Implied Question: Even though the Tamid is more common ...

Answer: The Torah sees fit to write it, since we might otherwise have thought that the Pesach comes first, on account of the principle 'Alehah Hashlem (all Korbanos must follow the Tamid shel Shachar)'.

Question: The Riva asks that by the Neiros too, the Torah writes "me'Erev ad Boker", and why should there be a difference between "me'Erev" and "ba'Erev"?

Answer: The Torah needs to write "me'Erev ad Boker" to teach us the amount of oil to place in the lamps, and not that one kindles it later.

Clarification: The Ri maintains that 'Neiros' should not be inserted here ...

Reason: Seeing as in any event the Gemara is only concerned about something that is burnt, since that is what the Torah is particular about not delaying, as the Torah writes "And he shall burn on it the fat-pieces ... ".

Proof: And if we did not say that, why does the Reisha not state 'There is nothing that precedes the Tamid shel Shachar except - 'the Ketores, clearing out the ashes of the inner Mizbe'ach, the two logs of wood and preparing the the lamps' all of which precede the Tamid ...

Source: As we learn in 'Amar lahen ha'Memuneh (Yoma 33.). And they are not listed in the Tosefta either.

Question: The Riva asks that at the time that the Asei of Hashlamah is being uprooted, one is not fulfilling the Asei of eating the Pesach, which will only apply at nighttime?

Answer #1: It speaks where they Shecht the Pesach on his behalf before pushing away the Asei of Hashlamah,

Answer #1 (cont.): Since everyone agrees that one may Shecht and sprinkle on behalf of a T'vul-Yom and a Mechusar Kipurim, even if ultimately, he does not eat it, seeing as it depends on his ability to do so, and he is Patur from Pesach Sheini even if he did not eat it.

Answer #1 (cont.): Consequently, when he subsequently brings his Kaparah, he fulfils the Mitzvah of Pesach, since that is when he becomes fit to eat it ...

Answer #1 (concl.): Because if he was not able to bring it, he would not be fit to eat it at nighttime, in which case the Pesach would be Pasul.

Answer #2: Whereas the Ri answers that it is specifically with a regard to a La'av, which is more stringent (than an Asei), that one needs to fulfil the Asei even as one uproots the La'av; but a more stringent Asei overrides a more lenient one, even it one does not fulfil it simultaneously with uprooting it.

Proof: As is evident in 'ha'Shole'ach' (Gitin, Daf 38.) where Rebbi Eliezer released his Eved, and in 'Shilu'ach ha'Ken' (Chulin, Daf 141.) where the more stringent Asei of Metzora would have pushed away the Asei Shilu'ach ha'Ken, had the Torah not written "Shale'ach Teshalach" - implying 'even if it is in order to fulfil a Mitzvah.

Clarification: He means that it is even Me'akev (Bedi'eved), because if he merely meant for a Mitzvah (Lechatchilah), then one could still say that it speaks when he brought it (Bedi'eved).

Question #1: The Riva asks that in the Toras Kohanim it implies that it is not Me'akev, since it says there with regard to a Yoledes (a woman who has given birth) that 'If she already brought her Olah, she should bring her Chatas from the same species as the Olah'.

Proof #1: And in Perek Kol ha'Tadir (Zevachim, Daf 90.) it is implied that we only need the 'Binyan Av' with regard to a Chatas ha'Of that is brought together with the Olas Beheimah, which pertains exclusively to a wealthy Yoledes.

Proof #2: And in Maseches Kinim (Perek Sheini) it also says that 'If a woman brought her Chatas and died, her heirs bring her Olah. But if she brought her Olah and died, they cannot bring her Chatas'.

Proof #2 (cont.): This seemingly suggests that if she was still alive, she would need to bring only her Chatas?

Answer: Rabeinu Chayim Kohen answers that when the Gemara asks here 'Let it even be Le'akev', it speaks exclusively with regard to a Metzora (See Maharsha), where the Torah writes "Tih'yeh", which implies le'Ikuva, as we have learned at the beginning of 'ha'Kometz Rabah' (Menachos, Daf 19.)

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara answers that the Torah writes "Vehe'elah", to preclude from 'le'Ikuva'.

Clarification: This is specifically Bedi'eved, seeing as the Pasuk specifically writes "and afterwards he shall Shecht the Olah".

Clarification: According to those that hold later (Daf 77:) that 'The Tzitz does not atone for things that go on the Mizbe'ach', we understand why the Gemara says 'she'Nitm'u O Avdu'.

Implied Question: But according to the Beraisa later (Daf 80:) which learns that the Tzitz atones for the blood and the Cheilev ...

Answer: We have to say that since mi'de'Rabbanan it does not atone, it considered as if the Emurin got lost.

Clarification: This is the Gemara's Conclusion - that if the Kohanim do not eat, the owner does not receive an atonement and are not permitted to eat Kodshim.

Question: The Riva asks that in 'ha'Ishah Rabah' (Yevamos, Daf 90.) the Gemara cites a Beraisa 'Ta Sh'ma; Blood that became Tamei and is sprinkled be'Shogeg, atones; be'Meizid, it does not atone'. But here, where min ha'Torah it atones... '

Question (cont.): And the Gemara answers that when it says 'It does not atone', it means to permit the flesh to be eaten, but the owner is atoned for.

Question (concl.): So we see that even though the flesh is not eaten, the owner receives an atonement.

