Clarification: Because we include Pesach Doros from "ve'Avadta".

Refuted Explanation: Since we cannot say that "ha'Zeh" in connection with taking it on the tenth comes to exclude Pesach Sheini from needing to be taken on the tenth, in which case we will not exclude Pesach Doros.

Refutation: Since it is not needed for Pesach Sheini, because, seeing as it does not require inspection, it does not need to be taken on the tenth either.

Question: The Riva asks why we need "ve'Avadta" for this ...

Question (cont.): Since the Torah writes by Pesach Sheini "ve'Etzem Lo Yishb'ru bo", how much more so by Pesach Rishon?

Question: The Riva asks why the Gemara does not suggest that we learn from "Oso" that 'it must be eaten be'Chipazon, but not Pesach Sheini'.

Question (concl.): Whereas Pesach Doros should indeed be eaten 'be'Chipazon' from "ve'Avad'ta".

Question: In that case, why does the Mishnah include it at all, seeing as they are equal in this regard?

Answer: The Mishnah includes it because it wants to add that 'the Din of Chametz applied only for one day, whereas Pesach Pesach Doros applies for seven days'.

Clarification: The reason for this is because the owner rejected it 'with his hands', as Rashi explains.

Implied Question: And even Rav, who holds that 'Live animals cannot be (permanently) rejected', as opposed to Rebbi Yochanan in Perek Sh'nei Se'irei (Yoma, Daf 6.)

Answer: that is only where he did not reject it 'with his hands', as for example, where the owner becomes Tamei or where he withdraws.

Question: It is implied in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 7.) that he argues (even in that case) ...

Source: Because Rebbi Yochanan says there that if one partner declares Hekdesh his half of an animal and then he purchases the other half and declares it Hekdesh as well, it is Kadosh but it cannot be sacrificed, since it was rejected when he was Makdish the first half ...

Source (cont.): And the Gemara extrapolated from there that 'Live animals too can be (permanently) rejected

Answer: Since he rejected it by way of Hekdesh, it not so much considered 'rejecting it with the hands.

Tosefta: In the Tosefta (Perek 9), Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan argue over which one is sacrificed first; and the Machlokes is cited in Perek 'Sh'nei Se'irei' (Yoma, 64.)

Explanation #1 (cont.): Since Chatzos or Shechitah fixes it.

Explanation #1 (cont.): We might have thought that it doesn't, since it was sanctified be'Isur, and the owner does not have in mind to Shecht it as a Pesach.

Explanation #1 (concl.): Therefore it comes to teach us that nevertheless it does.

Explanation #2: The Ri explains that we might otherwise have thought that since it will never be brought as a Pesach, from the start it is a Shelamim. Therefore it comes to teach us that it is not.

Explanation #3: And from Rashi, who explains that 'It too, is fixed as a Pesach and rejected', it implies that according to him in reality it is fit to be brought as a Pesach.

Implied Question: According to the Lashon that Rashi cites that these Shelamim refer to the Chagigah of the fourteenth ...

Implied Question (cont.): One need not worry about the D'rashah that Tosfos made in 'Eilu Devarim' (Daf 71: DH 'Limeid') that Shelamim that come on account of the Pesach, in Perek Kol ha'Pesulim (Zevachim, Daf 36.) are the Mosar ha'Pesach.

Clarification (concl.): Since one refers to the one, and the other, to the other (and there is no contradiction).

Clarification: The Riva explains that since the Torah did not mention it together with the lamb, but interrupted the Inyan and inserted it independently, without any change other than the fact that it omits the Alyah ...

Conclusion: It must therefore have written it in order to preclude it from the Din of 'Alyah'.