Inference: Our Sugya connotes that had it not written "Ach", we would expound also that just like Tzvi va'Ayal, Oso v'Es Beno does not apply to it, and its Chelev is permitted (also Pesulei ha'Mukdashim).

Also above (12a), we expound that just like we do not redeem [Peter Chamor according to the law of a Seh] with Tzvi va'Ayal, we do not redeem with Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.

Question: What is the source of all these Drashos? Tzvi va'Ayal is written three times, and all of them are needed, like it explains below (33a)!

Answer: Also there, it explains one for Bechorah and Matanos, i.e. like it explains here, one from Tzvi and one from Ayal;

Also it explains there that one is [to teach] like R. Yitzchak and R. Oshaya, like R. Tam explains, that one who mates or conducts (makes it pull a wagon, or any other work) with an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim is lashed. It is one body, and the Torah considers it two, i.e. Tzvi and Ayal;

One ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, the Torah considers it two bodies, and when one conducts it alone, it is like conducting with Tzvi and Ayal together, and he is liable for Kil'ayim;

The other Tzvi va'Ayal - one [of the two words] is needed [to teach] like R. Akiva, who permits even a Nochri [to eat it], or like R. Elazar ha'Kapar in Chulin (28a) - just like Pesulei ha'Mukdashim need Shechitah, also Tzvi va'Ayal;

From Tzvi alone we would know Ayal, for from Tzvi we learn every Chayah.

The other is [to teach] like Rav Mari - just like we do not redeem with Tzvi va'Ayal [also Pesulei ha'Mukdashim].

Implied question: Below, we would have expounded that the Chelev is permitted, and Oso v'Es Beno [does not apply], if not for "Ach". What is the source for this?

Answer: It is from the Tzvi va'Ayal from which we expound Bechorah and Matanos, which connotes that he wants to give to them the law of a Chayah, and therefore it is written "Ach" to obligate for its Chelev and Oso v'Es Beno like it explains, whether you compare them to Chulin or to Kodshim.

Below (15b), it says "what is the case of their offspring and Chelev? If they became pregnant and gave birth after Pidyon, it is the child of a deer or Ayal!" There is nothing extra [that he expounds]. Rather, automatically it is obvious to him that it is totally like Tzvi va'Ayal.

Implied suggestion: He could have asked that just like Tzvi va'Ayal require Kisuy ha'Dam, also Pesulei ha'Mukdashim!

Rejection: We explicitly expound in Chulin (84a) regarding Pesulei ha'Mukdashim "Al ha'Aretz Tishpechenu ka'Mayim" - just like water need not be covered, also Dam Behemah.

Explanation: This verse is written regarding Bechor.

Question: It is very astounding that [the Gemara] does not bring "Rak Es ha'Dam Lo Sochal" written regarding other Pesulei ha'Mukdashim!

Implied question: Perhaps we need it for five Lavim said about blood, that are explained in Kerisos (4b)!

Answer: Rejection: Many Lavim are written, more than five! One is in Parshas Vayikra, and one is Tzav, two are in Acharei Mos, and four in Re'eh. This is eight, aside from this verse of Bechor! Perhaps he expounds them for something else.

Question #1: Just the contrary! Since the verse returned it, it totally returned it, even for Kares, like a Beraisa teaches below about Pesulei ha'Mukdashim. One who shears or works with them receives 40 lashes;

We do not say that it is equated to Tzvi va'Ayal, and totally uproots the Lav, and when it is written "Tizbach", and not shearing, it is a mere Isur. Rather, we say that it was returned to its [initial] Isur!

Conclusion: We must distinguish (why we would have said that shearing is returned to its initial Isur, but Chelev is not).

Question #2: Also the law of shearing and working with them is difficult for what we say that if an Isur can be tasted but there is no substance [of the Isur], e.g. Gi'ulei (absorptions in pots of) Nochrim, it is forbidden, but one is not lashed for it;

Now, since Ta'am li'Fgam was permitted, e.g. a rotten Neveilah, when the Torah returned to forbid Gi'ulei Nochrim in [the spoils taken from] Midyan, it is a mere Isur, and not lashes!

Assertion: It seems that this is wrong. We should say that [the Torah] returned it to its Isur, like I explained.

Explanation: [He cannot Makdish it for any Korban he wants] after it is born, but in the womb, he can change it to another Korban, like a Mishnah (Temurah 24b) teaches;

And in any case, we properly learn from it offspring of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, that one may not change them to another Korban, even in their mother's womb, according to the opinion that they are Kadosh in their mother's womb;

Just like one cannot change a Bechor once Kedushas Bechor took effect on it, the same applies to Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, which are already Kadosh. One cannot change their offspring to another Korban;

And even according to the opinion that they become Kadosh when they are born, they are unlike a Bechor before it is born, for these are destined to become Kadosh due to their mother, which is already Kadosh.