Summation of Support: What is his source for [what should be put] below, if not from "v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech"? This shows that also Beis Hillel expound it.

Rebuttal: We can reject this. (Perhaps they learn from another verse, even though we do not find a Drashah from another verse.)

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes says that the rest of this Tosfos is a comment.

Comment: It seems to me that he knows other Zevachim from the fact that the Torah did not repeat [Saviv] to make [both Matanos] Me'akev;

However, regarding Chatas we should not be Machshir due to "the Torah did not repeat." Rather, it is obvious to him that we learn an outer Chatas from an inner Chatas to be Me'akev;

If we did not find in general that we can learn from [v'Dam...] that one Matanah is Mechaper, if so you are forced to say that here [the Tana] asks according to Beis Shamai, "what is the source?" We should learn from Chatas that two Matanos are needed!

Implied question: Chatas is more stringent! (We cannot learn a stringency from it to other Korbanos.)

Answer: This is a mere Giluy Milsa (revelation) to learn what is not explicit from what is explicit.

If it were according to Beis Hillel, what was the question "what is the source?" The Torah did not repeat [Saviv] to teach that it is Me'akev!

Support: This is why we could not ask that b'Di'eved, it should be Kosher without any Matanos, for we do not find Kaparah without any [Matanos]. This is from R. Baruch.

Implied question: The Torah did not write Yesod!

Answer: We find that Shirayim are poured on the Yesod, for it says regarding Chatas "v'Es Damo Yishpoch El Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach."

Explanation #1: The one who learns that [blood of] Pesach is spilled, he holds that [the Brachah on] Pesach does not exempt the Zevach (Chagigah of the 14th);

R. Yishmael does not argue with R. Akiva. Since this verse teaches that [Dam] Pesach is spilled, now we cannot learn from it that [blood] that should be thrown, it is Kosher if it was spilled;

And the one who holds that it is an argument, he does not hold that [Dam] Pesach is spilled, rather, it is thrown, like Shelamim.

Note: There is an implied question - if so, why does the Brachah on Pesach exempt the Zevach, but not vice-versa?

However, Pesach is primary and the Zevach is secondary to it. Therefore [the Brachah on] Zevach does not exempt the Pesach, but Pesach exempts the Zevach.

Support: The Yerushalmi in Pesachim gives this reason. Rashi explained like this.

Question #1: This is difficult, for in Pesachim (121a), regarding one who blessed on Pesach exempted the Zevach, it says "when you will say according to R. Yishmael that Zerikah is included in Shefichah (pouring), and according to R. Akiva Shefichah is not included in Zerikah, and Zerikah is not included in Shefichah";

Inference: R. Yishmael holds like both of these - [Dam] Pesach is poured, and Zerikah is included in Shefichah!

Question #2: Also our Sugya is difficult for Rashi. It said above that [the Tana of the Beraisa] holds like R. Akiva. He does not hold like him totally!

R. Akiva holds that Pesach is poured, and the Tana of the Beraisa holds that it is spilled!

If [the Tana of the Beraisa] held like R. Akiva, who says that Pesach is poured, [this cannot be, for] the one who says that Pesach is poured, he learns from v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech!

In the Beraisa, R. Yishmael says [that v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech teaches about Dam Pesach], so there is no extra verse to teach that one Matanah was Mechaper! Until here is a comment.

Question #3: It says in Pesachim (88b-89a) regarding five [groups], that the skins of their Korbanos Pesach became mixed (and there is a wart on one, and we do not know which was not Yotzei Pesach. We say that there is no solution for each group to bring a Pesach and stipulate "if we were already Yotzei, it is a Shelamim", for Dam) Shelamim should be thrown, and Pesach is poured!

[The Gemara] responds "what difference does it make? A Beraisa teaches that blood that should be thrown, if it was poured, he was Yotzei!"

Inference: The Tana holds both that Dam Pesach should be poured, and that blood that should be thrown, if it was poured, he was Yotzei!

Question #4: Since the Beraisa taught "what is the source for blood that should be thrown...", this implies that some blood should be poured. If Pesach is thrown, all of them are thrown!

Question #5 - Citation (Sifri - R. Yoshiyah): Why does it say "Kodesh Hem"? This includes Ma'aser and Pesach, that they require one Shefichah. We have no other source for this in the entire Torah;

Citation (cont. - R. Yitzchak): We do not need this. It already says v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech to include Ma'aser and Pesach, that they require Shefichah;

Citation (cont.): Why does it say "Kodesh Hem"? This obligates Haktarah of Chelev of Ma'aser. We do not find this in the entire Torah;

Inference: R. Yoshiyah discusses the same Shefichah as R. Yitzchak. (Do not say that he said "Shefichah" imprecisely, and really he means Zerikah, for R. Yitzchak argues only about the source, but not about the Halachah.)

Note: Tosfos asks, just like R. Yoshiyah learns Shefichah from a verse other than v'Dam Zevachecha, also R. Yishmael could!

