Question: How can he hold like him? [A Beraisa] teaches that R. Yehoshua admits that if Zerikah was done, [the Korban] is accepted, like it says below!

Answer: We are thinking that [this opinion says that] it was not accepted, like R. Yehoshua, who decrees that when the meat became Tamei or Pasul, we do not do Zerikah, due to when it is lost or burned, and there is no meat at all. Then, even b'Di'eved it was not accepted;

Also here, the blood is not Meratzeh for the hide by itself, even b'Di'eved, when [the meat] became Tamei. This is a decree due to when it is lost or burned. Here we do not discuss when it became lost or burned, rather, Tamei or Pasul;

The one who says that Hurtza holds that we find that R. Yehoshua decrees not do Zerikah due to when it is lost or burned, only regarding the owner, when there is no loss to Kohanim, for they did not yet acquire the hide;

However, [regarding the] hide, that there is a loss to Kohanim, who already acquired [it, i.e.] after the blood was thrown, there we do not decree due to when it was lost or burned, like we find regarding b'Di'eved;

Explanation: Regarding the Pesul of Yotzei and Tum'ah, b'Di'eved, if he did Zerikah, it was accepted, and we do not decree. Also here, the blood is Meratzeh for the hide.

Remark: Rashi's Perush is difficult. (They argue about when the meat was lost or burned. If so, why does it say that Rebbi could hold like R. Yehoshua, for R. Yehoshua agrees b'Di'eved? Perhaps he agrees only when it became Tamei or Pasul, and it is still intact!)

Inference: Kohanim may benefit only from the hide, but not from the meat. It is forbidden even to Nochrim.

Question (R. Efrayim): In Bechoros (32b) R. Akiva permits [a blemished Bechor] even to Nochrim!

Answer: I explained this above (71b, DH uvi'Tereifah. Something not proper for Yisrael (e.g. a Bechor was found to be Tereifah), one may not feed it to a dog or Nochri, but something proper for Yisrael, e.g. a blemished Bechor, or a mixture with Kodshim, after the Kodshim were redeemed, one may give it to a dog or Nochri.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes Kesav Yad and Tzon Kodoshim say that following begins a new Dibur.

Citation: If an expert did not permit it, no (then the skin is burned).

Inference: This is only due to Tereifah. (Then we distinguish between whether or not an expert permitted it.) If not, no (it is permitted in every case). This is unlike R. Meir, who fines in Bechoros (28a) a Bechor slaughtered not based on an expert [who saw the Mum].

Note: What is Tosfos' inference? Perhaps R. Akiva holds like R. Meir, and if it was slaughtered without an expert, he forbids in every case. When it was slaughtered based on an expert, he teaches that when it was found to be Tereifah, the hide is permitted! Perhaps he infers from the fact that R. Chiya bar Aba needed to say "if an expert did not permit it..." If the Halachah follows R. Meir, obviously anything slaughtered without an expert is totally forbidden.

Inference: Bahag derived from here that this that we hold like R. Meir's decrees, this is only for his decrees, but not his fines.

Question: In Yoma (48a), Rav Papa asked "if [the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur] one had [improper] intent while taking a double handful of Ketores, what is the law?" We learn from the following. R. Akiva added, the Kometz, Ketores... since a Tevul Yom disqualifies, also Linah disqualifies. And since Linah disqualifies, also intent disqualifies;

We do not reject like here (perhaps Linah disqualifies, but intent does not)!

Answer: There, regarding consumption of the Mizbe'ach, there is no difference between intent and Linah. Here we discuss meat of Parim ha'Nisrafim. Granted, Linah disqualifies them. Perhaps intent does not disqualify them!

Question: How does intent disqualify Ketores? A Mishnah above (42b) teaches that Pigul does not apply Ketores and Levonah!

Answer: There is no Kares, but intent disqualifies, like we find regarding inner Chata'os according to R. Shimon. It says above (14a) that R. Shimon [holds that Pigul does not apply, but he] agrees to disqualify from a Kal v'Chomer from Lo Lishmah;

Also for Ketores, the Gezeirah Shavah "Malei-Malei" from Minchah helps.

Question: There, Rashi asked why [Rav Ashi] needs to infer from a Tevul Yom. He should bring from our Mishnah in Me'ilah (10a), which explicitly teaches that they are Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom, Mechusar Kipurim or Linah!

Answer #1 (Riva): That [Mishnah] discusses Ketores of the entire year, like it teaches "it was Mekudash in a Kli." What is Mekudash in a Kli, Linah disqualifies it;

However, there [Rav Ashi] discusses Ketores of Yom Kipur. Intrinsically, it does not need a Kli, just because it is impossible (to hold the double handful in one hand, and the Machtah (incense pan) in the other, he puts it in a Kli), like it says above there (47a), and we would say that it is not disqualified through Linah.

However, R. Akiva connotes that he discusses all Ketores.

Answer #2: We can reject the case in Me'ilah - it is mid'Rabanan.

And similarly, the Seifa teaches that one is liable for it for Pigul and Tamei, one might have thought that this is Makos Mardos (mid'Rabanan).

This is like one who ate Tamei food or drank Tamei liquids or drank a Revi'is of wine and entered the Mikdash and delayed Kedei Achilas Pras, he is liable - this is mid'Rabanan, for Pesul of the body (due to eating or drinking Tamei food or drink) is mid'Rabanan, like we say in Yoma (80b).

However, the case of R. Akiva, obviously it is mid'Oraisa, since a Tevul Yom disqualifies it through Tziruf (even if he touched only part, we join everything in the Kli). If it were mid'Rabanan, we would not be so stringent that it becomes Tamei through Tziruf.

Question: How do we infer from the fact that a Tevul Yom disqualifies, also Linah disqualifies? From when he put it in the mortar, it is disqualified through a Tevul Yom, but Linah does not disqualify until it is put in the Machtah, like it says in Shevuos (11a)!

Answer: [In Shevuos] it is disqualified through a Tevul Yom, i.e. mid'Rabanan. (We can learn to Linah only if a Tevul Yom disqualifies mid'Oraisa, like R. Akiva holds.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He asks about to be Metamei one who engages in it.

Question: In Pesachim (85b), we say that one who takes meat of Pesach from a group (eating a Pesach) to another group, he is not liable until he places it down. "Hotza'ah" is written, like regarding Shabbos;

The Gemara asks from here - if they were carrying it on sticks, it teaches that the first ones are Metamei Begadim, and the latter are not Metamei Begadim until they leave. This is even though [the Par] did not rest! It answers that they were dragging it (it is considered at rest).

Consequence: If so, when the majority leaves through the minority of a limb, that [in such a case] one is not liable for Shabbos, since it is held from inside (Shabbos 91b), he should not be Metamei Begadim!

Explanation #2: He asks about burning it inside. (If it became Pasul after it is considered to be outside, it is burned outside.)