Inference: This is because they were done at night.

Question #1: [Even if they were done during the day,] they should be Pasul because they were offered before the morning Tamid!

We say below (34a) that nothing may precede the morning Tamid, for it says [about the Tamid] "ha'Olah" - the first Olah.

Question #2: Also in Eruvin (2a), we say that if Shelamim was slaughtered before the doors of the Heichal were opened, it is Pasul, for it says "u'Shchato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed";

Why do we need a verse? It should be Pasul because it was slaughtered before the morning Tamid!

Since the doors of the Heichal were not opened, the Tamid was not slaughtered yet!

Implied question: "U'Shchato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" is not written regarding the Tamid! (It is an Olah. One may slaughter it before the doors are opened!)

Answer: We learn from Shelamim, that one may slaughter only when it is open;

Citation (Tamid 30b - Mishnah): He would not slaughter until he heard the great gate open.

Answer #1 (to Question #2): With difficulty, one could say that when the doors were opened and they slaughtered the Tamid, they closed the doors again. (We need a verse to disqualify in such a case.)

Answer #2 (to Question #2): We need a verse to disqualify due to Shechitah;

We cannot disqualify because it was before the Tamid. That refers only to Haktarah. This is clear from Pesachim 59a.

Further, the entire verse "v'Arach Aleha ha'Olah" refers to Haktarah.

Answer #3 (Ri): We say that nothing may precede the Tamid, i.e. l'Chatchilah. Menachos 49b explicitly says so.

Question #3: In our Sugya, why don't we disqualify because they were offered before the doors of the Heichal were opened?

Answer: This disqualifies only Shechitah, like it says "u'Shchato", but not Melikah and Kemitzah.

Deduction: Now that we say that "ha'Olah" - the first Olah is only l'Chatchilah, also "Aleha" finish all the Korbanos (nothing may be after the afternoon Tamid) is only l'Chatchilah.

Question: We say in Pesachim (73b) that if one slaughtered [Pesach] and found out that the owners withdrew from the Korban, it is [Pasul, and] burned in Beis ha'Sereifah;

Citation (73b) Rhetorical question: If you will say that it does not require Akirah (one need not explicitly say that now it is a Shelamim), why is it Pasul? It is because it was slaughtered after the afternoon Tamid.

We just said that it is merely l'Chatchilah [not to slaughter after the afternoon Tamid]!

Answer: If he offered it, it is Kosher, but it is forbidden to offer the Eimurim after the Tamid. Therefore, the meat goes to Beis ha'Sereifah.

Question: We should put the meat on the top of the Mizbe'ach, and leave it overnight [and burn it on the Mizbe'ach tomorrow]!

Answer: [The Gemara there] holds like the opinion that Linah (being left overnight) disqualifies [even] on the top of the Mizbe'ach;

Amora'im argue about this in Zevachim (87a);

Perhaps the Amora who does not require Akirah holds like this opinion.

Question: Still, why must it go to Beis ha'Sereifah? Zerikas Dam should permit the meat even without Haktarah of the Eimurim!

Since we may not burn them, we should say that we made (consider) them as if they became Tamei or were lost!

Strengthening of question: We say similarly in Pesachim (59a) according to Rebbi Yishmael B'no Shel Rebbi Yochanan Ben Beroka, who says that the entire year, a Mechusar Kipurim may immerse and bring his Kaparah (the Korban that completes his Taharah) after the Tamid and eat Kodshim at night;

Citation (59b): He leaves his Korban overnight on top of the Mizbe'ach.

Citation (cont.) Question: Until the Eimurim are burned, one may not eat the meat!...

Citation (cont.) Answer: Since we may not burn them [now], we made them as if they became Tamei or were lost.

Answer #1: Here is different. Since the owners withdrew, the Eimurim were never proper for Hakravah. Therefore, Zerikah alone does not permit the meat;

There, since it could have been offered before the Tamid, even though he waited until after the Tamid, and now he may not offer the Eimurim, we properly say that we made them as if they became Tamei or were lost.

