Explanation: R. Shimon and Rabanan argue about one who separated his Chatas and it was lost, and he separated another and the first was found, and he atoned through the one that was lost. Rabanan hold that the one that was not lost grazes, and R. Shimon hold that it dies. Their argument is in Temurah (15a);

The case here, that it became known to him before Kaparah, resembles the matter they argue about.

Question: Why doesn't it say that the Reisha is Rebbi? Rebbi holds in Temurah (23a) according to R. Aba that if he atoned through the one that was lost, the one that was not lost dies!

Answer #1: He prefers to bring R. Shimon, for he holds like Rebbi, and even more [extreme] than Rebbi;

We find that Rebbi said that it dies only when it was lost at the time of separation, i.e. it was not found until after separation, Rebbi [could] agree that we do not say that it dies, rather, it grazes;

However, R. Shimon argues with Rabanan even when it was found before separation, like is proven in Temurah (15a) in the argument of R. Yehudah and R. Shimon. We establish it when it was lost not at the time of separation. Therefore, we bring R. Shimon;

Even though here it is not as if it was lost not at the time of (i.e. found before) separation, in any case it mentioned R. Shimon, and not because it cannot be like Rebbi. Rather, because R. Shimon is more [extreme] than Rebbi, it mentioned R. Shimon.

Objection: Since this case resembles that of Rebbi, it should have said explicitly "the Reisha is Rebbi"!

Answer #2 (R"M): The Reisha is only like R. Shimon, and unlike Rebbi, for Rebbi said that it dies, i.e. when both of them are not proper for the Mizbe'ach, e.g. it was found before Hakravah, and both were not proper for the Mizbe'ach at once;

However, here, if the Chatas was not offered, he would add and bring a fat Chatas. Also when the Chatas was offered and the money was Nidcheh, it does not go to Yam ha'Melach, rather, it falls to Nedavah.

However, he brings properly from R. Shimon, who argues with Rabanan even when he separates two Chata'os for Achrayus, and he holds that if he atoned through one, the other dies, even though at the time of Kaparah both were proper to offer, either this or this;

Also here regarding money of Chatas, even though had he not offered his Chatas, they would be proper to add to the Chatas and be offered, in any case when the Chatas was offered, we say that it goes to Yam ha'Melach.

Question: R. Shimon agrees when he separates two piles of coins for Achrayus, like is proven in Temurah (23b)!

Answer: There is different, for he intends to bring a Chatas only from one pile. However, here he adds to Demei Chatas, so it goes to Yam ha'Melach.

Explanation: [He is exempt] because their Mitzvah was done.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] asks "what does he lose?" I.e. what other Mitzvah is there still to be done, and even if they were Kesherim?

It answers that one might have thought that meat of Kodshei Kodoshim that became Tamei, there is a Mitzvah for Kohanim to burn it;

And similarly, Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim, it is a Mitzvah to flip them with Tzinura, i.e. to turn them over with a pole bent at the end called Kroikit (in old French) onto coals, in order [that the Mizbe'ach] consume them. [Rava] teaches that this is not so.

Assertion: It seems that "everyone agrees" does not refer to Rav and Levi, for they argue only about to where the coins fall, but all agree that he is obligated, and it is not appropriate to say that they agree that he is exempt;

Rather, it refers to Rav and R. Yochanan, who argue about one who benefits from Efer Tapu'ach (ashes of the heap on the Mizbe'ach). According to R. Yochanan, who says about one who benefits from Efer Tapu'ach that Me'ilah applies to it, this is because it requires Bigdei Kehunah to take out the ashes. Therefore, it is properly considered that the Mitzvah was not done;

However, meat of Kodshei Kodoshim, even though there is a Mitzvah for Kohanim to burn it, it is properly considered that the Mitzvah was done, for burning is not an Avodah, since burning does not require Bigdei Kehunah.

Question: Regarding Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim, why is it different? Surely flipping them with Tzinura is an Avodah, like it says (Shevu'os 17b) that a Zar who flipped with Tzinura is Chayav Misah!

Answer: It is different. There, regarding Hotza'ah of ashes, it must be done. However, here, regarding flipping with Tzinura, it need not be done. If he wanted, he could leave [them] and they would be consumed by themselves without flipping with Tzinura at all.

