Opinion #1: Some do not have the text "in hot water", because Rabah wanted to say in Avodah Zarah (76a) "what is Hag'alah that was taught? It is Merikah u'Shtifah." Abaye said "these are different. Merikah u'Shtifah is in cold water, and Hag'alah is in hot water";

If the text in the Mishnah itself says [that Hag'alah is] in hot water, how could Rabah err [to say that it is Merikah u'Shtifah]?!

Rebuttal (and Opinion #2): The text properly says so. Rabah holds that Merikah is in hot water.

Implied question: [If so,] why did Rabah mention Shtifah? (It is in cold water, so it is not Hag'alah!)

Answer: He mentioned Shtifah Agav (along with) Merikah. It is not precise. He means as follows. What is Hag'alah in hot water that was taught? It is Merikah that was mentioned above, for there is an opinion that Merikah is in hot water.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): You are forced to say that this means [that he may leave Yerushalayim on a] weekday morning. He calls this the first morning.

Question: Perhaps it refers to Yom Tov, e.g. his tent is within the Techum!

Implied suggestion: [It cannot mean Yom Tov, for] he must fulfill Re'iyas Panim (appearing in the Azarah) on the first day [Yom Tov], that he brings his Korban!

Rejection: In any case, [we should say that he may leave] the next day, which is Chol ha'Mo'ed. What is his source [for Linah, i.e. to lodge in Yerushalayim] all seven days?

Explanation #2: It connotes to him that all of them are one morning, since all seven days are Tashlumin (compensation) for the first. There is Tashlumin for Chagigah all seven days.

Question #1: This is difficult for the other version that Rashi brought in Pesachim (95b) regarding "Pesach Rishon requires Linah, and Pesach Sheni does not require Linah", that Pesach Rishon requires one day of Linah. Here it is proven that it requires seven days of Linah!

Question #2: Similarly in Sukah (47a), it taught that just like the seven days of Sukos require Korban, Shir, Brachah and Linah, also Shemini [Atzeres] requires Korban, Shir, Brachah and Linah;

Citation (47a): Doesn't Brachah refer to she'Hecheyanu? No, it is [mentioning the Chag] in Birkas ha'Mazon and Tefilah. Presumably, this is correct, for if it were she'Hecheyanu, do we find she'Hecheyanu all seven days?!

Inference: [The Gemara] was pleased to say that Korban and Linah apply all seven days! (We have no source to distinguish Pesach from Sukos regarding Linah.)

Answer (to Question #2): Perhaps we could say that he could have asked from Linah "also for you, this is difficult";

According to the answer there, all is fine. It answers that we find she'Hecheyanu all seven days - if he did not bless on the first day, he blesses [at his first opportunity] on one of the other days.

We can say similarly about Linah. Olas Re'iyah has Tashlumin all seven days, and the day of bringing his Korban requires Linah [that night], and no more.

Comment - Answer (to Question #1): Also in our Sugya, initially it thought that [Linah] is all seven days, from the reason I explained, but it does not conclude like this.

Support: The Sifri proves that it is only one day, since it taught "I know only these. What is the source to include Menachos and birds...? It says u'Fanisa va'Boker - whenever you leave is only like these";

Note: Since we include Korbanos other than Zevachim, it seems that "only these" refers to all Zevachim. The Parshah discusses Pesach. Above, it said "Tzon u'Vakar", an allusion to Chagigah of the 14th (a Shelamim). The very verse "u'Fanisa" begins "u'Vishalta", but all the Meforshim explain that this refers to roasting, i.e. Pesach.

Inference: Linah is only one day, similar to Shelamim of the entire year.

Question: If Linah during the festival is only one day, why doesn't [one who offers] Pesach Sheni need Linah? Is he less [obligated] than one who brings a bird or Minchah on a weekday, which requires Linah of one day?! (Tzon Kodoshim - this is not difficult for Rashi on Chumash, who says that Linah of Pesach is two days.)

However, if the festival obligates Linah for seven days, this is fine. The Chidush is that Pesach Sheni requires Linah of only one day.

Implied suggestion: He does Merikah u'Shtifah before it becomes Nosar, lest Kodshim become Pasul.

Rejection: It connotes here that after the time for eating he does Merikah u'Shtifah.

