Explanation #1: This does no mean that one must remain in Yerushalayim for all seven days of Pesach, and that after Pesach one gets up and goes home.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Because wherever the Sifri in Re'ei includes Linah, such as on Shemini Atzeres, by Bikurim, on Pesach Sheini, and by all the Korbanos (that one brings), it only requires Linah for one night.

Explanation #1 (cont.): In fact the Pasuk that the Gemara cites is referring to the body of the Korban Pesach, in Parshas Re'ei "You shall sacrifice the Pesach in the afternoon" ... "And you shall cook/roast it and eat it" ... "And you shall turn around in the morning and go back home".

Clarification (cont.): However "in the morning" cannot be taken literally, since the next morning is Yom-Tov; only as Rashi explains - 'it requires Linah during the first night of Chol ha'Mo'ed ...

Clarification (cont.): The Pasuk would not instruct us to return on Yom-Tov, seeing as it is a day on which one is Chayav to appear in the Azarah. And Succos too requires Linah for one night.

Implied Question: And as for the implication in Perek Lulav va'Aravah (Succah, Daf 47.) that Succos requires Linah for seven days, since the Gemara does not ask 'Since when does Yom-Tov require Linah for seven days?', like it asks with regard to 'Z'man'?

Answer: That speaks about someone who did not come to Yerushalayim on the first day, only on the second or on a subsequent day of Succos; he needs Linah on the following night; and the same applies to someone who arrives in Yerushalayim on Chol ha'Mo'ed Pesach.

Question #1: Why is one Chayav anyway on account of the Shalmei Simchah that one brings throughout the eight days of Succos

Source #1: As we learned in the Mishnah in Perek Lulav va'Aravah (Ibid. Daf 42:)?

Question #2: Indeed, a Korban requires Linah on any day of the year that one brings it?

Source #2: As we learned in a Beraisa in the Sifri "And you shall turn round in the morning and go back home" - 'This teaches us that they (i.e. all Korbanos like the Korban Pesach) require Linah'.

Source #2 (cont.): 'We only know these (animal-offerings). From where do we know that even bird-offerings, Menachos, wine, Levonah and wood offerings require Linah? Therefore the Torah writes "u'Fanisa", Whenever you turn round to go home, it should only be from the morning and onwards'.

Pesach Sheini: The Tana'im argue about Linah with regard to Pesach Sheini in Perek Lulav va'Aravah (Succah, Daf 47:) and in Perek Mi she'hayah Tamei (Pesachim, Daf 95: & 96.)

Sifri: Whereas the Sifri explains the reason that it does require Linah inasmuch as it is not worse than wood and frankincense.

Answer #1: The case where one does not bring a Korban on the day that one arrives in Yerushalayim is where one sent one's Shelamim on the previous day, since Shelamim can be eaten for two days.

Answer #2: Moreover, in the first Perek of Chagigah (Daf 8. & 8:) the Gemara Darshens "ve'Samachta" - 'to include all kinds of Semachos in the Mitzvah of Simchah'; and the Gemara in Perek Eilu Devarim (Pesachim, Daf 71.) explains that this comes to include even fresh clothes and old wine ...

Proof: Because otherwise, there where the first day falls on Shabbos, it would not be possible to have Simchah for eight days, seeing as one needs to Shecht the animal at the time when Simchah applies.

Support: And we find a similar explanation in the Yerushalmi (in the second Perek of Bikurim) where, on the Mishnah that Bikurim require Linah, Rebbi Yonah comments that this is only where one does not bring a Korban together with them, because if one does, one is Chayav Linah on account of the Korban (This seems to support the ruling cited in the question in e.).

Explanation #2: In Perek Dam Chatas however (Zevachim, Daf 96:) it seems to imply that Pesach requires Linah for seven days, since all of them are considered like one night ...

Source: With regard to the Mishnah where Rebbi Tarfon says that 'If one cooked in a vessel from the beginning of Yom Tov, one may cook in it throughout Yom -Tov

Source (cont.): And where, in reply to the question as to Rebbi Tarfon's reason, Rebbi Yitzchak cites the Pasuk "And you shall turn around in the morning and go back home" - implying that the Pasuk considers all the days like one morning.

Attempted Refutation: And even though we do not rule like Rebbi Tarfon, as the Gemara asks there 'Is there no Pigul on Yom-Tov? Is there no Nosar on Yom-Tov'?

Reinstatement: Nevertheless, with regard to Linah, it may well be that the Torah does consider them as one morning, as the Pasuk suggests, in that after Yom-Tov, one returns home.

