Gemara recorded it in the words "what is Rav Chisda's reason?"

Answer #2: We find that Rav Huna used to praise [Rav Chisda's] words, like he said in Gitin (7a) "your name is Chisda, and your words are Chasda'in (pleasant)", and in Shabbos (82a, Rav Huna said to his own son) "why aren't you commonly found by Rav Chisda? His teachings are sharp!"

Explanation: This is like Rabah taught elsewhere. He holds below that Linah does not take effect on top of the Mizbe'ach;

He disagrees with Rav Chisda's Kal v'Chomer, for we can ask "you cannot learn from midnight, since it makes Ikul on top of the Mizbe'ach. If [a limb or Chelev] flew off, he does not return it. You cannot learn to dawn, for Linah [of dawn] does not take effect on top of the Mizbe'ach! (I.e. we find that midnight takes effect on top of the Mizbe'ach more than dawn does.) So explained R. Menachem.

Implied question: We should say that the second dawn makes Ikul from a Kal v'Chomer from midnight!

Answer: [Dawn] makes Linah only for Korbanos of the previous day.

Explanation: [Rav Yosef] said nicely. This is not a ruling, so we cannot ask that it is a ruling for (i.e. it will not apply until the time of) Mashi'ach.

Source: Also at the end [of the Sugya] it is proven that they do not argue with [Rav Yosef]. If so, why would we need to rule [like him]?!

Explanation: My Rebbi explained that [the Isur Hana'ah] is mid'Oraisa, since they became food of the Mizbe'ach;

In any case, Me'ilah was uprooted. Since midnight made Ikul, their Mitzvah was done, and Me'ilah does not return to them.

Question: What is [Rava's] source that it is not disqualified after Shabbos, when it was arranged on the Shulchan properly?

Answer: He infers from the extra word "even if it was on the Shulchan..." This connotes that it comes to add even in such a case.

Note: Mesores ha'Shas says that the rest of this Tosfos is a comment.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. Only because it was arranged on Sunday, improperly, it is not disqualified, like it says in Menachos (100a) and Yoma (29b);

The reason is because a Kli Shares is Mekadesh only in its [proper] time, for it does not answer there that the Shulchan is not Mekadesh to become Pasul through Linah, like it says here, that he wants to learn the Mizbe'ach from it!

Question: This requires investigation, whether one may say that when it was arranged properly, it became the food of the Shulchan to a greater extent, and it is not disqualified through Linah, and this we learn from the extra word "even if it was on the Shulchan..." (This would be a defense of the answer Tosfos gave above.)

Note: There (in Menachos), the Gemara said that if Lechem ha'Panim was put on the Shulchan after Shabbos, it gets Kedushah on the coming Shabbos, and they leave it on until the Shabbos after that.

Implied question: There, it asks "since night is not Mechusar Zman, when [the second] Shabbos night comes, it should become Pasul!", and answers that since it was arranged improperly, it is as if a monkey arranged it. (It did not get Kedushah to be disqualified through Linah.)

Inference: If it was arranged properly, it is disqualified through Linah!

Answer: It comes to teach that if it was arranged at night, since night is not Mechusar Zman, it is disqualified through Linah;

However, if it was arranged truly properly on Shabbos day, even if it was there many days, it is not disqualified, because it became the food of the Shulchan.

Question: In any case, this is astounding! Why didn't he answer from the beginning like his reasoning, that even if a Kli Shares is Mekadesh not in its time, the Shulchan is different, that [Lechem ha'Panim] is never disqualified on it in any case at all?

Answer: We are forced to say that there is a verse about this, that it is not disqualified even if it was arranged properly! (Perhaps in every case it gets Kedushah, and even so it is not disqualified.)

Question: According to R. Yehudah, who says (above, 59a) that the Azarah is Mekadesh like the Mizbe'ach, why do we need "Es" to include the ramp? Since it descended on the floor, Ya'alu. All the more so [Ya'alu if it was on] the ramp!

Answer: Perhaps the Azarah is Mekadesh like the Mizbe'ach, i.e. one may burn Kosher [Korbanos] on it, but not Pesulim. Therefore, we need a verse [that it is Mekadesh Pesulim].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Reish Lakish] asks about redemption. R. Yochanan answered that a Mishnah teaches this... Reish Lakish said "I asked whether [they are Mekadesh] to offer l'Chatchilah." R. Yochanan resolved that they are, from "if Pesulim received the blood and they threw the blood..."

Suggestion (R. Yochanan): This means that Pesulim did Kabalah and Zerikah. Because Pesulim did Zerikah, Im Alah Lo Yered, but if Kesherim did Zerikah, we offer the limbs l'Chatchilah, for it is a proper Zerikah, even though Pesulim did Kabalah!

