Conclusion: Rather, it asks what is the source that there is a fixed place for the ashes of the Menorah by the Mizbe'ach, in the east.

Explanation #4: Rather, it seems that also here we ask from the fixed place for the ashes of the inner Mizbe'ach, if it is by the [outer] Mizbe'ach to the east, in the place of the ashes of the outer Mizbe'ach;

Since it says that ashes of the inner Mizbe'ach, Me'ilah does not apply, this connotes that of the outer Mizbe'ach, in the same place fixed for ashes of the inner Mizbe'ach, Me'ilah applies;

If so, Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach is [placed] by the [outer] Mizbe'ach to the east, for if they were out of the Machaneh, why does Me'ilah apply there to ashes of the outer Mizbe'ach?

We said above (9a) that Me'ilah applies to it until it goes out to Beis ha'Deshen. This shows that once it went out to Beis ha'Deshen, there is no Me'ilah!

Conclusion: Rather, surely Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach was by the [outer] Mizbe'ach to the east, close to Terumas ha'Deshen of the outer Mizbe'ach, like it says above (Tosfos 8a DH Huchsheru said so) that there were three Batei Deshen there (i.e. if there were a different place for Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach, there would be four Batei Deshen).

Support: Now it is fine that it says that Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach, Me'ilah does not apply. This implies that Dishun of the outer Mizbe'ach in that place, Me'ilah applies, for it still did not go out to the Beis ha'Deshen outside the Machaneh;

It says about this in the Gemara, granted, the outer Mizbe'ach, we learn a fixed place for Terumas ha'Deshen, for it says v'Sam'o Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach. However, the inner Mizbe'ach, what is the source that there is a fixed place for Deshen?

[R. Elazar answers] "v'Hesir [Es] Mur'aso b'Notzasah v'Hishlich Osah Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach Kedmah" - since it is not needed to teach about the (ashes of the) outer Mizbe'ach, for it already says v'Sam'o, use it to teach about the inner Mizbe'ach.

Explanation #1: It is to fix a place for the crop and feathers, that he casts it in place of Terumas ha'Deshen of the outer Mizbe'ach.

Question #1: It connotes that it refers to fixing a place for Terumas ha'Deshen of the outer Mizbe'ach itself!

Question #2: What was the answer 'if so, the Torah should have said "Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach"?' It should have said 'if so, [the Torah] should not write "El Mekom ha'Deshen", rather, "v'Hishlich Osah Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach Kedmah", and no more!'

Explanation #2: Rather, it means as follows. Both of these are for Dishun of the outer Mizbe'ach, and to fix a place for Dishun, that it be to the east;

In the other verse v'Sam'o, it is not written "Kedmah", and we would not know if it is to the east or west.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It answers "if so, the verse should say Etzel." I.e. Why does it say "El Mekom ha'Deshen"? It should write only Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach Kedmah, and I would learn through a Gezeirah Shavah Etzel-Etzel that Dishun of the outer Mizbe'ach is in the place that they cast the crop and feathers;

Note: We cannot make a Gezeirah Shavah without a tradition! Chidushei Basra - this is why Shitah Mekubetzes (1) corrects the text of the Gemara to bring this Gezeirah Shavah. Ikvei Aharon - "Gezeirah Shavah" is not precise.

Why does it say "Mekom ha'Deshen"? Even the inner Mizbe'ach, i.e. also the fixed place for Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach was there by the outer Mizbe'ach.

Explanation: [What is the source that] its ashes were put by the Mizbe'ach?

Citation: "Deshen-ha'Deshen."

Explanation: We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah Deshen-Deshen from the Mizbe'ach. (Shitah Mekubetzes - Deshen is not written regarding the Menorah! Rather, we expound the Hei. The Torah wrote ha'Deshen, in place of Deshen, to include the Menorah.)

Explanation: Therefore Me'ilah applies to turtledoves before their time, like he teaches the reason in Zevachim (112b) regarding Oso v'Es Beno and Mechusar Zman. There is a Lav if he slaughters it outside;

And since there is a Lav if he slaughters it outside, if so it is important, that Me'ilah applies to them.

However, Rabanan, granted, they say that there is no Lav if he slaughters it outside - why is this (Turim before their time) different than Mechusar Zman [of animals? There,] Me'ilah applies before the time comes!

Implied question: Initially it could have said granted, according to R. Shimon, this is like we find regarding Mechusar Zman, without the reason that there is a Lav!

Answer: [The Gemara] wanted to give a reason that is proper even in the conclusion, that we conclude "like we find regarding a Ba'al Mum" (since it can be redeemed, it has Kedushah, and Me'ilah applies to it) and distinguish between Mechusar Zman (of animals, which can be redeemed) and birds (which have no Pidyon. To explain why Me'ilah applies to young Turim, we must say that there is a Lav for Shechutei Chutz.)