It Fits Nicely: It now makes good sense as to why, whereas Shemini Atzeres and Bikurim require Linah in Perek Lulav va'Aravah (Succah, Daf 47.) and all other Korbanos, from the word "u'Fanisa", we need to learn Linah on Chag ha'Succos from a Hekesh (to Pesach) ...

It Fits Nicely: (cont.): Because if we were to learn it too, from "u'Fanisa", we would only learn one night, whereas the Hekesh comes to teach us that it forbidden to leave all seven days of Yom-Tov, seeing as, like Pesach, the entire Yom-Tov is considered one morning.

Conclusion: It also makes good sense as to why the Gemara says in Lulav va'Aravah (Ibid.) that 'The seven days of Succos require Linah'.

Explanation #1: The Gemara makes a similar statement in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Menachos, Daf 65. & 65:) in connection with the Baytusim, who claimed that Shavu'os always falls after Shabbos.

Explanation #1 (cont.): On which Rebbi Yehoshua retorts from what the Torah says 'Count days and sanctify the months, and count days and sanctify Shavu'os' - in that just as the month is specific close to its advent, so too the day on which one counts Shavu'os discernable close to its advent'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): This means that 'Just as one knows on the twenty-ninth day, from the birth of the new moon, when one must start to count (the next month), so too, close to the fifty days that one counts, should one know precisely on which day one starts to count (i.e. on the sixteenth of the month, the day after the first day of Yom-Tov).

Explanation #1 (concl.): Because, if one were to wait for the day after Shabbos, there would be no specific day on which to start counting; only sometimes one would start on the sixteenth, sometimes on the seventeenth ... the eighteenth or the nineteenth, as Rashi explains there.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam however, explains 'Just as the month' - close to the advent of the new moon it is recognizable as to when Rosh Chodesh will take place - because as soon as the moon is covered, everybody knows that the Molad will take place on the same day ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): So too, should everyone know when Shavu'os will take place close to the position of the moon - meaning that if one begins to count the fifty days) on the sixteenth of Nisan, then people will take note of the size of the moon on the fifth, and when they see the moon the same size on the fifth of Sivan, they will know that on the following day will be Shavu'os.

Conclusion: The Gemara asks in Menachos (66.) 'Perhaps it referring to the last day of Yom-Tov, and they will examine the size of the moon on the twelfth?

Alternative Text: Explanation #3: Whereas R. Meshulam has the text both here and there 'Count years and sanctify the Yovel'.

1. Refutation of First Text: Because in the first Perek of Megilah (Daf 5.) the Gemara learns 'Count days and sanctify the month' from the Pasuk "until a month of days" - 'You shall count the days in a month and not hours', is a Medrash Chachamim z.l.

Refutation of First Text (cont.): And the term 'The Torah said' is only applicable in a case where the Tzedokim agree ...

Example #1: As in the case that the Beraisa cites later 'The Torah says bring the Omer on Pesach and the Two Loaves on Shavu'os', which is written explicitly.

Example #2: And so is the counting of the years of the Yovel.

Alternative Text: Explanation #3 (cont.): And 'close to the advent of the beginning of the reckoning is recognizable' - in that one always begins to count the day after the fiftieth year; so too, 'close to the advent of the beginning of the reckoning is recognizable' in that it always takes place on the day after the first day of Yom-Tov, and is never subject to change.

Question #1: The Gemara says later in the Perek (Daf 16.) 'The Torah says "Pour water before Me on Succos" ', even though the Tzedokim do not agree with that, seeing as 'They pelted him with their Esrogim'?

Refuted Answer: Nor is it logical to answer that, it is because there, the Gemara first asked 'Why did the Torah say?'

Question #2: Furthermore, the Gemara later (on Daf 7.) Darshens "Olas Chodesh be'Chodsho" - 'The Torah said 'Give new money and bring from the new gift', even though the Tzedokim do not agree with that either, since they maintained that they brought the Tamid from private donations ...

Source: As the Beraisa informs us in the first Perek of Megilas Ta'anis (as is cited by the Gemara there in Menachos)

Support for Explanation #3: Proof for his explanation however, lies in the fact that Rebbi Yehoshua cites the D'rashah in order to counter the argument of the Baytusim, and if they disagreed with his proof, how would it disprove it?

Conclusion: Nevertheless, that is no reason to change the text in the Sefarim.

Refutation #1 of Explanation #3: Furthermore, it seems correct to learn here all the countings of Shavu'os from those of Rosh Chodesh, since later in the Perek (Daf 10:) the Gemara says that 'Since one day in the month is considered a month,thirty days in the year are considered a year - a month to its countings, and a year to its countings'.