Inference: This is because the Kli Shares in which they received the blood is Mekadesh Pesulim l'Chatchilah to offer them and do Zerikah! So Rashi explained.

Question #1: This is astounding! If so, the Mishnah (above, 84a) is difficult for [R. Yochanan]! Lan, Yotzei, Tamei, what was slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo... Im Alah Lo Yered. This implies that l'Chatchilah, Lo Ya'alu;

This is even if proper Kabalah was done in a Kli Shares, for we do not discuss at all that the Kabalah or Zerikah was Pasul!

Question #2: If the blood was Lan, Yotzei or became Tamei, why doesn't R. Shimon say Ya'aleh, since a Kli Shares is Mekadesh Pesulim to be offered l'Chatchilah? (Why does Tosfos ask according to R. Shimon? R. Yehudah argues only about Shechitah at night, or if the blood spilled or was Yotzei (84a)! Mar'eh Kohen - R. Shimon explicitly said that the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh anything offered due to itself (83b). R. Yehudah could disagree.)

Answer: We must reject all these, and say that the case is, now it is in a Chulin Kli, which is as if it descended [from the Mizbe'ach];

Implied question: Similarly, when [the blood] became mixed with blood of Pesulim, it says (above, 78a) that it is poured into the Amah (a stream that flowed out of the Mikdash). We do not say that it is offered!

Answer: [Also there, we must say that] it discusses like this (it is in a Chulin Kli).

Implied question: A Mishnah (Menachos 100b) teaches that if Menachos or Nesachim became Tamei after Kidush in a Kli, they cannot be redeemed. This implies that they are not offered!

Answer: [Also] that discusses when he poured them into a Chulin Kli.

Implied question: If one was offering Minchas ha'Omer and it became Tamei in his hand, he says to him "bring another in place of it" (Menachos 72a)!

Answer: [Also that] we establish it like this (now it is in a Chulin Kli).

Question #1: Still, Rashi's Perush is difficult. If initially we thought that [Reish Lakish] asks about redemption, if so, he should not have said "I ask to offer l'Chatchilah", rather, "I ask to offer"!

Since he said "I ask to offer l'Chatchilah", this connotes that also initially, [R. Yochanan] knew that he asks to offer, but [he thought that] he asks b'Di'eved.

Question #2 (R. Peter): Rashi explained that R. Yochanan answered that it is only if Pesulim did Zerikah after Pesulim did Kabalah;

However, if Pesulim did Kabalah and Kesherim did Zerikah, limbs ascend l'Chatchilah to be offered, for a Kli Shares is Mekadesh l'Chatchilah to offer.

We say explicitly in Menachos (7a) "Reish Lakish asked R. Yochanan whether Klei Shares are Mekadesh Pesulim to be offered l'Chatchilah, and he answered that they are not Mekadesh." [This contradicted what R. Yochanan said elsewhere, and the Gemara] answered that they are not Mekadesh to offer, but they are Mekadesh to become Pasul;

Inference: It was obvious to [R. Yochanan] that they are not Mekadesh to offer!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Initially, R. Yochanan thought that he asked about if one brought Pesulim on the Mizbe'ach in a Kli Shares, and the Kli interrupts [between the Kodshim and the Mizbe'ach];

[Reish Lakish] asks, granted, we do not say Lo Yered because air of the Mizbe'ach is like the Mizbe'ach, for the bottom of the Kli interrupts;

However, a Kli Shares, perhaps due to its Kedushah, it is not a Chatzitzah, and it is as if the Pesulim are truly on the Mizbe'ach, and Lo Yered. Or it is a Chatzitzah, and Yered!

R. Yochanan answered that a Mishnah teaches this. Just like the Mizbe'ach [and ramp are Mekadesh] regarding that Im Alah Lo Yered, also Klei Shares are Mekadesh for this.

Reish Lakish said "I ask to offer l'Chatchilah." Reish Lakish holds that one could establish the Mishnah, which taught "so Kelim are Mekadesh", that if Pesulim ascended in a Kli on the Mizbe'ach, Lo Yered;

Even though there is not Kedushas Mizbe'ach, and not Kedushah of the air [above the Mizbe'ach], since they are in a Kli [Lo Yered];

[Reish Lakish] asks if he did not bring up the Pasul Kamatzim in a Kli, rather, he was Mekadesh them in a Kli, are they Ya'alu l'Chatchilah?

Just like the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh what touches it, and Lo Yered, also a Kli is Mekadesh what touches it, and Ya'aleh? Or no, [we do not offer it] unless he brought it up?

