Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Rav Z'vid does not argue with Rav Chama bar Ukva, and that he only comes to explain his ruling.

Question: The Riva queries this however, inasmuch as we never find anywhere that the Gemara says 'Le'olam ... ', just to explain.

Answer #1: He therefore explains that Rav Chama bar Ukva and Rav Papa do not argue, because Rav Chama bar Ukva establishes that one speaks by a guest, and the other, by a Ba'al ha'Bayis, and both speak where he has already set out on his way.

Answer #1 (cont.): Otherwise, even a guest would have the same Din as the Ba'al ha'Bayis - only the Tana is not speaking about such a case.

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas Rav Papa establishes both cases by a guest, and he does not argue with Rav Chama bar Ukva.

Answer #1 (concl.): Rav Z'vid on the other hand, argues with both opinions. According to him, they gave a guest who has not set out on the journey the Din of a miser.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Rav Papa and Rav Z'vid argue according to Rav Chama bar Ukva; Rav Papa establishes him where the guest has already set out on the journey, otherwise he has the same Din as a Ba'al ha'Bayis.

Answer #2 (concl.): Whereas according to Rav Z'vid, they gave a guest the Din of a miser even if he has not yet set out, and Rav Chama bar Ukva mentioned Ba'al ha'Bayis Davka.

Clarification: This refers even to Tamei Keri.

Clarification (cont.): The Ri explains that the 'Eastern Gate' mentioned here is the Gate of the Ezras Nashim.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara says in the first Perek of Yevamos (Daf 7:) and in various other places that a T'vul-Yom is not permitted to enter the Machaneh Leviyah ...

Answer: That does not refer to the entire Machaneh Leviyah, but from the Ezras Nashim and inwards.

Proof: And this is evident in Maseches Keilim (Perek 1. Mishnah 8), where it says that 'Ezras Nashim is holier than it (the Cheil), inasmuch as T'vulei-Yom are not permitted to enter it.

Refuted Explanation #1: One cannot explain that this refers to the word in the Mishnah 'immediately' ...

Refuted Explanation #1 (cont.): Inasmuch as, since the Torah writes "Yisaref", we need to say that it must be done immediately, without Ibur Tzurah, because otherwise, let the Pasuk omit it and we will know that it needs to be burned since it is Nosar.

Refutation: From the fact that the Gemara says later 'And Rabah adds 'also Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - since we learned in a Beraisa ... '. But according to the Rabbanan, who learn from the Chatas "Kol Chatas asher Yuva mi'Damah ..." it requires Ibur Tzurah - despite the fact that the Torah writes "Tisaref"!

Conclusion: So we see that "Tisaref" does not necessarily mean immediately.

Refutation of Refutation: It is possible to refute that proof however, by attributing the word "Tisaref" there to the obligation to burn it in the Kodesh, in which case it is not superfluous

Refutation #2: One can however, bring a proof from the Gemara shortly, which asks from where we know 'Lan Damah, Nishpach Damah and she'Yatza Chutz li'Kela'im'.

Refutation #2 (cont.): And there one cannot explain the question with regard to burning them immediately, since the Mishnah states 'be'Dam u'be'Ba'alim, Te'ubar Tzurasan'.

Explanation #2: So it can only mean from where we know that it must be burned, and burning it immediately must therefore be a matter of logic, and not a Pasuk.

Question: Why does one need a Pasuk by P'sul ha'Dam, because, since it requires Ibur Tzurah, it is obvious that it must be burned because it is Nosar?

Answer #1: We need the Pasuk to teach us that one should not bury it before it becomes Nosar.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we might have thought that even once it becomes Nosar it should not be burned, because it is specifically Nosar that was initially fit to be eaten before it became Nosar that must be burned, as is implied by the words "Do not leave over" - only eat it.

Question: How can the Gemara learn that Yotzei must be burned, from the Chatas of Aharon; Since it is clear that Moshe did not concede to them the burning of the Chatas whose blood was taken inside, seeing as P'sulo ba'Dam requires Ibur Tzurah, and they burned it immediately.