Question: What is the case of meat of Kodshei Kodoshim that became Tamei? If it is before Zerikas Dam, why is there no Me'ilah? Yotzei before Zerikah, R. Elazar said above (6b) that Me'ilah applies to it, even though it must be burned!

And even R. Akiva argues only about one who benefits after Zerikah, because Zerikah uproots Me'ilah, but before Zerikah he agrees!

Answer: It seems that here we discuss when it became Tamei before Zerikah and he benefited after Zerikah;

The Chidush is that even though there is a Mitzvah on it to burn it, even so once he does Zerikah, it is considered that its Mitzvah was done, since Bigdei Kehunah are not needed for the Mitzvah of burning, like I explained above.

Question: If this is the Chidush, what does [Rava] teach? Our Mishnah teaches this about Yotzei (6b)! R. Akiva said that Me'ilah does not apply, even though its Mitzvah is to burn it, and Zerikah uproots Me'ilah!

Answer: Yotzei is different, since it did not leave totally, and there is no Mitzvah to burn all the meat. Therefore, its Mitzvah was done through Zerikah;

However, here all the Kodesh meat became Tamei, and one might have thought that since all the meat needs to be burned, Me'ilah applies to it even after Zerikah, for, its Mitzvah was not yet done, since it still needs burning. [Rava] teaches that this is not so.

Question: Why didn't he discuss [when all the meat was] Yotzei?

Answer: He discussed Tum'ah because the primary burning is written regarding Tum'ah.

Question: Our Mishnah taught about Olah that Me'ilah applies to it until it goes to Beis ha'Deshen. The same should apply to meat of Kodshei Kodoshim. Why is it different?

Answer: Olah is different, for it is totally Kalil, and people do not eat any of it. Therefore, its Mitzvah is not finished until it goes to Beis ha'Deshen;

However, Kodshei Kodoshim that people eat when they are done b'Taharah, it is properly said "the Mitzvah was done" once he did Zerikah.

Question: In any case it is difficult! Here we say that Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim, Me'ilah does not apply after Ha'alah (putting them on the fire), and our Mishnah (9a) teaches about Chatas and Asham that Me'ilah applies to the Eimurim until they go out to Beis ha'Deshen!

Answer: There it discusses Chatas and Asham, which are Eimurim of Kodshei Kodoshim. It is not called that the Mitzvah was done through Ha'alah;

However, Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim are called that the Mitzvah was done through Ha'alah.

Question: Why are [Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim] different?

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi, R. Peretz): They are very different - I can say that it is due to a verse, or due to reasoning;

I can say that it is due to a verse - it says "v'Hotzi ha'Deshen" regarding Olah. If not for this verse, according to letter of the law we should have said that from the time of Ha'alah, both for Kodshei Kodoshim and Kodshim Kalim, its Mitzvah was done;

However, this verse reveals about Olah that its Mitzvah was not done through Ha'alah, since one must still take it out to Beis ha'Deshen. Therefore, we learn Kodshei Kodoshim from it;

Just like it is Kodshei Kodoshim and Me'ilah applies to it until it goes out to Beis ha'Deshen, so all Kodshei Kodoshim, Me'ilah applies to the Eimurim until they go out to Beis ha'Deshen. However, we do not learn Kodshim Kalim from [Olah].

I can say that it is due to reasoning - Kodshei Kodoshim have Me'ilah from the beginning, Me'ilah is not uprooted from them, or from their Eimurim at least, until everything is finished, that they go out to Beis ha'Deshen;

However, Kodshei Kalim, which have no Me'ilah until after Zerikah, once the Eimurim ascend [the Mizbe'ach], it is proper that Me'ilah does not apply to them, for it is reasonable to say everywhere that immediately after Ha'alah, its Mitzvah was done.

However, regarding Kodshei Kodoshim, since there is Me'ilah in them from the beginning, they leave Me'ilah only at the latest time we can find, i.e. going out to Beis ha'Deshen.

Question: It is difficult for this reasoning, for Ketores, which is Kodshei Kodoshim, and it has Me'ilah from the beginning, we say (Pesachim 26a) that from when it makes a cloud, there is no Me'ilah, and we do not say until it goes out to Beis ha'Deshen!

Remark: However, according to the reason that I explained from a verse, it is fine. Since [Ketores] is not a kind of Zevach, it is not applicable to learn it from Olah.

Explanation: We do not require knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end like regarding Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav (Shevuos 2a).

