Explanation: It seems that we suggest this because Chatas and Aharon's ram should not have been called Stam "Zevach";

We do not find that they are called Zevach. However, Pesach is called "Zevach" - "Zevach Pesach Hu."

Question: We should establish it to discuss Pesach Rishon and explain as follows:

There is a stringency in Zevach, i.e. there is one Zevach that has all these matters listed, i.e. it applies to individuals and the Tzibur, it is Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah, and it makes Temurah;

[I.e.] if it was not offered in its time, it becomes Mosar Pesach, and Temurah applies to it;

Implied question: According to the opinion that we do not slaughter Pesach for an individual [Pesach is always of partners, so it does not make Temurah]!

If the owners withdrew from it, and only one remained, he can make Temurah, like it says in Pesachim 96b;

Pesach during the rest of the year makes Temurah. This does not apply to any Temurah.

A stringency of Temurah is that it takes effect on a Ba'al Mum Kavu'a, and it does not become [totally] Chulin to be shorn or do work.

These do not apply to the Zevach Pesach that we discussed.

Answer: Also Mosar Pesach takes effect on a Ba'al Mum Kavu'a. If one was Makdish a Pesach, and it got a Mum, and Pesach passed, it is Mosar Pesach;

It does not become Chulin to be shorn or do work, since it was Hukdash for Pesach before it had a Mum.

Assertion: It seems that both R. Yehudah and Rabanan learn from "k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach." They argue about the following:

The first Tana expounds "k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach" - just like Pesach Rishon is Docheh Tum'ah only b'Rov Tzibur, but a minority of the Tzibur is detained [until Pesach Sheni] due to Tum'ah, the same applies to Pesach Sheni;

R. Yehudah holds that just like Pesach Rishon is not totally Batel (e.g. if everyone was Tamei), also Pesach Sheni...

Assertion: However, we do not learn from the Gezeirah Shavah b'Mo'ado-b'Mo'ado. Firstly, there is no need for the Gezeirah Shavah, for we learn from k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach;

Support: Also, if we learn from the Gezeirah Shavah, why does the first Tana hold that it is not Docheh Tum'ah? We should learn from the Gezeirah Shavah that it is Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah!

Suggestion: We can learn oppositely from Pesach Rishon! Just like Pesach Rishon is not Docheh Tum'ah for individuals [a Tamei minority of the Tzibur], also Pesach Sheni!

Rejection: If so, what is the source that Pesach [Rishon] is Docheh Shabbos even when it comes b'Yachid (i.e. not Rov Tzibur), e.g. if the majority were Zavim? The law is that the minority do Pesach Rishon [even if it is] on Shabbos.

Note: Pesach is Docheh Tum'ah when most of Yisrael are Tamei Mes, but not for a Tum'ah that comes from the person's own body.

We can learn from the Tamid only when all (i.e. most) of Yisrael do Pesach, similar to the Tamid, which is the Korban of all Yisrael.

We should say Dayo (it is enough) that the Din (what we learn from the Kal va'Chomer) be like the Nidon (source);

Just like there, [Tamid is the Korban of] all Yisrael, also here, [Pesach Rishon is Docheh Shabbos only when it is the Korban of] all Yisrael!

Rather, you must say that since we learn from the Gezeirah Shavah, we learn as follows;

Note: Tosfos is explaining why we do not learn from the Gezeirah Shavah, for if we did...

Just like there, b'Mo'ado is even on Shabbos, and we do not Mevatel it because it is Shabbos, also Pesach is not Batel on Shabbos.

If all of Yisrael were Zavim, or Derech Rechokah, except for one or two people, and Erev Pesach fell on Shabbos, if you would say that it is not Docheh Shabbos for an individual, it will be totally Batel;

Also here, regarding Pesach Sheni, it should not be Batel due to Tum'ah, just like Pesach Rishon, which is not totally Batel due to Tum'as Mes.