R. Yochanan answered that a Mishnah teaches this. If Pesulim did Kabalah and they threw the blood... Is it not that Pesulim did Kabalah and Pesulim did Zerikah? I.e. Pesulim did Kabalah and they did Zerikah b'Di'eved;

Inference: If they did not do Zerikah, l'Chatchilah one may not do Zerikah. This is the Perush of our Mishnah "Lan, Yotzei... that they did Zerikah b'Di'eved, Lo Yered. This implies that if they did not do Zerikah, Lo Ya'aleh.

This that [R. Yochanan] said "Pesulim did Zerikah", this is the Perush of our Mishnah. He merely completes the expression of the Mishnah. He does not infer from "Pesulim". (I.e. the Vov in "v'Zarku" means "and". Since the Mishnah said that Pesulim did Kabalah, v'Zarku means that Pesulim did also Zerikah, but this is not critical. The same would apply if Kesherim did Zerikah.)

Support: [If R. Yochanan deduced from "Pesulim", to reject this, Reish Lakish] should have said only "no, [Pesulim only] received, or they did [only] Zerikah."

Inference: Reish Lakish, who rejected [R. Yochanan's proof, also], establishes it to discuss Pesulim. (However, he explains that the prefix Vov means "or".)

Support (for Explanation #2): It says in Menachos (7a) "Reish Lakish asked R. Yochanan whether Klei Shares are Mekadesh Pesulim... and he answered that they are not Mekadesh.

Explanation #2 (cont.): [Reish Lakish rejected R. Yochanan's answer, and] replied "no, Pesulim did [only] Kabalah, or Pesulim did [only] Zerikah.

I.e. Pesulim did Kabalah. If the meat ascended, Lo Yered, and we bring up the blood and throw it, for Klei Shares are Mekadesh to offer l'Chatchilah.

Alternatively, if Pesulim did Zerikah, if the meat Alah, Lo Yered, and the blood is not cleaned (removed from the Mizbe'ach), for the Mishnah taught in all matters Im Alah Lo Yered, both to be stringent and to be lenient, like is proven from R. Tam's words.

Observation: Everything that I explained according to Rashi, that I established it that [the Kodshim] were poured into a Chulin Kli, one must explain also according to R. Tam according to the Havah Amina that [Klei Shares] are Mekadesh [to offer] l'Chatchilah.

Question: [R. Tam] explained that the blood is not cleaned. This is not applicable to mention here, for this is not the same as Im Alah Lo Yered;

Even the one (R. Yehoshua) who holds regarding blood that Im Alah Yered (above, 83a), he agrees about blood that was thrown, that the Mizbe'ach absorbed it;

If not [rather, here we discuss] only according to R. Gamliel, if so, below (88a) that it asks "how may one do Haza'ah of a Pasul Chatas ha'Of?", i.e. according to R. Gamliel, who said [about blood, 83a] Im Alah Lo Yered... Since air of the Mizbe'ach is not like the Mizbe'ach, always it descended!...

Question: What was the question? I can say that it taught Im Alah Lo Yered, i.e. if he did Zerikah, we do not clean it, but if it ascended in a Kli, Yered!

Answer: Rather, surely all agree that we do not clean [blood from the Mizbe'ach]. Im Alah Lo Yered means that if [blood] ascended in a Kli, Lo Yered, rather, he is forced to throw it.

Question (R. Chaim): In the Gemara in Menachos (7a), that it says there "they are not Mekadesh to offer, but they are Mekadesh to become Pasul";

Did [Reish Lakish] not know that they are Mekadesh to become Pasul? Our Mishnah teaches this, both according to Rashi and according to R. Tam, for the Mishnah says "all Kelim are Mekadesh"!

Explanation: However, if air of the Mizbe'ach is like the Mizbe'ach, he would not ask "when it comes k'Neged (opposite, i.e. above) the air, it descended!", for k'Neged that air there is the Amah of the Sovev;

The Sovev is considered [part of] the Mizbe'ach, for even to do Haktarah on it, there is an opinion above (62b) that says that one may be Maktir!

Rebuttal (R. Chaim): There is a gap of air more than the Amah of the Sovev, in order that air of the ground will interrupt, like we said above (62b) "just like blood, air of the ground interrupts, also meat, air of the ground interrupts";

If so, still when it comes k'Neged air of the ground, it is as if it descended!

Question: What was difficult to him? We said above (65a) that if he did below his feet, even one Amah, it is Kosher. If so, there is not here air of the Mizbe'ach! (Olas ha'Of is normally done in the southeast corner, where there was no Yesod.)

Answer #1: According to Rashi, who explained above that there was a protrusion [to catch the blood], this is fine.

Answer #2: [Rabah bar Rav Chanan] challenges R. Nechemyah, who said (65a) that [Olas ha'Of] is done only on top of the Mizbe'ach.