Support: I explained like this in Shabbos (5b) regarding "granted, Ben Azai holds that one who walks is like one who stops."

Observation: "Because [a Mum] does not disqualify" is not precise, for even missing a limb, which disqualifies birds, does not have Pidyon, like it connotes in Menachos (100b), that Pidyon is not for animals.

Explanation: The Kedushah that they had before they died, that Me'ilah applied mid'Oraisa [where did it go]?

Ula said, [if you ask this,] our Mishnah is difficult for you! One may not benefit from Torim that are too young or doves that are too old. Me'ilah does not apply to them. It discusses even when he was Makdish [the doves] before their time passed!

Why [is there no Me'ilah after their time]? Say "where did the Kedushah go that was in the doves before their time passed, for Me'ilah to apply to them?!"

Observation: Likewise, he could have asked from five Chata'os ha'Mesos.

Citation (Rav Chisda): I agree that [Kodshim that died] have Me'ilah mid'Rabanan.

Explanation #1: Rav Chisda retracted from his question. He said as follows. I agree that the Me'ilah is only mid'Rabanan in Kodshim that died;

What was difficult to me "where did the Kedushah go?" is not difficult, for regarding doves [past their time], there is not even Me'ilah mid'Rabanan;

It is difficult to me, do we ever find... I.e. in any case our Mishnah is difficult to me - Torim whose time did not come. It connotes that when their time comes, Me'ilah applies to them;

Do we ever find something that initially has no Me'ilah before their time comes, and when their time comes, there is Me'ilah?!

Question #1: This Perush is difficult. Firstly, what is the proof below from blood, that from when it went out to Nachal Kidron, Me'ilah applies to it? The Me'ilah is only mid'Rabanan, and Torim when their time comes, Me'ilah is mid'Oraisa!

Question #2: It connotes that [Rav Chisda] comes to resolve his question above. It does not connote that he refers to the case of Turim that we bring about it!

Explanation #2: [Rav Chisda] means as follows. I agree that there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan. I.e. it is not like you think, based on my question, that there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa in them. I agree to you that there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan, and not mid'Oraisa;

It is difficult to me, do we ever find... I.e. however, I asked as follows. Your words were difficult to me. Do we ever find...

It is because you said uniformly that all Kodshim that died, mid'Oraisa Me'ilah was uprooted, but mid'Rabanan there is Me'ilah. This implies even for Kodshim Kalim;

What is the reason? Kodshim Kalim do not have Me'ilah before they died, and after they died, there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan?!

This is what he said above, where did their Kedushah go? I.e. the law of light Kedushah in them, that there was not Me'ilah in them at all, where did it go, that severe Kedushah takes effect on them?!

Support: Now it is fine that he properly brings from blood, that there is Me'ilah at the end mid'Rabanan, that the same applies to Kodshim that died. There will be Me'ilah mid'Rabanan, even though initially they did not have Me'ilah at all;

He returns to reject - there, there is Me'ilah when he lets blood even mid'Oraisa. If so, also when it was slaughtered, there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan.

Question: It is written "Lechaper", and we expound (11a) 'I gave [blood] for Kaparah, and not for Me'ilah'!

Answer: That refers to blood of a slaughtered animal, but blood of a live animal, which is not for Kaparah, no.

Explanation: We are thinking that blood is like milk (for when a mother nurses, the menstrual blood turns into milk). [Rav Huna] answers that [Rav] said regarding blood, for [an animal] cannot live without blood, and it is considered like its body. However, milk, it can live properly without milk, it is not like the animal's body.

Explanation: [The excrement or dung (i.e. trampled excrement)] came from Kodshim.

Explanation #1: One may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply. Its money falls to Nedavah.

Inference: The one who benefited from it pays what he benefited, i.e. the principal.

Objection: If so, what is the difference between there is no Me'ilah mid'Rabanan, and Me'ilah mid'Rabanan? Even when there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan, he pays only principal, like I explained in our Mishnah! (Rashi said so, Sof 10b.)

And every "Me'ilah does not apply" in our Mishnah means that there is no Me'ilah even mid'Rabanan!

Explanation #2: Rather, it means as follows. Its money falls to Nedavah - the Gizbarim are obligated to deal with the excrement or dung to sell them, and to get the money to the Lishkah;

R. Elazar says as follows. Wherever Chachamim said that something is Kadosh and not Kadosh, like milk of Kodshim and similar matters that one may not benefit from them, what do we with them? Their money goes to Nedavah.

Explanation: [We discuss] milk of a female animal of Kodshim, and eggs of turtledoves of Hekdesh, that [the mother's] Kedushah is Kedushas Mizbe'ach, like it explains.