Implied question: [R. Yoshiyah] expounds "Kodesh Hem", which is written regarding Bechor, which requires Zerikah!

Answer: Perhaps since [Ma'aser and Pesach] are learned from an inclusion, and [the Torah] did not write them explicitly, he expounds [that they must be poured, and not thrown].

Implied question: Why does Aba Chanan ask there "why was [Kodesh Hem] written [to teach about Haktaras Eimurim of Ma'aser and Pesach]? Other Kodshim (except for Ma'aser and Pesach) do not have the same Matanos Dam [and we are Maktir the Eimurim. Ma'aser and Pesach, which have the same Matanos Dam, all the more so we are Maktir the Eimurim! This connotes that also Pesach is through Zerikah!]

Note: Keren Orah asks why we could not explain that other Kodshim require more than one Matanah of Dam, unlike Bechor. Ma'aser and Pesach require only one Matanah, just like Bechor!

Answer: (Really, Pesach is poured.) He excludes Chatas, [whose blood is out on the Mizbe'ach] via the finger.

Explanation #2: R. Yishmael learns that Pesach is poured from a different verse, and not from v'Dam Zevachecha.

Implied question: When we ask here "R. Yishmael uses the verse [for another teaching], like a Beraisa teaches, R. Yishmael says, since... [v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech mandates blood and Eimurim of Ma'aser and Pesach on the Mizbe'ach...

We could have answered that he learns from another verse that Pesach is poured, and not from "v'Dam Zevachecha"!

Answer: Because we find the Beraisa of R. Yosi ha'Gelili (that learns blood and Eimurim of Ma'aser and Pesach on the Mizbe'ach from a verse other than v'Dam Zevachecha, we say that our Beraisa is like him).

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes inserts in the text of Tosfos that this is very difficult, to say that we learn that Pesach is poured from a Drashah not brought in the Gemara.

Explanation #3 (Rashbam in the name of Rashi): In Pesachim (121a), when it says "when you will say according to R. Yishmael that Zerikah is included in Shefichah (pouring)", this means that from R. Yishmael's words you can derive that Zerikah is included in Shefichah;

Since he said that one who blessed on Pesach exempted the Zevach, if so he holds that their Matanos are the same, and also Pesach is thrown;

He holds that Zevach does not exempt the Pesach, because the Zevach is secondary to [Pesach].

Consequence: Since Pesach is thrown, v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech is extra for him, and he can expound from it that Zerikah is included in Shefichah.

Remark: The text does not say "and Shefichah is not included in Zerikah", for according to this Tana, according to R. Yishmael, all of them are thrown.

Explanation #3 (cont.): According to R. Akiva, neither [Korban] exempts the other. If so, their Matanos are different;

He learns that Pesach is poured, from v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech. If so, Zerikah is included in Shefichah, and Shefichah is not included in Zerikah", for he needs v'Dam Zevachecha to teach that Pesach is poured.

Question #1: According to this, it is difficult from Pesachim (89a. It is not like either Tana. It says that Pesach is poured, and Zerikah is included in Shefichah!)

Question #2: What is R. Yishmael's source that Zerikah is included in Shefichah? It is because v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech is extra;

Perhaps it comes to teach that anything put on the outer Mizbe'ach, if he put once, he was Mechaper!

Explanation #4 (R. Chaim): In old Seforim, the text says "when you will say that according to R. Yishmael, Zerikah is included in Shefichah and Shefichah is included in Zerikah, for they are all one, for R. Yishmael holds that all Korbanos are thrown, and we need not be concerned if it is thrown or poured...

Question: This is like the Rashbam's Perush. Everything I asked against him is difficult for this Perush.

Question: According to all versions, it is difficult. If R. Akiva holds that Pesach is poured, if so he expounds the verse[s] of "Damam" and "u'Vesaram" of other Bechoros like R. Yishmael, and he derives "whether Tam or Ba'al Mum" from "Yihyeh Lach." (Od Yosef Chai - R. Akiva cannot expound "Damam" to include Ma'aser and Pesach, for he holds that Pesach is poured. The plural must refer to Bechoros in general. If so, also "u'Vesaram" could refer to Bechoros in general. We cannot learn from it "whether Tam or Ba'al Mum." Rather, we learn this from "Yihyeh Lach");

Below (57a), R. Akiva argues with R. Yishmael and establishes the verse u'Vesaram - "whether Tam or Ba'al Mum", like R. Yosi ha'Gelili here!

Implied question: "Yihyeh Lach l'Chaze ha'Tenufah v'Shok ha'Terumah", we establish it below (57a) and in Bechoros (27b) to discuss a Bechor Tam!

Answer: The Reisha of the verse says "[u]'Vesaram" in the plural due to a Ba'al Mum (to include it).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We have no other verse in the entire Torah [to teach that a Bechor Ba'al Mum is given to a Kohen].

Explanation #2: It seems that it means that we do not find in the entire Torah like this. All other blemished Korbanos are not a gift to a Kohen. Rather, one redeems it, and offers another in place of it;

This is a gift to a Kohen. [The Kohen] eats it with its blemish.