Suggestion: The first Tana holds that b'Mo'ado refers to Pesach Rishon, like R. Noson (Pesachim 93a). If so, b'Mo'ado is not written regarding Pesach Sheni, and we learn from k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach;

However, R. Yehudah learns from b'Mo'ado. He holds that it refers to Pesach Sheni.

Rejection: In our Sugya, we say that R. Yehudah learns from k'Chol Chukas. I.e. also he learns from it.

Conclusion: It is unreasonable to expound "Ki Korban Hash-m Lo Hikriv b'Mo'ado" for a Gezeirah Shavah according to any Tana.

It is unlike the other verses, which are commands - "Tishmeru Lehakriv Li b'Mo'ado", "va'Ya'asu Bnei Yisrael Es ha'Pasach b'Mo'ado", "Elu Ta'asu la'Shem b'Mo'adeichem", and "va'Ydaber Moshe Es Mo'adei Hash-m El Bnei Yisrael" to do the Mo'adim.

This verse says "Ki Korban Hash-m Lo Hikriv b'Mo'ado."

However, it is proper to learn from k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach". They argue about reasoning, like I explained.

Question: We learn that Pesach Rishon is Docheh Shabbos only from a Gezeirah Shavah to the Tamid. How can we learn from Pesach Sheni from it through a Hekesh?

Answer - part 1: This is fine according to the opinion that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can teach [other laws] through a Hekesh.

Question: However, according to the opinion that it cannot teach [through a Hekesh], how can we answer?

Answer - part 2: He holds that [learning] from a Hekesh and something else is not considered a Hekesh;

Since from k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach we learn things that are written regarding Pesach Rishon itself, we learn from it also things we learned about Pesach Rishon from a Gezeirah Shavah.

Question: However, this is difficult for the opinion that something learned from a Hekesh and something else is considered a Hekesh!

Suggestion: He holds that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can teach through a Hekesh.

Rejection: If so, why do Amora'im (Zevachim 50a) argue about this? We should resolve that it can teach through a Hekesh from R. Yishmael, who holds that from a Hekesh and something else is considered a Hekesh!

According to him, we must say that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can teach through a Hekesh.

[Poor] Answer #1: R. Yishmael holds that Pesach Sheni is not Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah.

[This is a poor answer, for] if he did, there is a three way argument among the Tana'im about this! (We cannot say so without an explicit source for this.)

Answer #2: Since it says "k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach Ya'asu Oso", we must learn from it (Pesach Rishon) also something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah;

If not, we would not fulfill "k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach"!

Support: We answer like this below (57a) "we learn outside from inside at once";

I.e. since it says "v'Chen Ya'aseh l'Ohel Mo'ed", we must do in the Ohel Mo'ed with the bull everything done Lifnai v'Lifnim, and similarly with the goat;

This applies even to something learned from a Hekesh. If not, "v'Chen Ya'aseh" would not apply.

Alternative text: However, there is a Perush in Pesachim that changed the text to say that we learn from b'Mo'ado through a Gezeirah Shavah.

Support - Citation (Sifri): "Ki Korban Hash-m Lo Hikriv b'Mo'ado" teaches about Pesach Sheni, that it is Docheh Shabbos;

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: Perhaps it is Docheh Tum'ah!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: The entire reason for Pesach Sheni is [for people who could not offer Pesach Rishon] due to Tum'ah! (It unreasonable to offer it b'Tum'ah.)

This Stam Sifri is like Rabanan.

Question: I asked above [that we can learn from the Tamid only when all of Yisrael do Pesach, similar to the Tamid]!

Answer: We can learn Pesach from Tamid. Even an individual may offer it on Shabbos;

The Tamid is always brought on Shabbos. Likewise, Pesach is always brought on Shabbos (whenever Erev Pesach is on Shabbos), even for an individual (a minority of the Tzibur).

Implied question: (How can we learn from the Tamid?) The Tamid is not brought b'Yachid on Shabbos!

Answer: That is because we never find the Tamid b'Yachid;

However, Pesach, which can come b'Yachid, we can learn from it (the Tamid) that it is even on Shabbos, whether b'Yachid or b'Tzibur.