Defense: However, there are Seforim in which the text says "he waits until the time to eat."

Support (for rejection): We can infer somewhat from what R. Tarfon said above "each day is Hag'alah for the previous day";

If he does Merikah u'Shtifah before it becomes Nosar, also here he should do (before cooking today's Korban in it)! When he cooked Shelamim yesterday, and today comes, and he needs to do Merikah u'Shtifah, if he cooks Shelamim today before Merikah u'Shtifah, it should be forbidden!

Conclusion: Rather, surely, the Torah obligates only after it became Nosar.

Implied suggestion: This challenges "it is eaten like the more stringent one [in the mixture. Rather,"] he should eat it also tonight and tomorrow, like today's Shelamim!

Rejection: It is Nosar [due to yesterday's Shelamim], and an Aseh is not Docheh a Lo Sa'aseh with Kares (Yevamos 8a)!

Explanation #1: Rather, he challenges "if it is Pasul, [what absorbed from it] becomes Pasul." The Aseh to eat Kodshim should override the Lav that every Pasul Kodshim, the Torah gave a Lav against eating it.

This Lav applies also to other Pesulim without Kares, e.g. it was slaughtered at night, the blood was Lan, and [Avodah was done with intent] Chutz li'Mkomo.

Question: What was difficult? Perhaps it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, that the Torah said that it should become Kodesh like it! (Just like the Pasul may not be eaten, also what absorbed from it!)

Answer #1: We could establish the verse to discuss a Kosher [Korban, to teach that what absorbed from it] is eaten like the stringency of what is in it, until night (and not establish it for a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv unlike the Klal that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh).

Question: When it is night, the Aseh should come and [the Lav to eat Nosar] should be overridden! (Normally, an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav with Kares. Kares for Nosar of Shelamim is only when it is time to burn it, i.e. the next morning (Tzon Kodoshim).)

Answer #2: We can establish the verse to discuss cooking Kodshim with Chulin, like our Mishnah.

Explanation #2: It asks as follows. If it is true that here it is not Docheh, why do you learn from Kil'ayim and Tzitzis [to the entire Torah] that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh? Just the contrary, we should learn from here that it is not Docheh!

Question: In Pesachim (85a, the Gemara) expounds from "v'Etzem Lo Yishberu Vo" regarding Pesach Sheni. Why do we need this? It already says "k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach Ya'aasu Oso"!

Inference: If not for the verse of Pesach Sheni, one might have thought that "v'Achlu Es ha'Basar ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" refers [even] to marrow inside a bone;

How would we fulfill "v'Etzem Lo Yishberu Vo"? This refers to a bone without marrow, but a bone with marrow, he breaks it and eats it, for the Aseh is Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh.

Implied question: Why does it ask here that the Aseh should [be Docheh the Lav? The verse of Pesach teaches that it is not!]

Answer: It asks as follows. I.e. we should learn from here that in general, an Aseh is not Docheh a Lo Sa'aseh, just like here! Rather, surely [you must say that] in the Mikdash is different.

Summation of question: According to this, why do we need "v'Etzem Lo Yishberu Vo" regarding Pesach Sheni? (We never say Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh in the Mikdash!)

Answer: It asks as follows. The Aseh should [be Docheh a Lav in the Mikdash] just like for Chulin, and we should establish the verse "Yikdash" that if [what was absorbed] is Kosher, it is eaten like the stringency in it. Kares applies if it is Nosar;

The Chidush is that Heter joins with Isur, like it says in Pesachim (45a) and in Nazir (37b);

We should not establish the verse to teach that if [what was absorbed] is Pasul, [what absorbed it] becomes Pasul, for there is only a Lav (so the Aseh overrides it);

[The Gemara] answers that the Torah revealed regarding Kodshim about a bone with marrow that [an Aseh] is not Docheh. Therefore, we learn Kodshim from Kodshim, and we do not learn Kodshim from Chulin. This is from R. Baruch.

Question: Here is different, for it is possible to fulfill both of them! He puts a coal on [the bone with marrow, to burn a hole] and removes the marrow!

