Explanation: R. Yosi b'Ribi Avin and R. Avin argue about a Bechor. According to R. Avin we cannot ask from a Bechor, for not everyone may eat it.

Observation: He could have said that it does not require waving the chest and foreleg.

Question: How is he lashed after Shechitah for Lo Yiga'el? We say in Bechoros (32b) that after Shechitah [the Isur to sell] is mid'Rabanan! (Keren Orah says that the Havah Amina was that after verbal Akirah it becomes Ma'aser.)

Observation: We also expound from this (Bava Metzi'a 7a) "a definite 10th, and not a Safek 10th." (Shalom Rav - "Asiri" suffices to exclude a Safek. Here we expound the prefix Hei.)

Observation: We could have said that it does not require Semichah, like we expound in Toras Kohanim "v'Samach Yado Al Rosh Korbano", but not Bechor, Ma'aser or Pesach (Menachos 92b).

Question: It says here "l'Zevach Shelamim", and Mosar Asham is offered for an Olah!

Answer: "L'Zevach Shelamim" does not mean that it will be a Korban Shelamim. Rather, he must uproot the name of Asham from it, to slaughter it l'Shem Shelamim or another Korban;

This is like we expound above (8b) through Klal u'Ferat. Really, it is offered for an Olah. The verse comes to teach that it needs Akirah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to Chagigah of the 14th (a Shelamim brought with Pesach. One eats it before Pesach, so he is already satiated when he eats Pesach.)

Also below (36a), regarding a Todah that is eaten one day and a night, "what is the source to include Shalmei Nazir and Shalmei Pesach? It says Shelamav";

Rashi explained that Shalmei Pesach is Chagigah of the 14th.

Question #1: In Pesachim (71b), it expounds explicitly from a verse that Chagigah of the 14th is eaten for two days and a night!

Question #2: In Toras Kohanim, on the verse "[u']Vasar Zevach Todas Shelamav", it includes Chagigah of the 14th for two days and a night, and Shelamim that comes due to [Pesach] for one day and a night!

Explanation #2: Surely, Shalmei Pesach below (36a) is Mosar Pesach, like in Toras Kohanim;

And in Pesachim (89a), regarding five groups [that offered Pesachim, and] the skins of their Pesachim became mixed (and a Mum was found on one, so we are unsure which group did not fulfill Pesach), it says "they should bring Mosar Pesach, which is eaten for one day and a night";

In Rosh Hashanah (5a), Mosar Pesach is called Shalmei Pesach, for it is considered Pesach regarding Bal Te'acher (the Isur to delay offering Korbanos), and it asks "Pesach has a fixed time!", and answers that "Pesach" refers to Shalmei Pesach. One might have thought that since it comes to due to Pesach...

You are forced to say that it is not Chagigah of the 14th. Since it taught Pesach, it would not abandon Mosar Pesach, which is called Pesach more, for it is truly Pesach (that was not offered in its time), and establish it to discuss Chagigah of the 14th.

Answer (cont.): Also "Shelamim that comes due to Pesach" of our Sugya is Mosar Pesach.

Implied question: It already taught Pesach that its year passed!

Answer: Shalmei Pesach is when its year and its time (to be offered, i.e. Pesach) did not pass, or its time passed but its year did not pass.

Implied question: We learn it from another verse!

Answer: The Tana often [attributes many laws to a verse that teaches only one of them], like (Bava Metzi'a 30a) "v'His'alamta";

It expounds "sometimes you may avoid (returning an Aveidah), e.g. a Chacham and it is below his dignity (to carry such an item), or a Kohen, and the Aveidah is in a cemetery, or if his own loss [if he goes to take the Aveidah] exceeds the value of his colleague's [Aveidah]", even though the verse comes to teach only a Chacham and it is below his dignity.

Explanation #3: In Pesachim (96b), Rashi explained [that Shelamim that comes due to Pesach] is Temurah of Pesach itself.

Implied question: We expound there "it is offered, but its Temurah is not offered"!

Answer: It is proven there that whenever Pesach is offered, also its Temurah is offered. Below, at the beginning of Perek 4 (37b, DH Shamati) we will be meticulous [to explain this].

