Implied question: Why can't we say that Chatas is Yochi'ach?

Answer: We can say that Chatas [is not Yochi'ach] because its blood is put above, and it pertains to Kares, and it comes b'Tzibur.

Implied question: This is Lamed (learned from) Lamed (something learned from another source. In Kodshim, we do not learn Lamed from Lamed!

Answer: It is not. Even though we learn Chatas from Shelamim l'Chatchilah above (8a), in any case the Ikuv is written in Chatas itself.

Citation: Minchas Nedavah is like Asham. (Tzon Kodoshim says that this begins a new Dibur. This is the Dibur ha'Maschil.)

Implied question: We learn from Asham l'Chatchilah (even though Asham is learned from Shelamim)!

Answer: (We do not.) Minchah itself is compared to Shelamim, like Asham. Rather, [we say that it is like Asham] to say that it is not like Chatas.

Explanation: It is written [regarding Chatas] "Etzba". We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah to Metzora that it is the right [thumb].

Question: It was a question below (50a) whether or not we learn a Hekesh from a Gezeirah Shavah!

Answer: If Metzora is considered Chulin, this is fine.

Question: However, this is still difficult according to the opinion that does not require that [both] the Lamed is Kodesh and the Melamed (source) is Kodesh (even if the Melamed is Chulin, he does not learn Lamed from Lamed - below, 50a)!

Question: In Menachos (2b) it connotes that the other Drashah is primary, for Abaye asks "this that intent disqualifies, it is a Hekesh"!

Explanation: At the time of Shelamim, Pesach l'Shem Shelamim is Kosher, but at the time of Pesach, Shelamim l'Shem Pesach is Pasul;

[This is difficult, for] there is a verse regarding Pesach to disqualify Lo Lishmah, and there is no verse for Shelamim!

Explanation: It is proper that other [Korbanos] are Kosher l'Shem [Chatas].

Question: Granted, [Chatas] is unlike Pesach. In any case, there is a Kal v'Chomer. If so, we should say that also [other Korbanos l'Shem Chatas] are Pasul from this Kal v'Chomer that Mosar Chatas is an Olah (even though Mosar Olah is not a Chatas), just like from the Kal v'Chomer that Mosar Pesach is a Shelamim!]

Answer: [R. Eliezer's] primary reason relies on the verse "Zevach Pesach Hu" - it will be in its state, like it says in Pesachim (62b. He does not rely on the Kal v'Chomer.)

Consequence: We must say that according to R. Yochanan, what R. Eliezer said [to R. Yehoshua] "no - if you say...", was according to R. Yehoshua's words (but R. Eliezer himself disagrees).

Alternative text: R. Tam found in an old Sefer at the beginning of this Sugya "and Rabah said, regarding others l'Shem Chatas", with a Vov (and Rabah). Rabah comes only to explain R. Yochanan's words;

R. Yochanan himself agrees that they argue about others l'Shem Chatas. He said "they said the same matter" only regarding others l'Shem Pesach.

Question: Also now that they argue about she'Lo Lishman, I can err about Ben Beseira's words, that [Pesach] is Pasul Lishmah in the morning of the 14th, and explain that his reason is because part [of the day] is proper [for Pesach]!

Answer: [The Tana] is not concerned for this, because no Tana is Machshir Pesach in the morning other than him (Ben Beseira. The Halachah does not follow him, so even if people err about his opinion, they will not rule incorrectly.)