Explanation: [The Korban] is not Oleh v'Yored. The same applies to an Oni and an Ashir, unlike the Korban of Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav.

Explanation: If so, the verses contradict each other! "Asher Yakdishu" connotes from the time of Hekdesh, and "Asher Yakriv" connotes actual Hakravah.

In Zevachim (46a DH Achas) I explained this more. (One might have thought that before Zerikah is considered that it was permitted to Tehorim. "Yikrav" teaches that one is liable for Tum'ah only after the Matirim were offered. Also, it teaches that something without Matirim, one is liable for it after Kidush Kli.)

Inference: It seems that it says as follows. If it was found after the owner atoned, that it was lost before Kaparah, and he found it only after Kaparah.

Question: Why must we say that it was found to be a Ba'al Mum? Even if it was found to be Tam, since it was found only after Kaparah, all agree that it dies!

Answer #1: Our Mishnah is like Rabanan of (i.e. who argue with) R. Shimon, who say that a Chatas dies only if it was lost at the time of Kaparah, and here it discusses when it was not lost at the time of Kaparah (unlike the inference above);

"If after he atoned" does not refer to "it was found", rather, it refers to this that it says "it dies";

It says as follows. "That it was lost and found to be a Ba'al Mum" before Kaparah. If after the owner atoned, he comes to consult what to do, it dies;

Even though if it was found Tam, it would not die according to Rabanan of R. Shimon, in any case, here we should say that it dies, since it was found to be a Ba'al Mum.

Objection: Just the contrary, since there are other Dichuyim (reasons why it is rejected) with the Dichuy of being lost, we should not say that it dies!

This is like we say in Temurah (22a), that what was lost at night is not considered being lost, since it is not proper to be offered at night. Also here, there is more reason to say that it does not die when it is found to be a Ba'al Mum than when if it was found to be Tam, that [then] Rabanan say that it does not die!

Answer #2: Surely, "if [from when] the owner atoned" refers to when it was found, and it discusses when it was lost at the time of Kaparah, and the same applies when it was found Tam, that it dies;

It mentioned that it was found to be a Ba'al Mum for a Chidush, that even though there is Dichuy of the Mum with Dichuy of being lost, and one might have thought that it does not die, we learn that it dies.

Support: And so we explain regarding when its year passed. We establish this in Temurah (22a) when it was lost, lest it be difficult for Reish Lakish, who said that if its year passed, we view it as if it is standing in a cemetery (i.e. a place where a Kohen cannot offer it), and it grazes. [The Mishnah] says as follows. And its year passed, that it was lost and its year passed.

Question: Now it is difficult - since it was lost, why do we need that its year passed? All agree that if it was lost at the time of Kaparah, it dies!

And "if from when the owner atoned" refers to both of them, like I explained, to "its year passed", and to "it was found be a Ba'al Mum"!

Answer: Also this was taught for a bigger Chidush. Even though there is another Dichuy with the Dichuy of being lost, in any case it dies.

Question: According to what I explained, we do not find five Chata'os that must die, for it says that when its year passed and it was found to be a Ba'al Mum that it dies only if it was lost, and similarly "the owner atoned through another", we say that it dies only if it was lost at the time of Kaparah according to Rabanan of R. Shimon!

Remark: However, according to R. Shimon it is fine, for he holds that when the owner atoned, even if it was not lost at all, it dies.

Answer: Also according to Rabanan it is not so difficult, for in any case we find five Chata'os that die in this way - what was lost dies when its year passed, and similarly when it was not found until after Kaparah.

Explanation: If he was Matfis an animal for Kedushah, it is not Kadosh in place of this [Chatas], for it is left to die.

Explanation: Since they are wasted, Me'ilah does not apply to them, and we do not call them Kodshei Hash-m.

Remark: This does not refer to when it was found to be a Ba'al Mum, for [if so] what is "until it gets a Mum"? It is already a Ba'al Mum!

Explanation #1: Rather, it refers to when its year passed.

Explanation #2: It refers to a Ba'al Mum, and it discusses when it was found to have a temporary Mum. It is immediately Nidcheh from offering it on the Mizbe'ach;

It says that it grazes, the one that was found, until it gets a Mum Kavu'a, and then it is permitted to sell it and make it Chulin, and he brings another with its money that he offers on the Mizbe'ach.