Implied question: This verse discusses also a Ba'al Mum, both according to Rav and d'Vei Rav above (28a), and both according to R. Yishmael and R. Akiva in Zevachim (57a), and both according to R. Yishmael and R. Yosi ha'Gelili in Zevachim (37a)...

Source #1: We learn from "Besaram", which connotes both of a Tam, and of a Ba'al Mum.

Source #2: [We learn] from "Yihyeh Lecha." [The Tana] expounds this to teach about a Bechor Ba'al Mum, that one gives it to a Kohen.

Answer: In any case, the Kal v'Chomer overrides the Hekesh, and Zarim may eat it, since we establish the Hekesh "k'Chazeh ha'Tenufah" to discuss a Tam.

Support #1: We find like this in Zevachim (10b) regarding an Asham whose blood entered inside [the Heichal];

You cannot say that it is Pasul, for a Kal v'Chomer from Olah [is Machshir], even though Rabanan have the Hekesh "ka'Chatas ka'Asham" for something else, like is proven in the Sugya there.

Support #2: And in Kidushin (14a) a Kal v'Chomer uproots an Ikuv (regarding Chalitzah it says Kachah, and even so a Yevamah is permitted also) through death of the Yavam, in [the Sugya of] wherever it is written Chukah, we do not expound a Kal v'Chomer.

Support #3: And in the Sugya of Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama (Kidushin 34b) regarding "children are obligated [in Hakhel]. All the more so women are obligated", a Kal v'Chomer overrides a Gezeirah Shavah (Re'iyah-Re'iyah from Aliyah l'Regel, which would exempt women).

Implied question: Below, at the beginning of the ninth Perek (53b) we expound from a Hekesh "Aser Ta'aser." It equates Ma'aser Behemah to Ma'aser of grain. Just like one may not tithe new grain (of this year) on old...

This overrides a Kal v'Chomer of sheep and goats, which are Kil'ayim with each other, one may tithe them on each other - new and old (which are not Kil'ayim, all the more so one should be able to tithe them on each other)!

Answer: There, we cannot establish the Hekesh [to teach anything] if we will learn from the Kal v'Chomer.

Implied question: We need the Hekesh according to R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah, like he says there (59a), just like Ma'aser [of grain] is taken by estimation and through mere intent [also Ma'aser Behemah]!

Strengthening of question: And it is needed also for what we expound in Zevachim (45a), that Kodshei Nochrim do not make Temurah!

Answer: Even so, the Hekesh comes primarily only for Shanah-Shanah (each year must be tithed by itself).

Implied question: In Chulin (116a) there is an opinion that meat and milk is forbidden to eat, but one may benefit from it, from a Gezeirah Shavah "Kodesh-Kodesh", and there is an opinion that forbids Hana'ah due to a Kal v'Chomer!

Answer: This is not difficult for the Gemara in Kidushin (34b, in which all agree that a Kal v'Chomer overrides a Gezeirah Shavah), like I explained in Chulin (116a DH Mah).

Opinion #1 (Rashi): It was not explained (what they expounded).

Opinion #2 (R. Chananel): It is what is brought in Makos (22a), that one who mates an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, or conducts (makes it lead a wagon) is lashed. It is one body, and the Torah made it two bodies.

Explanation: The ox itself is considered like Tzvi va'Ayal, i.e. two species.

Remark: This is unlike people usually explain there, that it is somewhat like Kodshim, and somewhat like Chulin. Rather, we learn from Tzvi va'Ayal, like it says here.

Explanation: The same applies to a Ba'al Keri. It is permitted only to a Tum'ah permitted for Pesach (when the majority of the Tzibur is Tamei), like is proven below.

Reference: This is a Beraisa in Temurah (24a). It discusses when he separated two Chata'os for Achrayus, and now one is Tam and one is a Ba'al Mum.

Question: In the Beraisa, Rabanan forbid a Ba'al Mum when it was slaughtered after Zerikas Dam of the Tam, and in the Mishnah it is permitted...

And R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon forbids in the Beraisa in every case, and in the Mishnah, only if the second was offered before the first was slaughtered, [the first] dies, for the owner already atoned;

However, if [the first] was slaughtered beforehand, it is permitted!

Answer (Ri): The Mishnah discusses when he redeemed the Ba'al Mum and profaned it on the Tam. All the Kedushah of the Ba'al Mum entered the Tam, and its Kedushah takes hold on it;

Therefore the Ba'al Mum is permitted according to Rabanan in every case. It is unlike a Chatas whose owner atoned.

And R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon distinguishes between when [the Ba'al Mum] was slaughtered before Zerikah, and when it was slaughtered after Zerikah.

Distinction: However, here we discuss when the Tam comes through its own Kedushah, and he did not redeem the Ba'al Mum on it, rather, on money, and it does not look as if its Kedushah vanished, since the Tam does not come due to [the Ba'al Mum's] power;

Therefore, according to Rabanan, if the blood was thrown before Shechitah of the Ba'al Mum, it is forbidden, for it is like a Chatas whose owner atoned;

And according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon it is forbidden in every case, for it is like a Chatas whose owner atoned.

Reference: In the Gemara (34a DH Ileima) we will be precise about their argument.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If one cuts off the testicles, and they are still in the sac (Kores), and another came and uprooted them from the sac and cast them (Nosek), both of them are liable.

Objection (Tosfos' Rebbi): Below (39b), it connotes that Nasuk and Karus, the testicles are in the sac, at the end of the Gemara of the outer Chutin (gums or teeth) that were chipped or cracked. It says that Nasuk and Karus are not Mumim, because [the Beitzim] are intact!

Explanation #2 (Rashi below): Nasuk is by hand. They are totally [cut off], but they are still hanging in the sac. Karus is through a knife, and they are still hanging in the sac and slightly connected, for Karus is less than Nasuk, like it says above "to include Nosek after Kores." Until here (Explanation #2) is from Rashi (there).

Question: He should say that [R. Meir] needs ["Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon" to forbid blemishing] Bechor, which has Kedushas ha'Guf, and it has no redemption!

Answer: He prefers to find that it is needed for all Kodshim.

Support: Likewise, he could have said that it is needed for nowadays, that one does not transgress even for blemishing a Tam;

And even the one who obligates one who blemishes a Tam nowadays, it is worse (less severe than blemishing a Ba'al Mum at the time of the Mikdash), like it says in Avodah Zarah (13b, that nowadays) it is not proper for its value;

However, it is properly found that [the verse] is needed even at the time of the Mikdash.

Implied question: I explained that nowadays, [blemishing a Tam] is worse (less severe) than blemishing a Ba'al Mum (at the time of the Mikdash). Why do we rule below (34a) that the Halachah follows R. Shimon in the Beraisa, who permits blemishing a Ba'al Mum?

And there in Avodah Zarah, Rava forbids cutting off the feet of Kodshim nowadays, for it looks like blemishing Kodshim!

Answer: Even though the Torah permits blemishing a Ba'al Mum, in any case mid'Rabanan it is forbidden. Here we permit only to let blood.