Question: How can the Gemara say that Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili and Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say one and the same thing, bearing in mind that the P'sul of a Chatas whose entered the Heichal speaks before the Zerikah, whereas Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah speaks after the Zerikah

Question (concl.): And the Gemara's conclusion goes according to Rebbi Yochanan, since he (Rabah) adds to his statement.

Answer: Rabah does not differentiate between before the Zerikah and after it, just as Rebbi Yochanan (who establishes the Machlokes also after the Zerikah) doesn't.

Clarification: Rashi explains that the Rabbanan don't want to learn from Chatas Aharon, because we don't learn a permanent ruling from a momentary one.

Refuted Reason: When he says this, it is not because Chatas Aharon was momentary ...

Refutation: Since the Sa'ir was that of Rosh Chodesh, as Rashi explains.

Source: And so we learned in Zevachim in Perek T'vul Yom (Daf 101:)

Reason: Only the Rabbanan hold that it was a Hora'as Sha'ah, as we learned earlier.

Question: The Rashba asks that above the concept of Hora'as Sha'ah was applicable, since the Gemara there holds that it was burned on account of Tum'ah.

Question (cont.): Whereas here where it speaks about a Chatas whose blood entered inside the Heichal, which requires Ibur Tzurah from a S'vara, one cannot apply the concept of Hora'as Sha'ah?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that the Rabbanan do not want to learn from Chatas Aharon because it is possible to explain that Moshe did not admit to them that they did well with regard to burning it, only with regard to not eating it, but as far as burning it was concerned, even if it was correct, they contravened the Halachah by burning it without Ibur Tzurah.

Question: Above the Gemara learned that Yotzei must be burned from Chatas Aharon, with reference to the Mishnah, that where the P'sul is not on the Guf, it is logical that it requires Ibur Tzurah - which goes like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi ...

Conclusion: And they are the ones here who do not want to learn here from Chatas Aharon.

Refuted Question: The Gemara does not ask why one cannot extract the marrow by means of a burning coal, where there is no need to break the bone.

Answer #1: Because there is always the suspicion that the bone might break, as the Gemara will say later.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is a Tircha to do that.

Question: Rebbi Shimon is the Tana Kama?

Answer: The Ri explains that in fact, Rebbi Ya'akov and Rebbi Shimon are arguing according to the Tana Kama ...

Precedent: Like the case of 'Lo Yarbeh lo Nashim' (in Perek Kohen Gadol, Sanhedrin 21.) and that of 'Chezkasan Shalosh Shanim' (Bava Basra 28:)

Implied Question: And when the Beraisa says 'because of a Takalah' ...

Answer: It means that on account of the Isur of breaking a bone, they did not remove the marrow before it became Asur.

Answer (concl.): And they (the bones) therefore need to be burned, because they served Nosar.

Refuted Question: One cannot ask that if they are considered Basar, then why can one not eat them?

Answer: Because they are not real Basar, that they should have the taste of Basar ...

Answer (concl.): And the Gemara is merely trying to say that they should be considered Basar with regard to burning them.

Question: At the beginning of 'Gid ha'Nasheh' (Chulin 89.) the Gemara asks 'Does our Tana really hold "Ein be'Gidin be'Nosein Ta'am"? But did we not learn in a Mishnah that 'If the thigh in which the Gid ha'Nasheh has been cooked gives taste, it is Asur'?

Question (cont.): But perhaps when the Mishnah says 'if it gives taste', it is referring to the fat of the Gid ha'Nasheh, which the Gemara here calls 'Gid'?

Reference: Tosfos deals with the matter there.

Question: If it is forbidden to burn it (even) on the night of Motza'ei Yom-Tov until the morning, what proof do we have that the burning of Kodshim does not override Yom-Tov?

Question (cont.): Clearly, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, since even on the night that is Chol one is forbidden to burn it.

Answer: Since it is forbidden to burn it on the first morning (of Yom-Tov), we can justifiably learn that burning Kodshim does not override Yom-Tov.

Answer (concl.): And the fact that one may not burn it on the night of Motza'ei Yom-Tov is nor surprising, because so we find regarding Shelamim, which may not be eaten on the night of the third day, in spite of which they are not burned until the morning, as the Gemara explained at the beginning of the Masechta (Daf 3.)

Clarification: This implies that the limbs of a weekday Korban can be brought neither on Shabbos nor on Yom-Tov.

Question #1: At the end of Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Yoma 46.) that Gemara says that 'If limbs of a weekday Korban are left over, one piles them up independently on the Ma'arachah and arranges them - even on Shabbos'?

Question #1 (cont.): And even Rav Huna argues there only in that one does not make an independent arrangement, but everyone agrees that they arrange them on the large Ma'arachah (that is how one needs to explain the Sugya there).

Question #2: And similarly at the end of the first Perek of Shabbos (Daf 20.) the Gemara Darshens (from "be'Chol Moshvoseichem") that 'be'Chol Moshvoseichem I Atah Mav'ir ... ' - to permit limbs and fat pieces, with reference to the limbs of a weekday Korban that are left over ...

Question #2 (cont.): Since the limbs of the Tamid of Shabbos, we learn at the beginning of 'Eilu Devarim' (above 66.) from "al Olas ha'Tamid" (that one does bring them on Shabbos), in which case the Gemara in our Sugya precludes specifically the limbs of a weekday Olah?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam and the Riva answer that the Gemara there (in Yoma) speaks specifically where the Kohanim already set fire to the limbs before Shabbos, in which case it has already become 'the bread of the Mizbei'ach'. This renders them the Korban of the day, which overrides Shabbos from "be'Mo'ado" - 'even on Shabbos'.

Implied Question: And even according to the Gemara's conclusion there, that it is specifically with regard to Pesulim that if one set fire to it (before Shabbos), yes, and if not, no'?

Answer: That does not come to preclude Kesheirin; what it means is - that by Kesheirin, no Pasuk is needed to teach us the Din of 'Mashleh bahen es ha'Or'.

Answer (concl.): But that nevertheless, when it comes to the crunch, even Kesheirin are only permitted if one already set fire to them.

Alternative Explanation: The Riva however, is not sure whether by Korbanos other than the Korban Tamid, 'Mashleh bahen es ha'Or' renders them the 'bread of the Mizbei'ach'.

Explanation #2 (concl.): Because perhaps it is only the Tamid that this S'vara applies, since the Tamid itself overrides Shabbos.

Question: In Yoma (Daf 46.) the Gemara Darshens (that the limbs of Shabbos override Shabbos) from "be'Mo'ado", whereas in the first Perek of Shabbos (Daf 20.) learns it from "be'Chol Moshvoseichem"?

Answer: The Pasuk "be'Chol Moshvoseichem" reveals that that of "be'Mo'ado" speaks even about the limbs and fat-pieces of a weekday Korban.

Implied Question: And the reason why the Gemara in Yoma declines to cite "be'Chol Moshvoseichem" which is the main D'rashah?

Answer: Is because it prefers to mention the D'rashah of "be'Mo'ado", which extends also to Tum'ah and also to all the Korbanos.