Observation: There is a third Tana above (55a) who says "rather, what does the Hekesh come to teach? Just like Chatas is for male Kohanim [to eat], also Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur is for male Kohanim.

Implied question: Why isn't this Tana brought here?

Answer: The Sugya brought it there [in the name of Rav Mari brei d'Rav Kahana]. We do not find an explicit Beraisa [that expounds this. Chidushei Basra - also our Sugya is not a Beraisa, rather, Shmuel in the name of R. Elazar! Tosfos means that since above is not a Beraisa, it is not difficult to say that our Sugya did not know it.]

Implied question: We say in Chulin (98b) that this is needed only for Ta'am k'Ikur. In Kodshim, it is forbidden [if one can taste Isur in a mixture], and here it is permitted;

[The Gemara] asks that we should learn from it, and answers that the Torah revealed about Chatas "Kol Asher Yiga bi'Vsarah Yikdash." This implies that it is obvious that we learn other Kodshim from Chatas!

Answer: [It is obvious] due to the Hekesh here.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Chelev and two kidneys of a fetal sac in its womb are not offered.

Question #1: The Tana should have specified Chelev and the kidneys of a skin of a fetus or fetal sac, like in Chulin (75a)!

Comment - Question #2: His Perush connotes that only the Chelev and two kidneys are not Kodesh to be offered, but the children themselves are Kodesh. One cannot say so!

A Beraisa in Temurah (11a) says that if one slaughtered a Chatas and found inside a four month fetus (a Nefel), anyone may eat it, anywhere, forever;

We establish this like the opinion that [Vlados Kodshim] become Kodesh when they are born, in Temurah (25b). They themselves are Chulin in their mother's womb!

Explanation #2: We learn that it is absolute Chulin, that a skin of a fetus or fetal sac found in the womb of a Chatas after Shechitah is not Kadosh at all;

From here [we know that] he holds that Vlados Kodshim become Kodesh when they are born.

Implied question: A Beraisa in Chulin (75a) teaches that just like Chelev and the two kidneys said regarding Asham do not apply to a fetus (for Asham is a male), also all [Korbanos, Chelev and the kidneys] are not offered from a fetus!

Answer: That Tana holds that Vlados Kodshim become Kodesh in the womb. Therefore, he needs a verse to exclude Chelev and the two kidneys from being offered.

Question: According to what I explained, it is difficult why we did not learn from Olah, [un]like it is fine according to Rashi. (Tzon Kodoshim - for Hakravah, we could not learn other Korbanos from Olah, which is Kalil. According to Tosfos, we do not learn about Hakravah. We should have learned from Olah, which is earlier in the verse!)

Reference: Above (28b), there is a Tana who expounds this from "Im He'achel Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav" - just like Shelamim makes Pigul and becomes Pigul..."

Also above (44a, the Gemara) expounds this from that verse. Just like Shelamim has Matirim (something that permits it) to people and the Mizbe'ach (Zerikah Dam permits the meat to people and the Eimurim to the Mizbe'ach), it makes Pigul and becomes Pigul;

Explanation #1: Rashi explained that it is Mefagel Nesachim if he intended for the Zevach.

Remark (and Explanation #2): There was no need to give this difficult explanation. He could have said that it is Mefagel the meat, and the meat itself becomes Pigul!

Observation: He expounds two laws from "Chatas", for he already expounded "just like Chatas forbids through absorption..."

Implied question: Here we give two answers, but in Menachos (83a) we answer only that it was taught needlessly, and in Chulin (22a) we answer only that "Kehunah" needs also "Etzba" (to teach that the right hand is required)!

Answer: According to the opinion above (50a) that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah does not return to teach through a Hekesh, we must say here and in Menachos (83a) that it was taught needlessly;

This is because Etzba of Chatas itself we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah from Metzora that it is the right finger, above (24b) and in Menachos (10a). If so, we cannot learn other Korbanos from a Hekesh to Chatas. (The Sugya in Menachos 83a holds like this. The Sugya in Chulin holds that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Hekesh. Our Sugya gives two answers, one for each opinion.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): One may make Kelim from [bones of Asham]. I heard that this is obvious to [R. Akiva] that bones of Asham are permitted, for Kohanim eat it, and Nosar does not apply to bones, only to something eaten. The same applies to all [Korbanos], and even Olah.

Question: He could have learned also from Chatas (for Kohanim eat it)!

Explanation #2 (Rashi himself): He learns from an extra "Lo Yihyeh" regarding Asham, for it is written "la'Kohen Asher Yechaper Bo Lo Yihyeh."

Question #1: According to Rashi's Rebbeyim (Explanation #1), presumably, [R. Akiva] knew that bones of all Korbanos that are eaten are permitted. He needed the Hekesh only to permit bones of Olah;

He could have learned from Shelamim, or other Kodshim that are eaten. Why was Asham written?

