Explanation: The reason [why the knife pulls them] is because they come to atone for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav, which is taught in our Mishnah there, and the Beraisa taught a bigger Chidush than our Mishnah;

[The Beraisa] taught that initially it came to atone only on the the outer Mizbe'ach. [This is not the reason. Rather,) this excludes the inner goat [of Yom Kipur], for we require both - [atonement for] Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav, and the outer Mizbe'ach.

Implied question: It connotes there that if not for the decree due to before Kaparah, they would offer them themselves for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, even with leftover inner Chata'os!

Answer: That is because so was the tradition, that Mosar Chatas Tzibur is an Olah.

Alternative text: R. Chananel explains like the Aruch, and his text there says "also a Beraisa teaches so." It refers to R. Yochanan's teaching, that according to R. Shimon we offer them themselves for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, since initially it was an Olah and now it is an Olah. However, one may not use Mosar Chatas [for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach]...

Question: This is astounding! Why did it wait until the end [to bring the Beraisa to support R. Yochanan]? It should have brought it above!

Explanation: Also R. Zeira, who answered R. Yirmeyah [that the second atones for] Tum'ah that occurred between one and the other, said "if you will say [that it atones for an Aveirah after it was Hukdash, it atones for an Aveirah after Shechitah]";

He was not concerned to answer the first question "does R. Shimon hold that Lev Beis Din stipulates?", for we can say that they were separated one after the other.

He was not concerned for the question "will we establish the verse [only when they were separated one after the other?!]"

Also, R. Shimon holds that Lev Beis Din stipulates when there is no solution through Re'iyah, like is proven in Menachos (79b).

However, it is proven that when there is a solution through Re'iyah, he does not hold that Lev Beis Din stipulates. Here there is a solution through Re'iyah.

Explanation: It counts for the obligation. It is not disqualified due to Shinuy Ba'alim, for Shinuy Ba'alim applies only to Zerikah;

Rav Chisda says that it is Pasul, i.e. it does not count for the obligation, for it is Shinuy Kodesh, when he said "Ploni's Todah l'Shem a different Todah of Ploni";

However, if he said "this Todah is l'Shem Ploni", it is totally Kosher, for this is Shinuy Ba'alim in Shechitah, which is totally Kosher.

Explanation #1: It seems that they argue only about Todah, for it is written about it "Shelamav".

Explanation #2: Rashi explained that they likewise argue about other Korbanos.

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): Rava holds like Rav Chisda, for Rabah's opinion was rejected. The reason for Todah is due to "Shelamav".

Inference: The case is, he slaughtered l'Shem another's Chatas.

Rebuttal: It seems that we do not discuss this, since it did not say explicitly "his friend"!

Explanation #2: Rather, we discuss Chatas Chelev l'Shem Chatas Dam, like Rava said below (9b) that a Chatas Chelev slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Dam or l'Shem Chatas Avodah Zarah is Kosher;

[If he slaughtered it] l'Shem Chatas Nazir or l'Shem Chatas Metzora, it is Pasul. These are [like] Olos (since they do not atone for sin).

Question: Why did Rava need to teach these two teachings?

Answer: He taught this here to teach that Shinuy Kodesh is opposite to Shinuy Ba'alim, even though Rava did not explain the verses in his words;

Source: [The Gemara] said at the beginning of explaining [Rava's opinion] that Rav Yosef bar Ami asked a contradiction, and answered it. (Had Rava explained how he expounds, there was no question at all!)

This teaching below he mentioned to distinguish between Chata'os, and also due to the question afterwards that Rava asked about "if a Chatas Chelev was slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav, what is the law?"

Explanation #1: The case is, [he knows that he is obligated an Olah, and] he did not separate it yet. (His Olah will atone for everything, so it is as if he Vadai has no obligation.) If he separated it, he is like one who has no obligation, if you will say that it does not atone for an Aseh after separation. (Perhaps he transgressed after separation, but he does not know, so he will not bring an Olah for it. He is like one who is not obligated anything, and his Chatas is Pasul. However, when he did not yet separate,) presumably, he will bring an Olah and atone for everything.

Note: We explain like Rashash. Explanation #2 is even if you will say that since the Torah did not obligate him, we do not assume that one who transgressed will bring an Olah.

Explanation #2: Or, he said "it is Alai to bring an Olah." When he will separate it, he will atone for every Aseh that passed.

Alternative text: Some texts of this teaching say "Olah", for also regarding Olah, it is written "Lechaper Alav";

If the text here is "Chatas", why do we need Rava's other teaching that a Chatas is Mechaper for Isurei Aseh? We learn it from here!

Implied question: From this Kal v'Chomer we should have said that it atones greatly!

Answer: This is unreasonable (that it atone greatly), because primarily, it comes for another matter. The Kal v'Chomer helps [to atone] a little.

Observation: Even though it atones for a Aseh more than a Chatas does, for [Olah] atones greatly [for an Aseh, even so it is considered a gift].