Answer: Where the flesh is fit to be eaten min ha'Torah, the owner is atoned for.

Answer (cont.): And in our Sugya, it is coming to teach us that as long as the Kohanim are unfit to eat the flesh, the owner does not receive atonement.

Question: There is a Kashya however, from the case of where the flesh became Tamei, how can one sprinkle the blood, seeing as the flesh was never permitted to the Kohanim?

Answer: It seems that as long as the flesh is fit for Kohanim, the owner does not receive atonement until the Kohanim eat; If after that time however, it became Tamei, left its precincts or became Nosar, the owner is atoned for.

Question: The Riva asks that the Pasuk is talking about Shabbos, which is more stringent; from where do we know that it can also not be brought on Yom-Tov, which is more lenient?

Answer: It goes according to Rebbi Akiva, who says at the end of 'Eilu Kesharim' (Shabbos 114.) from "Olas Shabbos be'Shabbato" that the Chalavim of Shabbos can be brought on Yom-Tov. Because he interprets the Pasuk to mean that the Olah of one Shabbos can be brought on another Shabbos - i.e. that the Olah of Shabbos can be brought on Yom-Tov, implying that the Olah of Chol cannot be brought on Yom-Tov.

Question: According to Rebbi Akiva, why do we not learn that the Chalavim on Shabbos can be brought on Yom-Tov from the Pasuk cited here "ve'Lo Yalin" - which implies that the whole night they can remain on the Mizbe'ach, and the Pasuk is speaking (at least?) on the fourteenth that falls on Shabbos (as the Gemara explains).

Question: The Ri asks that the Pasuk is speaking about the Nosar of Basar, because later on (Daf 63:) the Gemara renders Chayav someone who Shechts on the Chametz of any one of the members of his group, since the Torah writes "Lo Yalin" after it, implying anyone who is subject to "Lo Yalin",

Question (cont.): And all night one may be Yalin, since we establish our Sugya like Rebbi Akiva, and Rebbi Akiva holds that the Pesach can be eaten all night until the time of Chipazon.

Answer: One can say that, according to the Mesader ha'Shas, the Pasuk is referring to the entire Korban, both the flesh and the Emurin ...

Answer (cont.): Since it does not mention 'Cheilev' as it does in the Pasuk "Cheilev Chagi" ...

Answer (cont.): And since it does not insert it by Achilah in the Pasuk of "ve'Achlu es ha'Basar", as it writes there "Lo Sasiru", we can extrapolate that it is speaking about both.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi infers the same thing from the Pasuk "Lo Yalin Cheilev Chagi", and Rebbi Avahu there establishes it likewise on the fourteenth which falls on Shabbos.

Yerushalmi (cont.): The Gemara asks there how it can be speaking about Shabbos, when the Torah writes "Chagi", with reference to the Chagigah which comes together with the Pesach, and which does not override Shabbos, as we learned later in 'Eilu Devarim' (Daf 69:)?

Yerushalmi (cont.): And it explains that what the Pasuk therefore means is that one should take care that it should not come to 'Bal Yalin' by bringing it whilst it is still day at a time when it is fit to do so.

Question: The problem is how the Yerushalmi can ask from the Pasuk of "Cheilev Chagi", which is written in connection with the Chagigah of the fifteenth, as is evident in 'Eilu Devarim' (71:)?

Question: The Rashba asks how, according to ben-Teima, who Darshens later in 'Eilu Devarim' (Daf 70.) that the Chagigah that comes together with the Pesach has the same Din as the Pesach, since "Zevach Chag" refers to the Chagigah, we can establish the Pasuk with regard to Shabbos, since he (ben-Teima) concedes that it does not override Shabbos, as is evident there?

Answer #1: Either ben-Teima holds like Rebbi Yishmael, who says in 'Eilu Kesheirim' (Shabbos, Daf 114:) that the Chalavim of a weekday can be brought on Yom-Tov ...

Answer #2: Or he will explain that 'One should take care that it should not come to 'Bal Yalin ... ', like the Yerushalmi (that Tosfos quoted earlier).

Clarification #1: The Ri explains that Rava follows his reasoning - in that he holds that they are arguing over 'T'fos Lashon Rishon'.

Source: As the Gemara says in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 30.) 'It is still a Machlokes ' - meaning that Rebbi Meir argues even in the case of 'Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim'.

Clarification #2: In fact, without this inference, it can only go according to Rava, Since the Gemara later in the Perek (Daf 63.) in connection with Acherim's statement "If one mentioned Mulim before Areilim ... ". 'and they hold that the Shechitah only takes effect at the end ...

Clarification #2 (cont.): Like the opinion of Rava, who says that they argue there too, over 'T'fos Lashon Rishon', even in such a case, even though the Shechitah takes place only at the end, and both (Mulim and Areilim) take effect at the last moment.

Clarification #2 (cont.): And Rebbi Meir holds even there 'T'fos Lashon Rishon, despite the fact that it does not take effect at the time of the declaration!

Conclusion: Because, according to Rabah and Abaye, who later in the Sugya hold that 'The Shechitah takes effect from beginning to end', they will both take effect even according to Rebbi Meir, as Tosfos will explain later (Ibid. DH 'Leima').

Conclusion (cont.): In which case, Rebbi Meir will not validate 'li'Shemo and she'Lo li'Shemo even by one Avodah.