Support: We find like this in Menachos (91b) "we do not find in the entire Torah that what is secondary is more stringent than what is primary, regarding "Es ha'Keves" - this is Olas Yoledes. "Ha'Echad" - this is the 11th of Ma'aser (if the 10th to leave was mistakenly called 'ninth' and the 11th was called 'tenth' it is offered like a Shelamim, and it requires Nesachim. It is Kodesh only due to Ma'aser, which itself does not require Nesachim!)

Question #1: In Temurah (5b), both Abaye and Rava establish "Hem" for a Bechor or Ma'aser that became mixed with any animals offered on the Mizbe'ach;

We learn that their Temurah is not offered from "la'Shem" - it is offered, but its Temurah is not offered!

Question #2: Abaye himself expounds there (Temurah 21a) from the verse here, since it is written "Kodesh Hem"! (Chidushei Basra explains that the Sugya there is like R. Yosi ha'Gelili here. The Sugya in Temurah 5b is like R. Yishmael, who cannot expound like R. Yosi, for he holds that Dam Pesach is poured.)

Explanation: It explains there that if Pesach was found before Shechitah, it is Ro'eh (grazes until it gets a Mum), and similarly its Temurah. Because the Pesach itself is not offered, also its Temurah [is not].

According to the first version of Rabah in Pesachim (96b), this is even if he made Temurah after Shechitah. According to the second version, this is only if he made Temurah before Shechitah. That version is not sustained, for it is refuted there.

Question #1: We expound "Kodesh Hem" about Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach. They are offered, and their Temuros are not offered. This is not uniform!

(Temurah of Bechor or Ma'aser is never offered.) Regarding Pesach, if he made Temurah in Pesach itself that is offered for Pesach, also its Temurah is offered;

Source #1: If it were not offered [in such a case], why was the latter version of Rabah refuted there, since we expound "it is offered, but its Temurah is not offered"?

We should say that it discusses as follows. It is offered, i.e. Pesach is offered, and its Temurah is not offered, when he makes Temurah in a Pesach proper [to be offered]!

Source #2: Also, we expound there "Im Kesev" to include a Pesach that passed its year, and a Shelamim that comes due to Pesach, for all Mitzvos of Shelamim;

Rashi explained there that "a Shelamim that comes to due to Pesach" is Temuras Pesach itself. We cannot explain it differently, like I explained above (9a);

Wherever Pesach is offered, either l'Shem Pesach or l'Shem Shelamim, also the Temurah is offered, since it does not come from a Kedushah Dechuyah!

Question: This requires investigation, whether one can offer the Temurah l'Shem Pesach before Shechitah. Perhaps we should expound "it is offered l'Shem Pesach, but its Temurah is not offered l'Shem Pesach", but it is offered l'Shem Shelamim when [the Pesach itself] is offered l'Shem Pesach.

Question: It would suffice [for the Torah to allude to] five, for we do not find Kaparah without any [Matanos]!

Answer: Perhaps Beis Shamai disagree with this reasoning.

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): In precise Seforim, it is never written l'Totafos with a Vov at the end. Rather, he expounds the [initial] Vov in ul'Totafos;

Even the opinion that does not expound [an initial] "Vov", he expounds "Vov Lamed", similar to what it says about "veha'Nosar" in Yevamos (72b).

Explanation #2: We expound l'Totafos. It is written l'Totafos with a Vov between the two letters "Tes". He holds that we remove and add and expound. (It is as if the Vov was written at the end, to denote the plural.)

Rebuttal (R. Tam): We do not remove and add and expound in the middle of a word, only at the beginning or at the end, like we find in Bava Metzi'a (54b) regarding "v'Chamishiso", and regarding "Dam meha'Par Yekablenu" (above, 25a) and regarding "u'Nesatem Es Nachalaso li'Sh'ero" in Bava Basra (111b).

Question: If so, we should require 12 Batim! (L'Totafos is written three times, and each alludes to four!)

Answer #1: Since it teaches the number, the other [occurrences of l'Totafos] are like a Parshah that was said and repeated. It is unlike Keranos, in which the number is not written explicitly.

Answer #2 (Ri of Korvil): One Totafos is needed for the simple meaning. The others come for the number of Batim in Katfi language, and also in Afriki language.

Explanation: In Sukah (6b), we expound for walls, and in Beitzah (30b) regarding "we do not take wood from the Sukah", we forbid also from the walls (not only from the Sechach), since it says "Chag ha'Sukos [... la'Shem]" - just like Hash-m's name (Kedushah) takes effect of the [Korban] Chagigah, so it takes effect on the Sukah.

Question: Regarding "one may not use for Sechach something that receives Tum'ah", and regarding "Ta'aseh," and not from something already made, we do not expound this for the walls! (Ran (Sukah 6b) - "Sukah" does not connote the walls. Here we expound extra words to teach about the walls.)