Answer #2: There, he slaughtered and found out that the owners withdrew. Mid'Rabanan, he may not throw the blood. This is a decree lest they come to burn the Eimurim after the Tamid;

R. Yishmael the son of R. Yochanan ben Brokah does not make this decree.

Support: According to this answer, the entire Korban is Pasul because we decree not to throw the blood l'Chatchilah. This answers the Riva's question;

Question (Riva): Menachos (49b) connotes that it is only l'Chatchilah [not to offer before the morning Tamid];

Citation (Tosefta in Pesachim): All Kodshim offered before the morning Tamid or after the afternoon Tamid are Pesulim.

Answer: We can say that they are Pesulim mid'Rabanan [due to the decree].

Citation (Pesachim 63a - Mishnah - R. Shimon): All other Zevachim that were slaughtered on (when he still owned) Chametz, at the time [to offer] Pesach, whether they were Lishmah or Lo Lishmah, he is exempt [for slaughtering on Chametz].

. The Gemara (64a) explains that at the time one is liable for Zevach (Korban Pesach), one is not liable for [other] Zevachim.

Question: Why do we need this reason? We already know that he is exempt because the Zevachim are Pesulim, since he slaughtered them at the time of Pesach, which is after the afternoon Tamid!

We similarly exempt Pesach slaughtered Lishmo on Chametz during the festival, since it is a Pasul Korban.

Answer: I answered that if a Korban slaughtered before the morning Tamid or after the afternoon Tamid, Chachamim decreed to forbid Zerikah. Automatically, the Korban is Pasul. This answers the question. (R. Shimon expounds to exempt even if Zerikah was done, like the Torah permits.)

Question: However, the Tosefta connotes that b'Di'eved, even if he did Zerikah and the entire Mitzvah [of Hakravah], it is Pasul. It says "he offered them", not "he slaughtered them";

If this is only mid'Rabanan, why are they Pesulim [if Zerikah was done]?

Answer: The Tosefta says that they are Pesulim, i.e. one may not eat the meat. However, the owner received Kaparah;

We find like this in Zevachim (26b). If [the blood] was put on the ramp, or on a part of the Mizbe'ach not above the Yesod... it is Pasul;

Citation (26b - Shmuel): The meat is Pasul, but the owner received Kaparah;

Inference: It seems that we may derive that after the Tamid it is not Pasul;

Citation (Pesachim 98a - Mishnah): If a Pesach became mixed with Bechor, if the members of the Chaburah (the group that owns it) are Kohanim, they eat it.

The case is, it became mixed while it was alive, for the Gemara asked "we do not cause Kodshim to be wasted" (offer them in a way that decreases the time in which they may be eaten)!

Inference: It is not disqualified if it is offered after the Tamid. (We offer both after the Tamid, and one of them is a Bechor!)

Rejection: We can say that there, "Pesach" refers to Mosar Pesach (it had Kedushas Pesach, but was not offered for Pesach), which is a Shelamim, and he slaughters them before the afternoon Tamid.

Question: The Gemara asked "we do not cause Kodshim to be wasted!" (Both Shelamim and Bechor may be eaten for two days!)

Answer: We diminish the opportunity to eat the Mosar Pesach. Zarim may eat Mosar Pesach. The mixed animals must be eaten like [the stringency of] a Bechor, which only Kohanim may eat.

We should have [avoided Kodshim being wasted, i.e. and] said that they graze [until they get Mumim, and we redeem them and bring a Vadai Bechor and Vadai Shelamim with the money.]

Objection #1 (to rejection): "Chaburah" connotes that it is an actual Pesach, on which groups are appointed (buy shares of it).

Objection #2: We say in Pesachim (88b) that if the skins of five Pesachim became mixed, and a wart was found on one of them (that Korban was blemished), they are exempt from bringing Pesach Sheni, for there is no solution;

Citation (88b) Question: They should bring Pesach, and stipulate about Shelamim! (If we were already Yotzei, this is a Shelamim.)

Question: What was the question? Even Pesach Sheni must be brought after the [afternoon] Tamid, for it says Bein ha'Arbayim, just like Pesach Rishon! (One may not bring Shelamim after the Tamid.)