Question: (cont.): What Moshe therefore said to them was that if the blood was brought inside, they did well not to eat it, since that is what he asked them at the beginning of the Pasuk "Why did you not eat ... '?

Explanation #3: The Rashba therefore explains that the Gemara's question 'Minalan' pertains to burning it immediately ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): And the entire Sugya goes according to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds later that the blood is considered P'sulo mi'Gufo, since he equates Dam with Basar, and it is specifically with regard to Ba'alim that the Mishnah requires Ibur Tzurah.

Explanation #3: (cont.): In that case, the Gemara is justified in bringing a proof from the Chatas of Aharon, since Moshe conceded to them that if the blood had been taken inside, they did well to burn it (the Chatas).

Explanation #3: (cont.): And the question 'Minalan' pertains to burning it immediately.

Question: The problem with this however, is that, since logically we learn that it is burned not immediately, but after Ibur Tzurah - were it not for the conclusion 'Hilch'sa Gemiri lah', what does the Gemara mean when it asks from where Rabah bar Avuhah learns that even Pigul requires Ibur Tzurah?

Question (cont.): Why can the Gemara not just answer that he does not hold of the Halachah? Why does he need to learn it from a Gezeirah-Shavah?

Conclusion: We must therefore say that the fact that P'sulo be'Gufo must be burned immediately is a S'vara, and that 'be'Dam u'be'Ba'lim requires Ibur Tzurah is a S'vara too.

Source #1: Rashi explains that he learns it from "Penimah", and so does Rabeinu Chananel.

Source #2: According to the Ri, he learns it from "Achol Tochlu Osah ba'Kodesh".

Source #3: Whereas the Toras Kohanim Darshens it from "bi'Mekom ha'Kodesh".

Question: But this Pasuk specifically mentions Kodshei Kodshim, so why does the Gemara say 'and the same applies ... ', as the Gemara Darshens in 'Kol Sha'ah' "ve'ha'Basar" - to include wood and frankincense'?

Answer: Nevertheless, were it not for 'and the same applies', we would have thought that it comes to teach us that Kodshim Kalim does not require Hechsher, and not Kodshei Kodshim.

Question: Why does the Pasuk then not decline to mention the sin of Pigul, in which case it will automatically say that it is burned immediately.

Answer: The Torah needs to insert the sin of Pigul anyway, since in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 28:) the Gemara learns that Pigul is Chayav Kareis from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Avon" "Avon' from Nosar.

Question: The Rashba asks why we cannot learn everything from "Tamei"; so why do we need the Halachah?

Answer: If not for the Halachah, the Ri answers, we would have thought that that the fact that it applies to Chulin is merely a Chumra, since a mundane act was done with it.

Question: Why do we not learn a Kal-va'Chomer from Terumah, that it must be burned?

Answer: Because we can then ask a Pircha from the fact that T'rumah is forbidden to Zarim, which Kodshim Kalim are not.

Clarification: This means to say even after Zerikah.

Reason: Because if it spoke specifically with regard to Dam and Ba'alim, who would be the author?

Question: Perhaps Rebbi Nechemyah really holds like the Rabbanan, who require Ibur Tzurah, and the reason that Chatas Aharon was burned immediately on account of Aninus was because of a Hora'as Sha'ah (a momentary ruling) because Moshe had not yet taught them the Din of Ibur Tzurah, as Rashi explains?

Answer: The Rashba answers that, according to the Ri, who explains that the fact that P'sul Ba'alim requires Ibur Tzurah is a S'vara, the Kashya falls away ...

Reason: Because 'Hora'as Sha'ah' will now not apply here, since Aninus is a P'sul Ba'alim, which requires Ibur Tzurah due to a S'vara.

Conclusion: And the Gemara, which said earlier that it was a Hora'as Sha'ah, holds that it was burned on account of Tum'ah.