Rashi's opinion: This is brought also in Zevachim (14a). There, Rashi said that "Shikor" is one who drank wine.

Question (R. Chaim Kohen): In Bechoros (45b), a Mishnah says that a Cheresh (deafmute), lunatic or Shikor disqualify people (Kohanim), but are Kosher regarding animals;

Citation (45b) Question: A Shikor is Mechalel Avodah (what he offered is Pasul). He should be listed among [absolute] Mumim [that are Mechalel Avodah]!

The Gemara establishes it to discuss someone drunk from other things [than wine] that intoxicate, unlike R. Yehudah, who says that one is Chayav Misah even for other intoxicants.

Opinion #2 (R. Chaim Kohen): Rather, also here we discuss other intoxicants.

Rejection (Ritzva): That Gemara shows that Rashi's opinion is primary!

The Stam Gemara asked that a Shikor is Mechalel Avodah. This shows that a Stam Shikor refers to one who drank wine!

There, the Gemara asked that he should be listed with Mumim. Therefore, we establish it to discuss other intoxicants;

Here, it is listed among those that are Mechalel Avodah. We establish it to discuss one who drank wine, like a Stam Shikor everywhere!

Question: We already asked like this above regarding what is between the fingers!

Answer: He asks "if you will say that...";

If you will say that between the fingers is invalid, because it is not "v'Lakach v'Hevi", since it is not due to man's doing, what is the law here?

Do we say that even though he did not take a double handful, since it comes from a man's action, it is fine, and it is called v'Lakach, i.e. someone took...

He puts in Chafnav of the Kohen Gadol, and he (the Kohen Gadol) brings it in, and this is called "Chafnav v'Hevi"?

Or, perhaps v'Lakach v'Hevi obligates that the one who took must bring!

Question: If it is obligatory to take Chafnav twice, once outside and once inside, how can another enter with Chafinah of the first? We do not have a Kohen who did Chafinah twice!

Answer: We ask whether he may take Chafnav twice because the Torah did not give a limit, and he may do so as often as he wants, as long as he does not take too little or too much;

Therefore, Chachamim enacted that he take Chafnav again inside, lest some scattered on the way in, and a little is missing;

If so, if he took Chafnav and put into the Kaf and died outside, his colleague (replacement) takes Chafnav a second time, puts it into the Kaf and enters;

This is called "Melo Chafnav v'Hevi", for there is only one bringing.

Or, perhaps he may not take Chafnav twice, because the Torah said [to take] Melo Chafnav once, and not twice, if so, his colleague may not enter with Chafinah of the first.

Question (Ri): In Menachos (11a), we say that [Kemitzah of] Minchas Ma'afe, Machavas and Marcheshes (baked in an oven, or cooked in a shallow or deep pan) is the hardest Avodah in the Mikdash. In Menachos (54a), we say that there is no harder Kemitzah than Minchas Chotei (which is raw flour)!

Answer: The three [Avodos] we mention here are difficult, i.e. painful, for the Kohen;

In Melikah, he must cut the neckbone with his fingernail;

Also Kemitzah of Minchas Ma'afe is painful, to even (i.e. break) off the excess sticking out, with his thumb above and his pinky below. He must [break off and] even out a hard matter;

Also Chafinah is difficult, like the Gemara explains. He takes the spoon with his teeth. Also, we explain below that he must be very careful not to get burned from the heat of the coals;

Regarding Minchas Chotei, we do not say that there is no harder (more painful) Avodah than Minchas Chotei, just it is difficult to do Kemitzah;

Since it is not kneaded (there is no oil), he cannot even it off at the time of Kemitzah, but there is no pain.

Citation (Bava Kama 77b - Rava): This is a Binyan Av. Whenever it says Seh, this is to exclude Kil'ayim.

Explanation: This [Binyan Av] is learned from the Seh of Pesach, like we say here that we learn from it Seh of [Pidyon] Peter Chamor.

In Bava Kama we conclude that we need Rava's Binyan Av for Peter Chamor, like the Mishnah teaches that one may not redeem with a calf...

Question #1 (against Rashi): This is unlike Rashi explained in Chulin 78b, that Rava's Binyan Av is learned from "Seh Kevasim v'Seh Izim" - the mother and father must both be sheep, or both goats.

Question #2 (against Rashi) Citation (Bava Kama 77b) Question: R. Elazar is Machshir Kil'ayim because it is a Seh. What does he learn from Rava's Binyan Av?

Citation (cont.) Answer: It teaches about a Tamei species born to a Tahor mother, which became pregnant from a Tamei species. This is unlike R. Yehoshua;

Citation (cont.): R. Yehoshua learns from "Seh Kevasim v'Seh Izim."

