Explanation (Rashi): We hold that all Pesulim, Im Alah Lo Yered, and he throws the blood l'Chatchilah.

Question: What is his source that Lo Yered is before Zerikah? Perhaps it is after Zerikah!

Answer: There is somewhat of a proof from Melikas Chatas ha'Of [Pesulah]. It is not Metam'ah b'Beis ha'Bli'ah, for it permits the Isur [of Neveilah];

If one may not do Zerikah (i.e. Haza'ah) l'Chatchilah, how does it permit the Isur?

Also, [Lo Yered must means that he throws l'Chatchilah.] It was not said regarding "if he did Zerikah, he does not clean the blood [from the Mizbe'ach]", for even the one who says Yered holds that he does not clean it, like I explained above (87b DH Kli).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): A dry [measuring Kli] is called "Midah", and wet is called "Kli", because there were only two dry Kelim in the Mikdash - the Isaron and a half Isaron.

Note: Tosfos (Menachos 8b DH Kli) points out that sometimes the Gemara and Mishnayos (Menachos 9:2, 9:5) call also wet measures "Midos"! This is difficult also for R. Tam below. He cites Rashi to say that there were Kelim for wet that were not measures, but the only Kelim for dry were measures.

Question: There is a Bisa (a Kli with separate compartments) in Menachos (24a), and an incense pan for Ketores, and there is a spoon [for Ketores], and there is the mortar, and there are the spoons [for Levonah], and the Shulchan!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): A dry [measuring Kli] is called "Midah", and not "Kli", because one can measure dry things leveled off or heaping, however he wants;

However, something wet, "Midah" does not apply to it, for something wet cannot be heaping (and every measurement must be heaping (Menachos 90a). Therefore, wet measures were not precise. They are bigger, to be able to hold a Godesh. It seems that this is the intent of Chemdas Daniel.)

Also, the measure of wet is not uniform, for this wet measure was bigger than this, e.g. the measure for wine was bigger than the measure for water, because wine is thicker (the Kli can be filled higher above the brim before it spills over), and similarly oil is thicker than wine. Therefore, it is not called Midah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is in the Azarah.

Question: Why did [the Gemara] change the expression of the Mishnah? It should have said "b'Kodesh"!

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): This refers to inside the Kli, and to exclude the back.

Question: This is [what we exclude from] "mi'Tochan"! (Why did Shmuel teach also bi'Fnim?)

Answer: [Mi'Tochan] excludes if one carved out [a receptacle in] the base of the Kli on the outside.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is a mixture of Terumah [and Chulin].

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): It is a mixture of [Heter and] Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem. However, there was no need to teach Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem (since even their mixture is invalid).

Question: How can Rashi say [that we exclude a mixture of Terumah] due to "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael", since it is permitted to Kohanim?

Implied question: It says in Chagigah (24b) 'if he says "I separated a Revi'is of Kodesh into [the barrel]", he is believed [even] about the Terumah.' (This implies that a mixture of Terumah is Kosher for Kodshim!)

Answer: That is not relevant to here. There it is not Meduma, for he is not Makdish the Revi'is, and he does not declare the Terumah while it is in the barrel;

Rather, he designated it and guards it in Taharah to take from it a Revi'is after he will take Terumah and tithe it.

Explanation: [We do not return it] to the handle, for there is not poverty in the place of wealth.

Explanation (R. Tam): We attribute [the Me'il] to Nega'im because the Me'il comes to atone for Leshon ha'Ra, and similarly Tzara'as comes for Leshon ha'Ra, like we say in Erchin (16a).

Implied question: [Our] Tana argues with the Mishnah in Shevuos (2a), which taught that there two [primary appearances of Tzara'as] that are four [in all]!

Answer: (He does not argue.) There it discusses [different shades of] white Nega'im, and here we discuss all kinds of Nega'im - yellow, red and mixed, and we can add also Nega'im of houses and garments.

Implied question: Why does it say "from the day that the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, even though the four Misos [of Beis Din] were Batel, the Din (punishment) of the four Misos was not Batel"? It should have said "40 years before the Churban, when the Sanhedrin was exiled"!

Answer: At that time (from exile of the Sanhedrin until the Churban) there was not even the Din of the four Misos, because Bigdei Kehunah are Mechaper.

Objection: This is difficult. Regarding [the episode with] Shimon ben Shetach (Sanhedrin 37b - he saw conclusively that Ploni had just murdered Reuven. A snake bit Ploni and killed him. The Gemara) asked this (that after the Churban, the Din of the four Misos was not Batel. A murderer deserves death through a sword), even though there were Bigdei Kehunah! (This was long before exile of the Sanhedrin, but no witnesses saw the murder, so Beis Din could not kill Ploni.)

Defense (of Answer): I could say that it mentioned 40 years because there is a Din of Misos that was Batel, e.g. Arayos and idolatry. The Michnesayim and Efod atone for them;

However, the Din of murder was not Batel, because the Kesones, which atones for murder, does not atone for the murderer, rather, for [the rest of] Yisrael, for they are guarantors (responsible) for each other;

This is like Eglah Arufah, about which it says "Kaper l'Amcha Yisrael", and it atones for the Tzibur, but for the murderer.

Support #1: It connotes like this here that the Kesones does not atone for the murderer. If it atoned [for him], what was the question here from Eglah Arufah? Eglah Arufah atones for Yisrael!

Support #2: It connotes like this in Erchin (16a). It says that Nega'im come for seven matters, and it counts murder and Leshon ha'Ra;

Implied question: It asks there from the Me'il, which is Mechaper for Leshon ha'Ra. It did not ask at all from the Kesones, which atones for murder!

Answer #1: This is because [the Kesones] does not atone for the murderer, rather, for Yisrael, like I explained (so it is fine that Nega'im come on the murderer);

However, we could not answer like this for Leshon ha'Ra, for presumably, the Tzibur is not punished for this person's Leshon ha'Ra, since perhaps it will not come to calamity. (Ayeles ha'Shachar asks why they are not punished for the Leshon ha'Ra itself. Perhaps the Tzibur is punished only if someone dies. Leshon ha'Ra can cause death, but it is not certain (PF). Chidushei Basra says that Arvus applies at the time of the Aveirah. At the time one speaks Leshon ha'Ra perhaps there will be no Aveirah [Bein Adam l'Chavero], i.e. if the listeners will not accept it.) So Rashi explained there.

Answer #2: Some say that in Erchin, [the Gemara] did not ask from the Kesones, for granted it saves from a punishment of death, but it does not save from Nega'im and afflictions.

Question: Here it connotes that the Kesones atones when it is known who killed him. In Shevuos (8a) we need a verse to say that the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach does not atone when it is known who killed him;

Why do we need a verse? This is obvious, for the Kesones atones [when it is known]!

Answer: We can distinguish between the Tzibur and all Yisrael. The Kesones atones for the Tzibur, and Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach for all of Yisrael. (Olas Shlomo asks what is the difference. Chidushei Basra suggests that "Tzibur" is those whom the Kohen knows. Daf Al ha'Daf suggests that it is those who give a half-Shekel every year, but not women, who do not help pay for the Kesones. With difficulty, one can explain why Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which also comes from the Shekalim, does atone for them.)