Answer: Rava teaches here like he taught elsewhere. He explained in Pesachim (84b) regarding "one may not be counted [on Korban Pesach based on acquiring rights to eat] marrow in a bone" that it is impossible [to eat it] via a coal due to ruining Kodshim (one cannot be exact to burn only through the bone, up to the marrow, without burning any marrow).

If so, he cannot fulfill the Aseh "v'Achlu Es ha'Basar ba'Laylah ha'Zeh", for it is impossible that the coal will burn [totally through the bone, up to the marrow] without burning a little marrow inside.

And even according to Abaye, who explains there [that we decree not to use a coal] due to [concern lest the bone] break, this is not because he holds that it is possible through a coal without burning marrow. Rather, he holds that we are not concerned for ruining such a small amount of Kodshim. (I.e. do not say that Rava is merely concerned lest he burn. Even Abaye holds that he Vadai burns. Therefore, it is not considered possible to fulfill both.)

Question: Still, it is difficult - how was there a Havah Amina that the Aseh overrides the Lav? At the time that the Lav is uprooted, he does not fulfill the Aseh of eating!

Question: We expound this verse regarding Chulin, in Chulin (16a)! We say "what is the source for Shechitah, that it is through something detached? It says "va'Yikach Es ha'Ma'acheles."

Answer (R. Tam): We learn also Chulin because it is written "Lishchot Es Beno", and it is not written Lishchot Es ha'Olah;

However, we cannot learn a Kli for Chulin, only for Kodshim, like other Avodos that require a Kli Shares;

And since it is written "va'Yikach", which connotes something detached, and it did not write "knife", we expound something detached for Chulin;

We expound a Kli for Kodshim, since it mentioned Ma'acheles. It could have written va'Yikach Es ha'Mechatech (something that cuts).

Implied question: There in Chulin, R. Chiya rejected [learning something detached for Chulin]. The verse teaches the zealousness of Avraham (he brought a knife, lest he not find anything sharp for Shechitah. For the same reason, we cannot learn a Kli for Kodshim!)

Answer: Here we cannot reject like this, for this that he brought something detached, and did not rely on finding a [sharp] attached rock or reed, we can say that the verse teaches his zealousness;

However, this that it mentioned a knife [as opposed to ha'Mechatech], why was it written, if not to teach that Olah requires a Kli?!

Explanation: [The Gemara] asks that also Chatas and Asham, it is written "Kol Zachar"! Rather, it teaches about Shalmei Tzibur.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We do not learn male Kohanim from Chatas and Asham, like we learn from Minchah, because in both of them, it is written regarding males eating "Hu" - "Kodesh Kodoshim Hu", which connotes an exclusion - it, and not another.

Question: Above (55a), there is a Tana who learns from the Hekesh of Chatas from the verse "v'Asisem Se'ir Izim Echad l'Chatas u'Shnei Kevasim Bnei Shanah l'Zevach Shelamim" - just like male Kohanim eat Chatas, male Kohanim eat Shalmei Tzibur!

Explanation #2: This is not difficult at all. The reason why we do not learn from the Hekesh to Chatas and Asham is because we can establish it for something else, like it explains here;

Therefore we do not establish it to teach about males eating, since it is not the same for all these written in the verse (e.g. Shelamim);

However, the Hekesh of Minchah, you are forced to say that it comes for this, for we do not find another matter [to learn from it].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This verse refers to Kivsei Atzeres, which are Kodesh Kodoshim, for everything in this verse is Kodshei Kodoshim.

Objection #1 (and Explanation #2): You are forced to say that it refers also to Shalmei Nedavah, for above (5b) we learn Lo Lishmah from this verse.

Objection #2: We learn from this verse that all Korbanos require a Kli!

Reference: This verse is written in Parshas Korach.

Implied question: Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur are not written there!

Answer #1: Since it is written in this verse "Kodesh Yihyeh Lach", and regarding Kivsei Atzeres it is written in Parshas Emor "Kodesh Yihyu la'Shem la'Kohen", presumably, it refers to them. Also Rashi explained like this.

Answer #2: We can say that it is because they are called Kodshei Kodoshim, like we learn above (55a) and in Erchin (11b), since it says "Al Oloseichem v'Al Zivchei Shalmeichem" - just like Olah is Kodshei Kodoshim, also Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur are Kodshei Kodoshim.