Support (for Question): This (offering it after the Tamid) is not listed among differences between Pesach Rishon and Sheni (Pesachim 95a).

If so, one cannot stipulate about a Shelamim, which is Pasul after the afternoon Tamid!

Suggestion: The Aseh of Pesach, which has Kares [for one who neglects to bring it] overrides the Aseh of Hashlamah (that the afternoon Tamid must be the last Korban of the day), like we say in Pesachim 59a.

Rejection: There is no Kares here, for everyone can say "perhaps I am from the majority, and I was already Yotzei."

Note: Rather, we must say that mid'Oraisa, a Korban offered after the afternoon Tamid is Kosher, like we inferred above, unlike the rejection.

However, even if a Korban offered aftm is not disqualified, this is difficult, for mid'Oraisa, one may not do so l'Chatchilah!

Possible answer (to Objection #2): Perhaps one may offer Pesach Sheni before the Tamid, since it does not say "ba'Erev" only Bein ha'Arbayim;

The reason one must offer Pesach Rishon aftm is because we expound "something (Pesach Rishon) about which it says ba'Erev and Bein ha'Arbayim should be later than something (the Tamid) about which it says only Bein ha'Arbayim;

Regarding Pesach Sheni, one may offer first whichever he wants.

Implied question: Why wasn't this listed among differences between Pesach Rishon and Sheni?

Answer: We can say that the Tana left over (he did not list all the differences);

He omitted also Kares. There is an opinion (Pesachim 93a) that one is Chayavei Kerisos for [not bringing Pesach] Rishon, but not for the Sheni.

(Or, we can say that he omitted also the Chiyuv of women.) There is an opinion that the Rishon is obligatory for women, but the Sheni is Reshus.

Conclusion: According to this answer, it was a proper suggestion that they bring Pesach, and stipulate!

Question: What is the source that Klei Shares are Mekadesh not in the time? The Beraisa taught only that Kemitzah was done;

Since we add to the Beraisa that the Kometz becomes Kodesh, we can add also that it was burned at night, and therefore it goes to Beis ha'Sereifah;

However, for mere Kidush of the Kometz [at night], it would not go to Beis ha'Sereifah!

Answer: If only Kemitzah and Kidush of the Kometz were done, it is very appropriate [that the Beraisa said] "not only this (Zevachim)", about which it says explicitly "b'Yom Zivchachem Ye'achel", rather, even Melikah;

And not only Melikah, which is a little like a Zevach, for both of them have blood, Rather, even if Kemitzah and Kidush of the Kometz were done at night, even though "b'Yom" was not explicitly said regarding this, it goes to Beis ha'Sereifah.

However, if we say that the Kometz was Huktar, we should have said oppositely. It is more clear that Haktaras Kometz must be during the day than Melikah;

It says "Zos ha'Torah l'Olah l'Minchah...", and it says afterwards "b'Yom Tzavoso... Lehakriv." Primarily, Hakravah refers to Hakravah.

Question against Rashi: There was no need for Rashi to explain that we discuss Kidush of the Kometz.

We can say that the Kometz was not Niskadesh, but the Minchah was Niskadesh in a Kli, and Kemitzah was done at night;

The Gemara asked that we should return the Kometz to its place, and take the Kometz again during the day!

The Gemara answered that since the Minchah was Mekudash in a Kli, it becomes Pasul at dawn, like all Kidush in a Kli.

Question: Even without Kemitzah, it should go to Beis ha'Sereifah, since it was Mekudash in a Kli!

Answer: If Kemitzah was not done, it would not go to Beis ha'Sereifah at night, until it became Pasul at dawn;

Now that Kemitzah was done at night, it goes to Beis ha'Sereifah immediately. It does not need Ibur Tzurah (becoming Pasul through Linah).

Implied question: Why didn't we say so also above? Since Kidush was not like its Mitzvah, it is as if a monkey put it in!

Answer: There, he intended to be Mekadesh. He thought that it is day, similar to our Mishnah, in which the light of the moon rose...

Here, since he intentionally did so, that he arranges not like its Mitzvah, it is as if a monkey put it in.