However, regarding Tum'ah, since Pesach Rishon itself does not always override Tum'ah, e.g. when a minority of the Tzibur [is Tamei], it is done in Taharah, and not in Tum'ah (i.e. Temei'im are detained until Pesach Sheni). The same applies to Pesach Sheni.

Question: If so, why do we need a Gezeirah Shavah? We can learn from k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach"!

Answer: He holds that it is excluded from "like the Perat" (i.e. we learn only what is like the details mentioned), i.e. Matzah and Maror;

Just like the Perat is a Mitzvas Aseh that is not Docheh a Lav with Kares, we learn all such matters, that they are not Docheh Shabbos, which is a Lav with Kares.

However, R. Noson, who says that b'Mo'ado refers to Pesach Rishon, must learn that Pesach Sheni is Docheh Shabbos from k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach, like R. Yehudah in our Sugya, who learns from there.

Possibility #1: Also Rabanan of R. Yehudah hold like R. Noson, that b'Mo'ado does not apply to Pesach Sheni. They learn from k'Chol Chukas;

Possibility #2: Alternatively, they hold like R. Chananya ben Akavya and Rebbi, who expound b'Mo'ado regarding Pesach Sheni. They learn from b'Mo'ado, like the Sifri brings.

Question: Initially, the Sifri says that "Ki Korban Hash-m Lo Hikriv b'Mo'ado" refers to Kares for not bringing Pesach Rishon;

Citation - Question: Why do you say that it is Pesach Rishon? Perhaps it is Pesach Sheni!

Citation (cont.) Answer: Mo'ado refers to Pesach Rishon;

Summation of question: Afterwards, it says that Mo'ado refers to Pesach Sheni!

Answer: Perhaps this is why it says "another matter. The verse teaches about Pesach Sheni, that it is Docheh Shabbos";

The first Drashah is like the opinion that it (b'Mo'ado) refers to Pesach Rishon. "Another matter" is like the opinion that it refers to Pesach Sheni.

Question: If so, it should have said "the verse comes to teach about Pesach Sheni regarding Kares", which it was initially discussing;

Why did it abandon Kares, and discuss another matter, for we were discussing the one who holds that it applies to the Sheni, and they argue about Kares in Pesachim (93a)!

Also, I think that we never find like this in one Beraisa, that it expounds two Drashos Stam that contradict each other, according to two Tana'im.

In many places, there is "another matter" after "another matter", that we expound one verse in many ways. However, we do not find like this!

Answer #1: It seems that the Drashah of the Sifri is like Rebbi. It means as follows:

Suggestion: "Or perhaps it refers to Pesach Sheni", i.e. one is Chayav Kares not for the Rishon alone, rather, for Pesach Sheni, for the verse is in the Parshah of Pesach Sheni;

We should say that one is Chayav Kares for Pesach even if he was Shogeg about the Rishon and Mezid about the Sheni, but [he is] not [Chayav Kares] for the Rishon, even if he was Mezid about the Rishon and Shogeg about the Sheni!

Rejection: Its Mo'ed is the first. I.e. there is no reason to say that it refers to the Sheni and not to the first, for the primary b'Mo'ado is written regarding the first - "va'Ya'asu Bnei Yisrael Es ha'Pasach b'Mo'ado."

If so, it refers also to the first. Had it not written "Chet'o Yisa", I would have said that it refers only to the Rishon;

Now that the Torah wrote "Chet'o Yisa", we expound it also for Pesach Sheni, like it says in Pesachim.

"Chet'o Yisa" reveals that b'Mo'ado refers to both of them.

Had the Torah not written "b'Mo'ado", I would have said that Kares applies only to Pesach Sheni.

Now we understand "another matter - we need b'Mo'ado to teach that Pesach Sheni is Docheh Shabbos." (This is a second matter learned from b'Mo'ado.)

