Explanation: The Gemara does not ask how Rebbi Yonasan understands the Pasuk, as he requires it for a Milah of a minor that is done later than the eighth day.

Explanation (cont.): According to Abaye as well who says that we derive this Milah of a minor done later than the eighth day from a Tzad ha'Shaveh from a minor who has a Bris on the eighth day and an adult who has a Bris, it is possible to say that Rebbi Yonasan holds (the same and) that the Torah will say a Pasuk to teach a lesson even though it can be learned through a Kal v'Chomer.

Question: If so, why does Abaye say that this is only needed according to Rebbi Yehudah? Rebbi Shimon also needs it, as explained here!

Answer: The language in the Beraisa implies that the case is where there is no intent. This is apparent from the fact that it did not say, "flesh - even though he intends to cut off the leprosy he should circumcise."

Implied Question: The Gemara here does not ask that this is a Halachah that is only relevant when Moshiach arrives. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because the rule regarding the Korban Pesach applies to Milah. Even though this is explicitly stated here regarding Milah, it reinforces the ruling regarding Milah. Therefore, it is stated by Pesach as an aside to the ruling regarding Milah in order to teach that this is a clear ruling that can be applied to anything (not just Korban Pesach and Milah).

Explanation: This means that Rav Yehudah had to say that he rules like Rebbi Akiva both here (regarding Milah) and there (Korban Pesach).

Explanation (cont.): If this would be explaining why Rebbi Akiva needed to say this law both by Milah and Korban Pesach, the Gemara in Menachos (96a) should have explained why Rebbi Akiva had to say his rule there (in the Mishnah) as well. This is Rashi's explanation as well.

Implied Question: The Mishnah states this despite the fact that it was already stated in a previous Mishnah (128b). (Why does it have to be repeated?)

Answer: The Mishnah there (ibid.) states this as an aside because it is discussing the baby. Our Mishnah is the main place that discusses this topic (and it therefore bears repeating in our Mishnah).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that in many places the Beraisa states what is explicitly stated in the Pasuk. (Why is it difficult that the Beraisa is stating what is stated in a Pasuk?)

Answer: The Beraisa should have explicitly said (if this was its intent) that if an adult does not ascertain that he has a Bris he is punished with Kares.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that after the Milah the baby is a sick person in danger. (Why do we require this to be done with a Shinuy?)

Answer: Whatever can be done with a Shinuy should be done with a Shinuy.