Observation: There is Olas Yoledes, Metzora and Nazir. Each of these is only to permit the person to Kodshim (and the Mikdash), like it says in Kerisus (26a), and even so, the Chatas precedes the Olah, for the Torah did not distinguish. (Zivchei Efrayim - the text should say Chatas Yoledes, Metzora and Nazir. The Sugya in Kerisus and Rashi there support him. The Havah Amina was that their Korban is for Kaparah - PF.)

Note: The Meforshim in Kerisus explain that "Nazir" refers to a Safek Nazir Tamei. It seems that the text there should say "so that Nezirus Taharah will take effect on him", for he does not need a Korban to permit him to Kodshim! There, Birkas ha'Zevach is Magiha like this, and Be'er Sheva proves so from Kerisus 8b, Rashi and Tosfos in Shevu'os 8b, and Tosfos in Sotah 15a. Perhaps the text of our Tosfos is mistaken. Or, Tosfos gave the reason for Yoledes and Metzora, and did not elaborate to give the reason for Nazir. (In Nazir 46a, R. Eliezer says that everything [in the Parshah] is Me'akev his Heter to drink wine.) Indeed, R. Gershom's text in Kerisus says "to permit him to Kodshim", but perhaps it was "fixed" to conform to errant texts of the Gemara.

Implied question: This verse is written first. It should have established "Shamor Es Chodesh ha'Aviv" to discuss Shinuy Ba'alim, since it is not needed [for Shinuy Kodesh, which we learn from va'Amartem]!

Answer: Because ["Shamor..."] includes all the Avodos, for it is written "v'Asisa Pesach", which connote everything that is done [to offer it], therefore we establish it to discuss Shinuy Kodesh (which applies to all Avodos).

Reference: In Menachos (82a), the Mishnah expounds this to teach that an obligation must come from Chulin (and not from Ma'aser);

There in the Gemara, it brings also the Drashah of here.

Explanation: We cannot say that it is Olah, for it does not comes from all Tzon and Bakar (flock and cattle), like Rashi explained, for it cannot be a female.

Proof: Also, below there are three verses, and the verse "Im Keves" explicitly proves that it is a Shelamim.

Support: Also, we push off Kodshim Kalim (if we must say that it discusses a different Korban) to [another case of] Kodshim Kalim, and not to Kodshei Kodoshim (such as Olah), like below (9a).

Remark: The Sifri in Parshah "Aser Ta'aser" expounds all of them to discuss Shinuy Kodesh.

It says there '"V'Zavachta" teaches only about Shechitah. What is the source for other Avodos?' It discusses Shinuy Kodesh.

[It answers] 'it says "v'Asisa". Perhaps [Shinuy Kodesh applies] even to Haktarah of the Chelev! It says '"v'Zavachta".' This is not in our Sugya.

Explanation #1: [This refers to] Shinuy Kodesh in all Avodos, and Shinuy Ba'alim in Shechitah.

Implied question: "Hu" is written regarding Shechitah in Parshas Bo, and "v'Asisa" is in Parshas Re'eh! (How can "Hu" teach about Shinuy Kodesh, which is taught in a different Parshah?)

Answer: Even so, "Hu" connotes b'Havayaso, when it is done like its Mitzvah, like Rashi explained.

Consequence: This that it says "we find Shechitah. What is the source for other Avodos?" refers to Shinuy Ba'alim.

Explanation #2: We ask the source to be Me'akev both for Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim, for "Hu" refers only to Shechitah;

Since the Torah taught Shinuy Ba'alim through an expression of Shinuy Kodesh, we should establish "Hu" of Shechitah to be Me'akev both regarding Shinuy Ba'alim and Shinuy Kodesh;

Observation: The answer "since [the Torah] revealed, it revealed" is not as proper according to this Perush as according to Explanation #1.

Question: Since it is written "v"Asisa Pesach" to make Shinuy Kodesh Me'akev in all Asiyos (Avodos), the Torah should have omitted [Zevach Pesach Hu,] to teach about Shechitah, and we would learn from Shelamim!

Just like in Shelamim we do not distinguish between Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim l'Chatchilah (both are forbidden), even in Pesachim we do not distinguish [and both are] Me'akev!

Observation: Below (37b) and in Pesachim (97a), [the Gemara] expounds "Hu" of Pesach to exclude Temuras Pesach. "Hu" is written twice.

Reference: In Pesachim (62b), R. Eliezer expounds from "Hu" of Pesach that it is not Kosher l'Shem other [Korbanos], and others are not Kosher l'Shem Pesach;

This is like R. Eliezer taught elsewhere (in our Mishnah) that [Lishmah] is Me'akev in Asham, and he does not establish ["Hu" like it says here,] to teach 'in Asham, it says "Hu" only [after Haktaras Eimurim. Since the Korban is Kosher even if the Eimurim are not burned at all, all the more so if they were burned Lo Lishmah!]'

Assertion (Rashi): The text does not say this, for it is not in the Beraisa below.

Objection: This is no reason to erase [this] from Seforim! Perhaps it is a Beraisa somewhere in the Tosefta.