Question #2: Above (86a, R. Yochanan) expounds from a Gezeirah Shavah. It says about Asham "Lo Yihyeh", and it says about Olah "Lo Yihyeh", and it says that it is Mufneh (these words are extra regarding Olah). Just like bones of Asham are permitted, also of Olah;

He should know this already from the Hekesh here! Why does he need the Gezeirah Shavah? The Hekesh here is needed only to teach about Olah!'

Answer: Since the other Korbanos, each is needed for its law [to teach to all Kodshim], like it explains here, we would not learn from them something else that is not needed for all Kodshim, rather, only for Olah. (Panim Me'iros - this answers the first question. Chidushei Basra - it answers [also] the second. If not for the Gezeirah Shavah, we would not expound to teach about bones, which is needed only for Olah. (Perhaps we would rather expound to teach about Shefir and Shilya, which apply to all Korbanos that can be females - PF.))

Support: We explained like this above (97b DH Mah Minchah) regarding Minchah, from which we learn [that] male Kohanim [eat it], and we do not learn from Chatas and Asham (since we can expound from them laws that apply to all Zevachim).

Consequence: According to Explanation #1, this Tana argues with the Drashah of Shefir and Shilya above;

And [R. Yochanan] who expounds above (86a) that its bones are permitted from Lo Yihyeh, he holds that the Hekesh of Asham teaches about Shefir and Shilya.

And according to Rashi, who says that according to letter of the law, bones of all Kodshim are forbidden, for the Torah permitted only meat proper to be eaten;

The Torah revealed about Asham "Lo Yihyeh", which connotes Heter. We similarly learn Heter in all Kodshim through this.

Comment - Question: In that verse, Chatas and Asham are written, in Parshas Tzav - "ka'Chatas ka'Asham Torah Achas Lahem la'Kohen Asher Yechaper Bo Lo Yihyeh." Why does it mention Asham [more than Chatas]?

Answer #1: The Parshah primarily discusses Asham.

Answer #2: It is written Lo Yihyeh, in the singular. Perhaps it refers only to Asham, which is the last matter mentioned.

Implied question: We expounded above (86a) it says "Lo Yihyeh" regarding Olah - "Ohr ha'Olah Asher Hikriv la'Kohen Lo Yihyeh", and it says Lo Yihyeh regarding Asham. Just like the bones of Asham are permitted, also bones of Olah are permitted, and it says there that [the Gezeirah Shavah] is Mufneh;

Why do we need "Lo Yihyeh" regarding Olah? I should know this already from the Hekesh to Asham in our Sugya!

Answer: We learn from the Hekesh only Korbanos that are eaten.

Question: Still, it is difficult. If we expound from the connotation of Lo Yihyeh of Asham that its bones are permitted, and we learn other Korbanos from it, i.e. Shelamim, Chatas and Todah - also regarding Olah it is written Lo Yihyeh. Why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah above (86a) to learn from Asham?

Answer: Lo Yihyeh of Olah refers to the skin, and does not permit the bones. The verse says "Ohr ha'Olah Lo Yihyeh."

Therefore, we do not expound from the connotation of Lo Yihyeh, rather, because it is extra.

Remark: There, Rashi explained that Asham is more obvious than Olah because even its meat is permitted;

Implied question: It should be forbidden due to Nosar, which must be burned!

Answer: Nosar applies to only to something eaten, like it says "veha'Nosar mi'Besar ha'Zevach." If so, we need to learn only Olah, which is Kalil. This is like he explained here in the name of his Rebbeyim.

Comment - Support: In Pesachim (83a) it is explicitly proven like Rashi said, that Nosar does not apply to bones.

Explanation #3: In Menachos (83a), Rashi explained that Asham is more obvious than other Korbanos that are eaten because regarding Asham it says "Hu" after Haktaras Eimurim, which connotes that it is an Asham, and its bones are not an Asham.

Question #1: Why do we need two verses for bones -"Hu", and "Lo Yihyeh" above (86a)?

Question #2: We expounded "Hu" of Asham (5b) for an Asham that [cannot be offered, so it] was Nitak l'Re'iyah (left to graze until it gets a Mum)!

Answer (to Question #2): There are two verses "Hu" regarding Asham in Parshas Vayikra. This is from R. Baruch.

Inference: Here it connotes that a Mechusar Kipurim who brought his Kaparah still needs Tevilah and Ha'arev Shemesh (to wait until night before he may eat Kodshim).

Support #1: It connotes like this also in Eruvin (32a). It brings a Beraisa "a woman who had on her [a Chiyuv to bring a Korban for] a birth or Zivah, she brings coins and puts them in the box [for Kinei Chovah; Kohanim buy birds with the coins and offer them], and she immerses and eats Kodshim at night."

Support #2: Also in Pesachim (59a) we say "also a Mechusar Kipurim the rest of the year, he immerses and eats Kodshim at night."

Question #1: A Mishnah in Chagigah (21a), and it is brought in our Sugya (99a), teaches that an Onen and Mechusar Kipurim need [only] Tevilah for Kodesh!