Support (for Explanation #2): It connotes like this [above], for it asks "Mosar Pesach should be a Todah! For what law [should it be considered Todah]? To obligate offering bread with it. Do we ever find [that Mosar of Todah itself does not need bread, and Mosar that comes from elsewhere (Pesach) requires bread?!]

Question: The Gemara should have said [that it is called Mosar Todah] to be eaten for one day and a night, like Todah!

Answer: [Since it did not say so,] this shows that in any case, Mosar Pesach is eaten for one day and a night. I.e. it is Shalmei Pesach. So it seems to me, R. Baruch.

Observation: The same applies if its year [passed], but not its time.

Implied question: When he was Makdish it, it was not proper for Pesach, for when the time will come, its year will pass!

Answer: Even if one separated a female or a two-year old, it has the law of Shelamim, like the Mishnah in Pesachim (97b) says that that it is Ro'eh until it gets a Mum, and it is sold, and he brings Shelamim with the [redemption] money.

Question: What was the question? Rava explains R. Shimon's reason in Menachos (3b) from "Zos Toras"!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Here the text says "Rabah". [It is a proper question] according to Rabah's reasoning, for he answers there "this refers to Shinuy Kodesh, and this refers to Shinuy Ba'alim."

Answer #2: Even if the text says "Rava", [Rav Mesharshiya] wants to resolve Rav's words according to all Amora'im there.

Question (against Answer #1): [Our Gemara] is difficult for R. Tam, for it seems that Rav Mesharshiya was Rava's Talmid, and not Rabah's.

Answer #3: Rava wants to resolve Rav's words in the name of Mavog even according to Rabanan who argue with R. Shimon. They do not expound Zos Toras.

Implied question: When Rav Mesharshiya asked from R. Shimon, he could have asked from our Mishnah in Menachos!

Answer: He prefers to ask from the Beraisa, for even R. Shimon who is Machshir, he is not Machshir due to Zos Toras. Also Rashi connotes like this.

Implied question: Below (92a), we expound "one Torah (law) for all Chata'os", and no one disagrees!

Answer: This refers to something written explicitly about Chatas itself. All agree that we expound [Zos Toras for such matters], e.g. the matter below (92a, Dam Chatas that fell on a garment). However, Shinuy Kodesh was not written regarding Chatas.

Remark: Below (48a), we expound "one Torah for all Ashamos", and it says "this is fine for the one who expounds Toras. However, the one who does not expound Toras" - these [opinions] refer to R. Shimon and Rabanan in Menachos (3b), according to Rava (i.e. Rava holds that they argue about Zos Toras. Rabah and Rav Ashi hold that R. Shimon is Machshir for a different reason.)

Explanation: Above (7a), there is another teaching of Rava that distinguishes between Shechitah l'Shem Chatas and Shechitah l'Shem Olah;

There (DH Amar) I explained why Rava needed to teach two teachings. (One teaches that Shinuy Kodesh is opposite to Shinuy Ba'alim. The other distinguishes between Chata'os.)

Explanation: Above (5a) we expound this for a different matter!

Answer: Perhaps here we expound since it did not write 'v'Shachat l'Chatas Osah.'

Observation: This is worse than one who is not obligated anything. (Then it is Pasul (7a), for surely he was Mevatel an Aseh, and a Chatas atones somewhat for an Aseh. Here, he needs a different Kaparah; it does not atone for him at all, so perhaps it is Kosher. Why don't we say that also here, it atones for Bitul Aseh? The case is, the person separated an Olah to atone for every Bitul Aseh that he did (Chidushei GRY"M Feinstein).

Explanation: This is like it says, e.g. from Shechitah to Zerikah.

Distinction: However, from Shechitah to Kabalah, no (intent does not disqualify), for we learn from Pigul;

All the more so, Rav Ashi, who learns from Shinuy Ba'alim, [intent from Avodah to Avodah] is only from Shechitah to Kabalah, just like Shinuy Ba'alim. (Holachah is like Kabalah. This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)