Refutation #2 of Explanation #3: Moreover, if we learned from Yovel, then, when the Gemara asks 'Perhaps Shavu'os is one day?', what does the Gemara answer 'Do we count only the days of Shavu'os, and not the weeks?' ...

Another Refutation of Explanation #3 (cont.): Seeing as Yovel too, we count years and Sh'mitin, yet it goes after the counting of the years, since it the lesser of the two? In which case by Shavu'os too, we will say one day, based on the principle 'Tafasta Mu'at, Tafasta'?

Proof for Explanation #4: Whereas if we learn it from Rosh Chodesh, that is no problem; we cannot ask 'Let us learn it from Yovel', since we prefer to learn Korban from Korban, that one sanctifies the month according to its counting with regard to its Korbanos, as Rashi explains.

Question: And if you will say that we ought nevertheless to apply the principle 'Tafasta Mu'at, Tafasta' - and learn only one day?

Answer: Since we are learning from Rosh Chodesh, we will learn Shavu'os according to all its countings.

Explanation #4: One can also explain that - 'Just as Rosh Chodesh, close to its advent, one knows exactly according to the Cheshbon when it will arrive, since it always falls thirty days from the previous Rosh Chodesh, so too Shavu'os, one knows close to its advent, according to the Cheshbon, when it will arrive - always after fifty days.

Conclusion: Whereas, according to the Tzadukim, it is sometimes more.

Clarification: In which case he transgresses immediately.

Clarification: That got lost and is found after the owner has brought another one, and which is then brought as a Shelamim - and it is that Shelamim that one transgresses after three Regalim have passed (This is also how Rashi explains it).

Sugya in Zevachim, Explanation #1: In Perek Kol ha'Pesulin (Zevachim, Daf 36.) where the Gemara includes Shalmei Nazir and Shalmei Pesach in the realm of Kornbanos that can be eaten for only one day and a night - Rashi explains it with reference to the Chagigah of the fourteenth (of Nisan).

Refutation: But this is not correct, since the Chagigah of the fourteenth may be eaten for two days and a night ...

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah in Pesachim in Perek Eilu Devarim (Daf 69: & 70.)

Question: Even though ben Teima implies (Ibid. Daf 70.) that it can be eaten for only one day and a night.

Answer: He learns it from the fact that it is compared to the Pesach, as he Darshens "Zevach Chag" - 'This is the Chagigah'; "ha'Pesach" - 'as it says'.

Answer (cont.): Whereas in Perek Kol ha'Pesulim, that Gemara learns it from the Pasuk "Todas Shelamav".

Sugya in Zevachim, Explanation #2: It would therefore seem that the Gemara there is speaking about the Mosar ha'Pesach, in the same way as Rashi explains the current case here.

Clarifying Sugya in Pesachim: In that case, the Gemara in Pesachim (Perek ha'Ishah, Daf 89.) which asks 'Let them bring it as a Mosar ha'Pesach', which can be eaten for a day and a night, since the Torah writes "Todas Shelamav", makes good sense.

Question: However, there in the fist Perek of Zevachim (Daf 9.) it also Darshens "Im Kesev" to include a Pesach whose year has passed and Shelamim that come on account of a Pesach with regard to all the Mitzvos of a Shelamim?

Answer: 'Shelamim that come on account of a Pesach' can only refer to the Chagigah of the fourteenth, seeing as the Gemara there Darshens all cases of Mosar ha'Pesach from three different Pesukim ...

Answer: One, where both its year and its due date have passed, one where the year passed but not its due date, and one where neither has yet passed.

Alternative Explanation: It is possible however, to establish that Gemara too (in Zevachim) with regard to Mosar ha'Pesach, since it is the way of Tana'im to cite one Pasuk, even though one really learns it from two (i.e. they cites one Pasuk, even though the Limud is really from another Pasuk)..

Precedent #1: Like we find in Perek Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 30.) with regard to "ve'His'alamta meihem", from which the Gemara includes a Kohen where the article is in a grave-yard, a Zakein and it is below his dignity to return it and where his (the finder's) object is worth more than his friend's, even though we only learn one of them from the Pasuk, as the Gemara there concludes.

Precedent #2: And similarly in the first Perek of Chagigah (Daf 4.), where the Gemara Darshens "Regalim" - 'to preclude people with a stump' (from Aliyas ha'Regel [though the Gemara is referring to the word "Pe'amim"]).

Proof: In fact, the Gemara in Perek Mi sheHayah Tamei (Pesachim, Daf 96:) Darshens the Pasuk "Im Kesev" itself to include bringing the Temurah of a Pesach after Pesach as a Shelamim.