Answer #2: We can fulfill everything. We learn that it is Docheh Shabbos from k'Chol Chukas and b'Mo'ado;

Had it said only k'Chol Chukas, we could have said like I explained above \\1(v:1, that we learn only matters like the Perat, i.e. Mitzvos Aseh that are not Docheh a Lav with Kares);

Had it said only b'Mo'ado, we could have said like I explained above (c:4) that it applies to Pesach Rishon).

Therefore, we need both of them. One teaches about the other;

However, R. Noson learns from k'Chol Chukas alone.

Question #1: Why do we need to bring a Beraisa to say that we expound like this, that he brings his own?

All the more so, if we would not expound this, rather we would expound "Asher Lo", that he gets Kaparah through it, it would be more difficult! (Si'ach Yitzchak - Tosfos now understands like Rashi, that the Makshan later answers that the Torah made Aharon's Korban "Hefker" for the Kohanim to get Kaparah through it. If so, we cannot resolve R. Elazar's question. If we would expound that only Aharon gets Kaparah, this is a greater question against R. Elazar!)

Question #2: In all the old Seforim, below the text says "Aharon's treasury is different." It does not say "Ela" (rather). Only Rashi says that Ela is in the text.

Answer: I explain the Gemara as follows. [The Makshan] asked that we should know already from "Asher Lo", which connotes that he gets Kaparah through it, but others do not;

[The Tartzan] answered that we expound "Asher Lo" - he brings his own. However, we can say that they (the other Kohanim) also get direct Kaparah, like the Beraisa says...

[The Makshan] then asked, according to you (the Tartzan), who brought from the Beraisa that we do not expound Asher Lo to teach that he gets Kaparah through it, but others do not...

Rather, it teaches that he brings his own. The Beraisa connotes that his brothers get Kaparah through it.

How did you answer me through this? These depend on each other! Since you admit that he brings his own, if so his fellow Kohanim do not get Kaparah through it;

If they do not acquire [a share] in the Korban, how could they get Kaparah through it?

[The Tartzan] answered "Aharon's treasury is different..."

Rashi's opinion: This means inside [and outside]. (Its status was Safek inside, Safek outside.)

Opinion #2: Some explain (Traksin) like "Truku Gali", i.e. closed off inside of it were the Luchos that were given at Sinai.

Question: Why didn't they make one Paroches an Amah thick?

Answer: It seems that Rabanan explain the verse "v'Hivdilah ha'Paroches Lachem Bein ha'Kodesh..." that the outer edge of the Paroches is Kodesh, and from the beginning of its thickness and inside is Kodesh Kodoshim;

Therefore, they could not make one Paroches an Amah thick, and put it in place of the Amah Traksin, lest its Kedushah (i.e. of its place) is like outside;

It would turn out that from the beginning of its thickness and inside is not all Kodesh Kodoshim!

Implied question: In Bayis Rishon they put there an Amah Traksin! (They were not concerned lest its Kedushah is like outside!)

Answer: They did so through prophecy - "ka'Kol bi'Chsav";

If they wanted to do a Paroches, they must do it like in the Mishkan. There was a tradition that it must be totally a Paroches, or totally a wall (Bava Basra 3b).

Similarly here, there was a tradition that if they want, the may make a Paroches, it must be like in the Mishkan, that from the beginning of its thickness and inside is Kodesh Kodoshim.

Conclusion: However, now that they made two Parochos, we understand this. They erected one at the beginning of the place of the Amah Traksin;

The other was at the end of the Amah Traksin, in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, at the end of the gap of 20 [Amos] of the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, towards the outside, adjacent to the place where the Amah Traksin ended;

If the place of the Amah Traksin is like inside, from the thickness of the outer Paroches and inside was all Kodesh Kodoshim;

If the place of the Amah Traksin is like outside, from the thickness of the second Paroches and inside was Kodesh Kodoshim;

However, R. Yosi holds that "v'Hivdilah ha'Paroches" is between two gaps. The gap outside it is Kodesh, and the gap inside it is Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. They made the Paroches an Amah thick;

Alternatively, perhaps it was obvious to him that the Kedushah of the Amah Traksin was like inside. According to him, from the beginning of its thickness and inside was Kodesh Kodoshim.