1) LIABILITY FOR OFFERING OUTSIDE THE “MIKDASH”

(a) (R. Yochanan): If a (Kodesh) animal was slaughtered at night in the Mikdash, one who offers it outside (on a Bamah) is Chayav (Kares) – slaughter at night is no ‘worse’ (more Pasul than) Shechutei Chutz (and we know that one who offers Shechutei Chutz outside is liable for this *and* for the slaughter)!
(b) Question (R. Chiya bar Avin – Mishnah): If one slaughtered a (Kodesh) bird inside (the Mikdash) and offered it outside, he is exempt;
1. If he slaughtered and offered it outside, he is liable (for both of these).
2. According to R. Yochanan, slaughter inside should be no worse than slaughter outside, he should be liable (for offering outside) also in the first case!
(c) R. Yochanan is refuted;
(d) Alternatively, we can answer for R. Yochanan – slaughter *of a bird* inside is indeed worse than slaughter outside – Melikah must be done inside, not slaughter, it is as if it was killed without slaughter.
2) “EIMURIM” BROUGHT UP BEFORE “ZERIKAH”
(a) (Ula): If Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim Alu before Zerikah, Lo Yerdu, for they became ‘food’ of the Mizbe’ach.
(b) Support (R. Zeira – Mishnah): If the blood spilled, or the blood left the Azarah (R. Yehudah says Yered, R. Shimon says Lo Yered);
1. There, Zerikah cannot be done, yet Lo Yered – here, Zerikah can be done, all the more so Lo Yered!
(c) Rejection (of support): (Perhaps) the Mishnah discusses (only) Kodshei Kodoshim.
(d) Question: But later, it mentions Korban Pesach, which is Kodshim Kalim!
(e) Answer: It discusses Pesach only with respect to Lo Lishmah, not to the previous cases.
(f) Support (Mishnah): If any of them (the Pesulim mentioned above) Alah when alive, Yered.
1. Inference: If any of them Alah after slaughter, Lo Yered.
2. Suggestion: This applies to Kodshim Kalim and Kodshei Kodoshim alike.
(g) Rejection: No, the inference is, if it came up slaughtered, in some cases (Kodshim Kalim) Yered, in some cases (Kodshei Kodoshim) Lo Yered.
(h) Question: But it says *any* of them!
(i) Answer: That is for the simple meaning (not the inference), that if any of them Alah when alive, Yered.
(j) Objection: This is obvious!
(k) Answer: The Chidush is regarding Dukin in the eye, according to R. Akiva, who says Lo Yered regarding such Mumim (if already slaughtered).
(l) Question: But the next clause proves that the Mishnah discusses Kosher Korbanos!
1. (Mishnah): Similarly, if an Olah came up alive, Yered;
2. If it was slaughtered on the Mizbe’ach, it is flayed and dissected on the Mizbe’ach.
3. A Pasul Olah is not (Rashi – need not be) dissected!
i. “V’Nitach *Osah*” – a Kosher Olah is dissected, not a Pasul one.
(m) Answer: Indeed, the Seifa discusses a Kosher Korban (but the previous clause does not.)
(n) Question: What is the Chidush of the Seifa?
(o) Answer #1: It teaches that we may flay and dissect on top of the Mizbe’ach.
(p) Question: According to the opinion that we may not flay and dissect on top of the Mizbe’ach, how can we answer?
(q) Answer: The case is, it was once fitting to be offered and became Pasul; 1. The Mishnah is like R. Elazar b’Rebbi Shimon, who
says that once Kosher Zerikah was done, (if it later became Pasul) we flay it and Kohanim receive the skin. (And if it was on the Mizbe’ach at the time, we dissect it there and offer it, for if we take it down, it will be forbidden to bring it up again.)
(r) Question (Beraisa): We take the innards down and rinse them (we would not do so if is was Pasul!)
1. Objection: If it was Pasul, would we offer the innards with the Peresh (intestinal fluids)? “Hakrivehu Na l’Fechasecha…(if you would give a sickly animal to your governor for a gift, would he accept it and favor you on account of it?!)”
(Likewise, one should not offer repulsive Korbanos!) 2. Answer: If it was Pasul, we would not rinse them – perhaps a Kohen will see them and (unaware that the Korban was Pasul) offer them;
85b—————————————85b

i. Chachamim would not sanction something which may cause someone to transgress!