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara establishes it where it was found after the Shechitah, and the owner then declared the Temurah, which is really an Asmachta, since the ruling is obvious, and does not require a Pasuk.

Observation: It could have cited the Pasuk from the same context (in Devarim 23) " ... ka'asher Nadarta Nedavah".

Clarification: By all of them the Torah inserts the word "Hash-m" - By Erchin it writes (in Vayikra 7) "be'Erk'cha Nefashos la'Hashem", and by Charamin (Ibid.) "Kodesh Kodshim hu la'Hashem", and the Gemara in Bechoros, at the beginning of Perek Kol Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, Daf 32.) Darshens this Pasuk in connection with Chermei Kohen too,

Clarification (cont.): Whereas by Hakdeishos the Torah writes "Ish ki Yakdish es Beiso Kodesh la'Hashem"

Question: By the same token, we ought to include Chatas, Asham, Olah and Shelamim, as we Darshen later in the Sugya with regard to the Pasuk "la'Hashem Elokecha", regarding the Pasuk "Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor"?

Answer: In that Sugya, since we already learn Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis from "asher Dibarta", it is logical to establish "la'Hashem Elokecha" with regard to Chata'os and Ashamos".

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, were it not for the fact that we learned Chatas and Asham from "Darosh Yidreshenu", we would have learned them from "la'Hashem", and we would not have known Erchin, Charamin and Hekdeishos.

Conclusion: Nor can we learn the latter from "Darosh Yidreshenu", which by implication, refers to something that comes for a sin.

Clarification: Which are sought after from you, since the onus of bringing them is placed on you; and Olos and Shelamim refers to the Olas Re'iyah and the Shalmei Chagigah which are obligatory ..

Clarification (cont.): Because as far as Nedarim and Nedavos are concerned, we learn them from "Ki Sidor Neder".

Question: Shalmei Chagigah and (Olos) Re'iyah have a fixed time-frame, and once Yom-Tov has passed and one hasn't brought them, one is no longer responsible to bring them ...

Question (cont.): In which case, if one brought them, and if one didn't, it doesn't matter?

Answer: Nevertheless, there where they have been designated and not brought, 'Bal Te'acher' is applicable, seeing as they did not become Pasul by not being brought on time.

Refuted Answer: Some commentaries learn Chatas from the fact that the Torah uses a Lashon of D'rishah by it, as the Torah writes in Vayikra 10 (in connection with the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh) "Darosh Dorash Moshe".

Refuted Answer (cont.): And they learn Asham, Olah and Shelamim from the Hekesh of "Zos ha'Torah" (at the end of 'ha'Todah, Menachos, Daf 82: & 83.)

Refutation: This cannot be correct however, because in that case, we ought to learn Nedarim and Nedvos, B'chor and Ma'aser too from there, seeing as they are all included in the Hekesh?

Implied Question: We cannot learn Ma'aser and B'chor from " ... ki Darosh Yidreshenu" ...

Answer: Because their obligation is not comparable to that of a Chatas and an Asham, seeing as if one does not have a B'chor or Ma'aser (ten animals), one is not obligated to bring them.

Clarification of Text: And Pesach does not belong in the text, because it is referring to Shalmei Pesach, like Rav Sheishes, from wherever we learn Shelamim, we will also learn Pesach.

Alternatively: It is possible however, to draw a distinction between them.

Chalipei Asham #1: And as for Chalipei Asham, they go to Re'iyah

Source: Based on the principle (in Nazir, Daf 25:) 'Whenever a Chatas dies, the equivalent by an Asham goes to Re'iyah'.

Chalipei Asham #2: And according to Rabeinu Tam, who explains that min ha'Din, the Asham is brought as an Olah (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), then it is brought on the Mizbe'ach.

Clarification: And 'Bal Te'acher' only applies at the end of Yom-Yov.

Clarification: Rashi explains - because the Torah writes "At the end of three years you shall take out all the Ma'aser of your produce".

Clarification (cont.): And even according to what Tosfos wrote earlier (Amud Alef DH 'u'Ma'asros') that 'Bal Te'acher applies to Ma'aser that has been separated but not yet handed over, and that "Sh'nas ha'Biy'ur" is needed for the crops that have not been separated ...

Clarification (concl.): Nevertheless, the Torah requires all of them to be destroyed.

Question #1: Throughout the Sugya, why would we even think that it ought to be Pasul, that we require a Pasuk to teach that it is not?

Question #2: And by the same token, why do we need the D'rashah that "Oso" is subject to "Lo Yeratzeh" but not someone who delays bringing his Korban?

Clarification: Since the Olah atones for Chayvei Asei, as we learned in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 7: & 8.)