Explanation #1: Throughout the Sugya, Rashi explains that he now calls it a name (of Hekdesh).

Explanation #2: Furthermore, he explains that when the Gemara says 'because he did not donate the way one generally donates', it means that when the animal was alive he did not declare it a Pesach ...

Explanation #1 cont.): And even if he did, this is not the way people generally donate.

Question #1: The Gemara says it is akin to eating Kodshim outside the Beis-ha'Mikdash. But surely this is forbidden inside the Beis-ha'Mikdash too, seeing as it only becomes Kadosh for its value; in which case it ought to have said that it is similar to Me'ilah by Kodshim (See Maharsha).

Question #2: Moreover, in the case of a whole kid-goat, according to Rebbi Shimon, granted one does not suspect him of having been Makdish it now, since that is not the way of people who donate to be Makdish like this,

Question #2 (cont.): Nevertheless, why is it not forbidden to do so, in case people will say that he declared it Hekdesh in its lifetime, since the fact that, ultimately, he prepared a whole kid-goat, indicates that he did.

Proof: In fact, this must be the reason, since the Gemata concludes that there is no difference as to whether he declared it Hekdesh or not.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that because he now declares that this meat is for a Korban Pesach, people think that he designated it in its lifetime.

(Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, holds that even if he designated it in its lifetime, in order to Shecht outside, it is not Hekdesh, since he did not donate in the way that people generally donate ...

Proof: As is evident in the Tosefta in the last Perek in Menachos, where Rebbi Shimon rules that if somebody undertakes to bring an Olah on condition that he will bring it in Beis Chonav, it is not an Olah.

Proof (cont.): And here too, it is like being Makdish in order to bring it outside, in which case it is not Kadosh.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara did not cite tha Gemara here, but rather cited the case of the Minchah ...

Answer: Is because it specifically mentions that 'he did not donate in the way that people generally do!'

Implied Question: Even though according to Rebbi Yossi both statements take effect?

Answer: That is because he made two statements, where the one is not connected to the other; whereas in Rebbi Shimon's case 'from barley' is the explanation of his initial statement 'Harei alai Minchah!'

Answer (cont.): And since one also takes into account a person's final words, it negates his initial statement 'Harei alai Minchah!'

Clarification: Even if he says 'Had I known that one does not make a Neder like that, I would not have made the Neder like that, only like this!' ...

Clarification: Which in fact, is the reason of the Rabbanan, who take on the first Lashon,

Conclusion: And who hold that it is not a Neder with an automatic Pesach, when he states 'Had I known ... I would not have made the Neder like that', as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Menachos and ve'ha'Nesachim' (Menachos 103.)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'What did they see, that they did not Darshen "ve'Chai bahem", 've'Lo she'Yamus bahen'.

Question: This is difficult however, seeing as this took place in public (be'Farhesya); and the Gemara in Sanhedrin (74.) concludes that, according to all opinions, be'Farhesya, one is obligated to give up one's life, even on a 'small' Mitzvah?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the Image that Nevuchadnetzar made was not Avodah-Zarah at all, but a bust that had made in his own honor. And that is why the Gemara asks 'What did they see?'

Support: And so it seems based on the Pasuk (in Daniel) "To your god we will not pray and to your golden image we will not prostrate ourselves"; implying that Nevuchadnetzar's god and the image were two different things.

Clarification: It also explains what the Gemara says in 'Eilu Na'aros' (Kesuvos 33:) 'Had they lashed Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah, they would have worshipped the image!' Now had it been an Avodah Zarah, Chas ve'Shalom that they should do such a thing!

Question: The Lashon 'worshipped, however, does not go well with this explanation.

Explanation #3: The Ri explains 'What did they see not to flee, seeing as we are speaking before the actual act, when they were still able to run away like Dani'el did ...

Proof: As the Gemara says in Cheilek (Sanhedrin 93.) 'There were three people present at that meeting (with Par'oh [And the Gemara goes on to relate that Yisro fled]).

Question: ha'Rav Yosef asks why one does not recite a B'rachah each time one benefits from it, bearing in mind the prohibition of benefitting from this world without a B'rachah?

Answer: And he answers that this is confined to where one derives physical benefit, but not other forms of benefit.

Implied Question: And the reason that we do recite a B'rachah over the light of the sun every day ...

Answer: That is because it is renewed each day.