Inference: Rava's Binyan Av is not from "Seh Kevasim v'Seh Izim"!

Answer: Rather, he learns from Seh of Pesach, like I explained.

Question #1: Rava calls it a Binyan Av, and Ben Bag Bag (Bechoros 12a) calls it a Gezeirah Shavah!

Citation (12a) Ben Bag Bag: It says here [regarding Pidyon Peter Chamor] "Seh" and it says below [regarding Pesach] "Seh". Just like below, we exclude all of these names [in the Mishnah, e.g. a calf, Chayah..., also for Pidyon Peter Chamor].

Question #2: Why does Rava exclude Kil'ayim, rather than [other Pesulim that the Mishnah excludes, e.g.] Terefah, slaughtered...?

Question #3: Regarding Oso v'Es Beno it says "Seh". This should exclude Terefah, just like we would have excluded Kil'ayim, had it not written "Oh Seh" to include Kil'ayim, like it says in Chulin and Bava Kama;

Why does a Mishnah say that Oso v'Es Beno applies to Terefah?

Even R. Shimon exempts for Terefah only because [he holds that] an improper Shechitah (it does not permit the meat) is not considered Shechitah;

He does not exempt from the connotation of Seh, not for Oso v'Es Beno and not for payment of four or five [for Shechitah or sale of a stolen animal]!

Question #3A: Also, why does R. Yochanan obligate payment of four or five for sale of a stolen Terefah?

Question #4: R. Elazar permits redeeming [Peter Chamor] with Kil'ayim, and he establishes Rava's Binyan Av for a Tamei born to a Tahor. What is his source to forbid redeeming with a slaughtered or Terefah Seh?

Question #5: In Bava Kama, we ask what R. Elazar learns from Rava's Binyan Av. We should say that he needs to exclude Shechutah and Terefah!

Suggestion: We exclude these without the Binyan Av, from the connotation of Seh.

Rejection: Also these are called Seh. In our Sugya, we say that a slaughtered Par is called a Par!

Answer: Rava's Binyan Av and the Gezeirah Shavah are not the same;

Just, both of them are learned from Pesach, regarding which it says "Seh Tamim Zachar Ben Shanah Yihyeh Lachem Min ha'Kevasim u'Min ha'Izim Tikachu"!

Rava's Binyan Av is from the extra words Min ha'Kevasim u'Min ha'Izim, which connote that the father and mother are both sheep [or both goats];

It is unreasonable to exclude Kil'ayim from the Gezeirah Shavah. We would permit it like R. Elazar, if not for the Binyan Av, for it is a Seh;

We would include it from the inclusion "Tifdeh Tifdeh."

Implied question: Terefah and Shechutah are called Seh, but we do not include them!

Answer: It is more reasonable to include Kil'ayim.

However, from the Binyan Av "Min ha'Kevasim" we properly exclude it. It is not needed to teach about Pesach itself, for it is in the category of Kodshim, for which we exclude Kil'ayim from "Shor Oh Chesev Oh Ez";

Implied question: The verse Min ha'Kevasim was said in Mitzrayim, and Kodshim were not yet taught!

Answer: In any case, after Kodshim were written, the verse was not needed.

Rather, it is a Binyan Av. It says Seh, and it says Min ha'Kevasim. Whenever it says Seh, it always excludes Kil'ayim.

Question: Why does it say Tamim in the verse? I can learn this from other Kodshim!

Answer: We need this, like we expound in Zevachim (25b);

Citation: If one nicked the ear of a Korban and then did Kabalah, it is Pasul, due to "v'Lakach... mi'Dam ha'Par" - the bull that was (it must be intact).

Citation (cont.) Question: The verse discusses Kodshei Kodoshim. What is the source for Kodshim Kalim?

Citation (cont.) Answer: "Samim Zachar Ben Shanah Yihyeh Lachem" - all its existence (up to and including Zerikah) must be Tam (unblemished) and (at most) one year old.

Implied question - Citation (cont.) Question: "All Zevachim from which a k'Zayis of Chelev remains, we throw the blood" implies that it need not be whole at the time of Zerikah!

Citation (cont.) Answer: [The above Drashah, "Samim Zachar..."] teaches only that it must be Ben Shanah [at the time of Zerikah]. (I.e. there is no source to disqualify a Mum before Kabalah!)

Answer: Granted, all its existence (through Zerikah) need not be Tam, but Kabalah must be. We learn what is unspecified from what is explicit;

The Torah revealed that the Par must be Tam at the time of Kabalah.

