Explanation: [Shmuel] holds like the Tana who says in Menachos (17a) that according to R. Eliezer, there is Kares (for intent Chutz li'Zmano to eat something proper for the Mizbe'ach, or to burn on the Mizbe'ach something proper for people);

He argues with R. Yirmeyah, who establishes below (31b) the Seifa like R. Eliezer, lest it be difficult that the Reisha and Seifa are like R. Eliezer, and the middle clause like Rabanan.

Question: According to R. Eliezer, why do we discuss [intent to eat] skin of the tail? [The same applies] even to the tail!

Suggestion: It is to teach that skin of the tail is like meat.

Rejection: [Another] Mishnah teaches this! "Skin of the following is like their meat", like it asks below!

Answer: Since it primary comes to teach like R. Eliezer, we should not be concerned if in passing it teaches about skin of the tail, even though [another] Mishnah teaches this.

Support: We find in Brachos (2a) that it asks "[the Tana] should teach 'Tzeis ha'Kochavim'!" (Why did he say 'when Kohanim eat Terumah'?) It answers that in passing, he teaches that (for a Mechusar Kipurim, bringing) Kaparah is not Me'akev [eating Terumah], even though [another] Mishnah teaches this in Nega'im (14:3) "after Ha'arev Shemesh, he may eat Terumah. After he brings his Kaparah, he may eat Kodshim."

Question #1 (Ri of Orlins): [Our Mishnah] teaches very much!

In Chulin (122b), we say "do not anger me. I learn that an individual taught [the Mishnah]" regarding the skin of the head of a young calf, for Rabanan argue, because in the end it will get hard. [Our Mishnah teaches that] all agree that skin of the tail is like meat!

Question #2: How did [R. Yochanan, in Chulin 122b] infer from "skin of the head" that an individual taught [the Mishnah], from the Beraisa of Eliezer ben Yehudah?

[That Beraisa] lists skin of the tail, and it is obvious to us that all agree that it is like meat, since [the Gemara] asks "[another] Mishnah teaches this!" (Just like Eliezer taught this, even though all agree to it, perhaps all agree also about skin of the head, which he taught! Tosfos equates skin of the tail taught here to skin under the tail taught there. Alternatively, his text was the same in both places.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): ["Everything that Chachamim listed"] includes only skin of Beis ha'Boshes (a female's Ervah) for Kodshim, from everything taught there.

Question: There is also skin of a fetus, and Rashi explained in Chulin (56a) that it does not list a fetus because it does not apply to an Olah. This is astounding! It lists skin of Beis ha'Boshes for Kodshim, which does not apply to Olah!

Explanation #2: It did not list a fetus because it says below (35a) that if one was Mefagel in the fetus, he was not Mefagel the Zevach (mother);

It says to include only something that totally does not apply even to Shelamim [in addition to Olah]. Because the Beraisa discusses an Olah, it did not teach explicitly skin of Beis ha'Boshes, and said "to include."

Question: The Tosefta teaches Zevach! (It is unlike Rav Huna.)

Answer: Rav Huna establishes it like R. Eliezer, who says that intent for a person [to eat] what the Mizbe'ach should consume takes effect.

Implied question: Why don't we challenge [also] Shmuel why it taught Olah, and not Zevach?

Answer: Had it taught Zevach, we would establish it like R. Eliezer.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If you establish [the short verse] regarding Nosar, we can properly learn [Chutz li'Zmano] from it through a Gezeirah Shavah, for they resemble each other in these two matters;

Both of them are disqualified through time - [Nosar] truly through time, and [Chutz li'Zmano] through intent about [eating or Hakravah at an improper] time, and both of them apply to a Bamah, like it teaches below (113a).

Implied question: You can ask that we should learn [Chutz li'Zmano] "Avon-Avon" from eating Tamei [Kodesh] meat, that it is written "v'Nasa Aharon Es Avon ha'Kodoshim" - just like there it is a Lav without Kares, also here it is a Lav without Kares!

Answer: We should learn from Nosar, which resembles [Chutz li'Zmano] regarding ZaV (an acronym for Zman (time) and Bamah);

However, if you establish this Kares for Chutz li'Mkomo, when you learn Chutz li'Zmano from it through a Gezeirah Shavah, and you challenge that we should learn "Avon-Avon" from Tum'ah (eating Tamei meat)...

We cannot answer that we should learn [Chutz li'Zmano] from Chutz li'Mkomo, for it resembles it regarding ZaV, for its (Chutz li'Mkomo's) Pesul is not through time, and it does not apply on an individual's Bamah, for there are no Mechitzos there!

Objection #1: This Perush is greatly astounding! What is the logic? Why should we establish the verse to discuss Nosar, in order to learn from it Chutz li'Zmano through "Avon-Avon", and we will not learn from Tum'ah?!

Objection #2: Regarding a Bamah, also Nosar is the same as Tum'ah of meat, like we say below (113a) "but time, Nosar and Tamei are the same on both of them."

Also a Tamei who served, we cannot say [that it is different regarding a Bamah], like it says above (16a) "you cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah [of a Tamei and a Ba'al Mum], for they were not permitted on a Bamah."

Objection #3: When [the Gemara] asks "just the contrary, we should establish it to discuss Chutz li'Mkomo... which resembles [Chutz li'Zmano] regarding MiKDaSH", even without the resemblance of MiKDaSH, we should learn from Chutz li'Zmano from Chutz li'Mkomo more than from Tum'ah, like we say below (45b), due to Hutar, Tzitz, Tahor and b'Karev:

Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo were not Hutru mi'Chlalam (these Isurim are never permitted). The Tzitz is not Meratzeh for them. Both of them are Tehorim, and we do not make the Karev (what is offered) like the Makriv (the one who offers it). These do not apply to Tum'ah;

This that Chutz li'Mkomo is totally permitted on a Bamah is not called Hutar mi'Chlalo (because the Isur does not apply there).

Explanation #2: Therefore, we should explain that this Gezeirah Shavah was given at Sinai to learn from "Avon-Avon" between these two verses;

Therefore, it is more reasonable for us to establish it to discuss Nosar than Chutz li'Mkomo, because it resembles Chutz li'Zmano regarding ZaV;

We should establish the verse for a matter so that what we learn from each other through the Gezeirah Shavah will resemble each other, and not so that we not learn from Tum'ah, like Rashi explained.

[The Gemara] asks "just the contrary! Chutz li'Mkomo resembles [Chutz li'Zmano] regarding MiKDaSH."

Support: The Sugya above (17a) is like this. One who disqualifies Terumah disqualifies Avodah, and one who does not disqualify Terumah does not disqualify Avodah.

We establish the verse [to discuss] what resembles more [what we will learn from] the Gezeirah Shavah.

Question: We should say that there is Kares for Tum'as Basar through the Gezeirah Shavah "Avon-Avon"!

Answer: The verse excludes it from Kares, like it says below (43b) "v'Tum'aso Alav" - one whose Tum'ah can leave him [through Tevilah]. This excludes Tum'as Basar, which does not leave it.

Question: The verse says "Shelishi", and we establish it to discuss Chutz li'Mkomo through Im Eino Inyan (if it need not teach) about Chutz li'Zmano, we establish it for Chutz li'Mkomo;

If so, the first verse, i.e. the long verse, we should establish for Chutz li'Zmano!

Poor answer: It is difficult to say that the Makshan holds that the Torah is not in order (we cannot say that one verse is before another).

Question: Below (98a) and in Menachos (83a) we learn this from the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah!

Strengthening of question: We expound several Drashos from that Hekesh, even though we learn from other verses.