Question #2: Also our Sugya in the Gemara connotes that only Tevilah is needed, for it brings [the Mishnah] of Mechusar Kipurim in Chagigah, and asks afterwards "a [person who was] Tamei [due to a] Sheretz is properly Tamei. He needs Ha'arev Shemesh (before he may eat Kodshim)!"

Inference: Until now, we did not discuss Ha'arev Shemesh at all!

Question #3: We say in Pesachim (90b) that we slaughter and do Zerikah [of Korban Pesach] for a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim, but we do not slaughter and do Zerikah [of Korban Pesach] for a Tamei Sheretz;

Citation (90b) Question: Why is a Tevul Yom different - because he is proper [to eat] at night? Also a Tamei Sheretz is proper at night!

Citation (cont.) Answer: A Tamei Sheretz is lacking Tevilah. We are concerned lest he be negligent (not immerse). We are not concerned for a Mechusar Kipurim, when he gave his Ken to Beis Din, and like Rav Shemayah taught, that the Beis Din of Kohanim are not lazy (surely they will offer it today).

Question: [Also] a Mechusar Kipurim needs Tevilah. We should be concerned lest he be negligent (not immerse)!

Answer: Rather, surely a Tamei Sheretz needs Ha'arev Shemesh, so there is concern lest he be negligent and not immerse until night.

Summation of question: [Mechusar Kipurim] does not need Ha'arev Shemesh. What concern is there? Even at night he can immerse and eat!

Question #4: We say in Beitzah (18a) that a Kli that became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah, one may not immerse it on Yom Tov. [If it became Tamei] through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah (it is Tamei only mid'Rabanan), one may immerse it on Yom Tov;

If a Tevilah mid'Rabanan requires Ha'arev Shemesh, if so he cannot use it today until night, and he immerses it for use on a weekday! (One may toil on Yom Tov only for needs of the day.)

Question #5: A Mishnah in Parah (11:5) teaches that any [person or Kli] who (or that) needs Tevilah mid'Rabanan, is Metamei Kodesh (makes it a Shelishi, so it can disqualify other Kodesh) and disqualifies Terumah, and is permitted Chulin and Ma'aser [Sheni]. After Tevilah, he (or it) is permitted all of them!

Question #6: We say explicitly in the Yerushalmi in Terumos that if a bucket fell into a pit, or his clothes fell into a pit, he may scheme about them and immerse them;

Citation (Yerushalmi): Two Amora'im [argue about this]. One says that this is [even] for an Av ha'Tum'ah, and one says that this is for a Vlad ha'Tum'ah

The one who says that this is for a Vlad ha'Tum'ah challenged the one who says that it is for an Av ha'Tum'ah - "[does he immerse] even [for the sake of] a weekday? It needs Ha'arev Shemesh!", and [the other] answers "this is when he wants to use [the same day] for Chulin in Taharah;

Inference: This explicitly connotes that the one who says for a Vlad ha'Tum'ah, it is fine that it does not need Ha'arev Shemesh!

Observation: The Yerushalmi in Beitzah says oppositely! The one who says that this is for an Av ha'Tum'ah challenged the one who says that it is for a Vlad ha'Tum'ah. That text is mistaken, and the text in Terumos is primary.

Answer: Our Mishnah teaches "at night", not due to Mechusar Kipurim, rather, due to Tevul Yom;

And in Eruvin (32a) it mentioned "at night", not due to Ha'arev Shemesh, for if she knows that her Ken was offered, she may immerse and eat Kodshim immediately;

Rather, there it is due to the Chazakah that Beis Din of Kohanim do not leave until they offer [birds for] all the coins in the box. Due to this, she cannot eat the entire day (the Chazakah is only that they will offer them all before night).

Suggestion: From the time they begin to offer the afternoon Tamid she should be able to immerse and eat! (No Korbanos should be offered after the afternoon Tamid.)

Rejection: Birds (Chatas ha'Of) may be offered after the Tamid, since the Mizbe'ach gets only their blood, like it says in Pesachim (59a);

Also regarding an animal, we say there that he [throws the blood, and] brings up [the Eimurim] and leaves them overnight [on the Mizbe'ach, for Linah does not disqualify there. Likewise, even Olas ha'Of could be offered after the Tamid in this way.]

Implied question: Why does it say in Pesachim (90b) that the rest of the year, a Mechusar Kipurim immerses and eats Kodshim at night?

Answer: Since it taught there regarding Pesach that he immerses and eats his Pesach at night, for Pesach is eaten only at night, it mentioned also [regarding the rest of the year] at night.

Implied question: We say in Pesachim (70a) that if a knife was found on the 14th (Erev Pesach), he may slaughter [Pesach] with it immediately. If it was found on the 13th, he is Shoneh (sprinkles on it with Mei Chatas the second time. I.e. he is concerned lest the owner sprinkled the first time four days ago, and intended to sprinkle again today) and immerses it;