(s) Answer: It is a disgrace to leave the innards covered with Peresh like a carcass, this overrides the concern for transgression.
3) “EIMURIM” BROUGHT UP BEFORE “ZERIKAH” (cont.)
(a) Version #1 (R. Chiya bar Aba) Question (R. Yochanan): If Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim came up before Zerikah, do we take them down?
1. R. Ami (to R. Yochanan): Why don’t you ask whether or not Me’ilah applies to them?
2. R. Yochanan: That is clear to me, Me’ilah does not apply until Zerikah.
(b) R. Yochanan (later) concluded Lo Yered, and there is no Me’ilah.
(c) Version #2 – Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak – (R. Chiya bar Aba) Question (R. Yochanan): If Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim came up before Zerikah, does Me’ilah apply to them?
1. R. Ami (to R. Yochanan): Why don’t you ask whether or not Yered?
2. R. Yochanan: That is clear to me, Lo Yered, they became bread of the Mizbe’ach.
(d) R. Yochanan (later) concluded Lo Yered, and there is no Me’ilah.
4) ARE “BA’ALEI MUMIM” TAKEN DOWN?
(a) (Mishnah): The following Pesulim were not b’Kodesh…
(b) (R. Yochanan): R. Akiva is Machshir only a film over the eye (or other minor Mumim), for this does not Posel birds;
1. He is Machshir only if the Mum arose after it was Hukdash.
2. He admits that a female Olah is taken down, like a Mum that preceded the Hekdesh.
(c) Question (R. Yirmeyah): If a bird was Nirva (a man had relations with it), is it Pasul for a Korban?
1. “Min ha’Behemah” excludes Rove’a and Nirva – perhaps this only applies to an animal, which can Rove’a (have relations with a woman) *and* be Nirva, but not to a bird, which can only be Nirva!
2. Or, since a transgression was done with the bird, it is forbidden?
(d) Answer (Rabah – Mishnah – R. Akiva): A Ba’al Mum is not taken down (for this does not Posel birds);
1. If a Nirva bird was Kosher, R. Akiva would say Lo Yered also regarding a Nirva (animal)!
(e) Support (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak – Beraisa): Melikah of the following has Tum’as Beis ha’Bli’ah – a Nirva, Muktzeh, Ne’evad, Mechir, Esnan, Tumtum and Androginus.
(f) (Mishnah – R. Chanina the Segan): (My father would push Ba’alei Mumim off the Mizbe’ach…)
(g) Question: What is the Chidush (the first Tana also says Yered regarding a Ba’al Mum)!
(h) Answer #1: R. Chanina teaches that cases occurred and this opinion was followed.
(i) Answer #2: His father would push them off the Mizbe’ach backhandedly.
5) THINGS NOT FIT FOR THE “MIZBE’ACH”
(a) (Mishnah): Just as if it went up, Lo Yered,…
(b) (Ula): This is only if it did not catch fire – if it did, Ya’aleh.
(c) Opinion #1 (Rav Mari): Ula refers to our Mishnah (if Pesulim were taken down, Lo Ya’alu).
(d) Opinion #2 (Rav Chanina of Sura): Ula was explaining the coming Mishnah:
1. (Mishnah): The following are offered if they are still attached – bones, sinews, horns and hooves;
2. If they separate, Lo Ya’alu;
3. (Ula): This is only if they did not catch fire – if they did, Ya’alu.
(e) Rav Chanina explained that Ula refers to the coming Mishnah – all the more so, he would say that he also refers to our Mishnah;
(f) Rav Mari explained that Ula refers to our Mishnah, but not to the coming Mishnah, for we never Maktir bones…
(g) (Mishnah): The following, even if they came up, Yerdu:
1. Meat of Kodshei Kodoshim (except for Olah) and Kodshim Kalim, the remainder of the Omer or a Minchah (after Kemitzah), Shtei ha’Lechem, Lechem ha’Panim, and Ketores;
(h) The following are offered if they are still attached:
1. Wool on the head of a lamb, the beard of a goat, bones, sinews, horns and hooves;
i. We learn from “V’Hiktir ha’Kohen Es ha’Kol”.
2. If they came off, Lo Ya’alu – “V’Asisa Olosecha ha’Basar veha’Dam” (only meat and blood are offered by themselves).