Support #1 (for answer (j), that Rava's Binyan Av and the Gezeirah Shavah are not the same): This is good for R. Elazar. Even though he permits Kil'ayim, and does not apply the Binyan Av to Peter Chamor, he forbids the others through a Gezeirah Shavah.

Implied question: We say there 'it says here [regarding Peter Chamor] "Seh" and it says below [regarding Pesach] "Seh". Just like below, we exclude all of these names...' (One of them is Kil'ayim!)

Answer: "All of them" is not precise. We do not exclude Kil'ayim due to the Gezeirah Shavah, rather, due to the Binyan Av;

He merely wanted to include all of them together (i.e. teach that all are excluded).

Support: We do not exclude a calf and a Chayah due to the Gezeirah Shavah, rather, from the meaning of "Seh".

Support #2 (for answer (j)): This explains why Oso v'Es Beno applies to a Terefah, and also payment of four or five. The Binyan Av is only regarding Kil'ayim.

Question: In any case, we should learn [to exclude Terefah] from the Gezeirah Shavah Seh-Seh, like we learn Pidyon Peter Chamor!

Answer: The word Seh regarding them (Oso v'Es Beno, and four or five) is not extra for the Gezeirah Shavah.

Question - Citation (Bava Kama 78a) Question: Why do we need Rava's Binyan Av? If it is [to forbid Kil'ayim] for Kodshim, the Torah explicitly wrote [to forbid this]!

Inference: Had it (the Pesul of Kil'ayim) not been written regarding Kodshim, rather, we learned from the Binyan Av, this would be fine.

Summation of Tosfos' question: Why would this be fine? If they were not written regarding Kodshim, Min ha'Kevasim u'Min ha'Izim would not be extra. We would need it to exclude Kil'ayim for [Korban Pesach] itself!

Answer (R. Yitzchak): The Gemara is wont to ask like this, based on what Rava did not explain his Binyan Av.

It asks as follows. If it (the Binyan Av) is for Kodshim, and we will say that "Min ha'Kevasim u'Min ha'Izim" is extra, [for we know that Kil'ayim is Pasul for Pesach] without learning from Kodshim, rather, from another verse...

Even if you will say so, there is a problem, for it (Kil'ayim) is explicitly forbidden [regarding Kodshim. We learn from "Shor Oh Kesev."]

Support: We find like this in Kesuvos (46b) and Kidushin (3b);

Citation - Question: What is the source that the father receives money given to be Mekadesh his daughter? If you will learn from Boshes and Pegam (money paid for rape or enticement of a virgin Na'arah)...

Implied question: We learn that the father receives Boshes and Pegam (Kesuvos 40b) only from [the fact that he receives] Kidushin money, and if he wanted he could marry her off to a repulsive man or leper! (How can we suggest learning Kidushin from Boshes and Pegam?)

Answer: Rather, the Gemara asked l'Ravcha (more than was necessary). Even if you will say that we learn that the father receives Boshes and Pegam from another verse, we cannot learn that he receives Kidushin money from there, for Boshes and Pegam are different, for they pertain to him (he is embarrassed by the episode).

Retraction of support: However, there are many explanations there (e.g. Tosfos Kidushin 3b DH v'Chidush explains that the question was not l'Ravcha.) It is not proper to elaborate here.

Question: What was difficult (Tosfos' question (s) above)\\B from Bava Kama? Even if Min ha'Kevasim were extra only because we learn from Kodshim, the Gemara's question was proper!

If [the Binyan Av disqualifies Kil'ayim] for Kodshim, had this not been written explicitly regarding Kodshim, we would have said that granted, we need Min ha'Kevasim for [Korban Pesach] itself, we would properly learn Kodshim from it (even without the Binyan Av);

We learn [all] Kodshim from [any particular] Korban from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah la'Olah..."! (This question is not answered.)

Note: The verse Tosfos cites discusses only Kodshei Kodoshim. Perhaps "v'Gomer" refers also to the next verse, which teaches about Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach.

Question: What was the question in Bechoros 12a "according to Rabanan who forbid Kil'ayim, may one redeem with Nidmeh (a child that does not resemble its mother)"?

We exclude Kil'ayim not from the Gezeirah Shavah, rather, from the Binyan Av. If so, what is the source to exclude Nidmeh?

Answer: Since it would have been reasonable to include Kil'ayim from Pado Sifdeh, and the Binyan Av comes to exclude it, now we should exclude Nidmeh from the Gezeirah Shavah, and say that the Gezeirah Shavah is absolute, and not include Nidmeh from Pado Sifdeh.