Question: This is fine for eggs of Turim, for we do not find any Isur in them. However, milk of Kodshim, we find that it is forbidden even in Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, for it says (Bechoros 15a) "Tizbach" (slaughter it), but not Gizah (shearing); "Basar", and not milk. If so, why is there no Me'ilah?

Answer #1: Some say that the Torah forbade milk, i.e. it is forbidden to milk, just like we expound "Tizbach", but not Gizah. It is forbidden to shear, but the Gizah itself is permitted. The same applies to milk, just like Gizah is permitted.

Rebuttal: Surely one cannot say so, for we say in Chulin (36a) that since Gizah and working are forbidden with them, their blood must be buried;

What does this mean (according to Answer #1)? Gizah itself is permitted! This shows that we bring a proof [to blood] from milk (about which we expounded from the same verse that taught about Gizah) that it is forbidden even if it was already milked!

Question: Why does it bring Gizah (in Chulin 36a, if the proof is from milk)?

Answer: It is as if it said "etc." (i.e. what we expounded at the end of the Drashah that taught about Gizah). The Gemara regularly brings Gizah and working [so it mentioned them in Chulin, even though the proof is only from milk].

Implied question: Why is milk unlike Gizah? Regarding Gizah we expound that one may not shear, but the Gizah is permitted. Regarding milk, even what was milked is forbidden!

Answer: Here and here the verse connotes like this. It is written "Tizbach" to exclude Gizah, i.e. but do not shear;

To exclude milk it is written "you will eat", which connotes but milk, do not eat. There in Chulin (36a) it explained so. This connotes that milk itself is forbidden.

Support: It says so explicitly in Bechoros (6b). It says that since the Torah forbade milk of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, this connotes that milk of Chulin is permitted.

Summation of question: If so, the question returns. Milk itself is forbidden. Why does Me'ilah not apply?

Answer #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): Granted, [milk] is forbidden. In any case, since it is not proper to come on the Mizbe'ach, Me'ilah does not apply, for it is not Kodshei Hash-m;

Also, the life of the animal does not depend on it, to say that it is considered like the body of the animal itself.

Proof: It says in Rosh Hashanah (28a) that a Shofar of an Olah, one may not blow in it. If he blew in it, he was Yotzei. A Shofar of a Shelamim, one may not blow in it. If he blew in it, he was not Yotzei;

It says there "what is the difference?", and answers regarding a Shofar of an Olah, since he was Mo'el, it becomes Chulin, but of a Shelamim, that there is no Me'ilah, there is an Isur on it;

Inference: A Shofar of a Shelamim, there is an Isur, and in any case there is no Me'ilah in a Shelamim, because it is not Kodshei Hash-m.

Explanation: Everything [the hen and its egg] is proper to be sold and bring the money to Bedek ha'Bayis.

Explanation: We are thinking that it means as follows. What does this discuss? It is Kodshei Mizbe'ach that he was Makdish for the need of the Mizbe'ach, to sell it and buy with [the money] needs of the Mizbe'ach, and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is Kedushas Damim.

Explanation: [He gave it Kedushas ha'Guf for the Mizbe'ach,] i.e. to be offered on the Mizbe'ach. If so, he did not intend to be Makdish something not proper for the Mizbe'ach, like milk of Kodshim or eggs of Turim, therefore Me'ilah does not apply. (Me'il Aharon - Tosfos discusses milk and eggs that were already at the time of Hekdesh. Tana'im (13a) argue about Kedushah of what comes later (Giduleihem).)

Explanation: This is like [the Gemara] explains. He was Makdish a pit full of water, that the water is proper for Bedek ha'Bayis to knead mud, but it is not proper for the Mizbe'ach, for they washed the innards and legs only in the spring [that flowed through the Mikdash];

Also, [the water] is not proper for Nisuch ha'Mayim, for Nisuch ha'Mayim requires flowing water, like we learned in Sukah (48a), that he filled [the Kli] from the spring of Beis ha'Shilu'ach, like we derive there from "u'Sh'avtem Mayim b'Sason..."

Citation: A waste heap full of manure.

Comment: It is not proper for the Mizbe'ach, and not for Bedek ha'Bayis.

Citation: A dovecote full of doves.

Comment: The doves are proper for the Mizbe'ach, to offer them, but the dovecote is not proper for Bedek ha'Bayis, for a dovecote is worth much, and we do not uproot its stones to put in the structure of the Mikdash, for if so, this lowers its value;

Similarly, a tree and Peros, the tree is not proper for Bedek ha'Bayis for beams, for this would lower its value, and the Peros are not proper for the Mizbe'ach, like it says "Chol Se'or v'Chol Devash Lo Saktiru", and Devash is all kinds of sweet [Peros];

However, if it was an olive [tree] or vine, it is proper for the Mizbe'ach - an olive tree for oil, and a vine for wine for Nesachim. They are not proper for Bedek ha'Bayis, like I explained.