Implied question: Below (98a), we expound from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah" - just like Shelamim can make Pigul...

Answer: This Tana does not expound that Hekesh. If he did, he would not need all of these Yiturim (words extra for a Drashah).

Observation: From here we could have derived that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah.

Inference: Here it connotes that Bechor resembles Shelamim more than other Kodshim.

Question: Elsewhere this is not so! It says in Menachos (91b) "just like Shelamim can be brought for Neder or Nedavah, also everything brought for Neder or Nedavah"!

Implied question: We said above (28b) that the verse discusses two eatings (Pigul applies both to what people eat, and what the Mizbe'ach consumes)!

Answer: We learn both of these, since it did not say He'achel He'achel or Ye'achel Ye'achel, like it says in Menachos (17b).

Remark: However, R. Eliezer, who establishes it there for a different Drashah (intent Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo to eat something that should be Huktar, or vice-versa, disqualifies), he learns this Drashah from another verse;

Implied question: Rava explains above (28b) all [Korbanos] from the long verse, and he expounds "mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav" - just like Shelamim makes Pigul and becomes Pigul... (He does not expound Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal!)

Answer #1 (Rashi there): It says Zevach Shelamim, which connotes that it equates Zevach to Shelamim.

Rebuttal (and Answer #2): No. Rather, he relies on this Beraisa.

Question #1 (R. Chaim): Why did [the Gemara] abandon the wording of the Beraisa? It should have said "just like Shelamim is special - it has Matirim both for people and the Mizbe'ach..."!

Question #2: The expression "it is Mefagel and becomes Pigul" does not exclude blood, for blood is Mefagel and becomes Pigul, like a Beraisa in the Tosefta teaches that Zerikah is Mefagel and become Pigul;

The blood makes the meat Pigul, and [the blood] becomes Pigul through Zerikah, if he threw with intent to pour Shirayim tomorrow!

Remark: In any case we need the Yiturim above, for from the Klal u'Ferat we include only what resembles the Prat in every way.

Question: The Torah should not have written "Min ha'Esh", and we would not need "l'Chol"!

Explanation: [We need an inclusion because] from "Kupar", one might have thought that the Kohen gets only what is leftover from the Mizbe'ach, but not money.

Alternative text: Old Seforim say "Gezel ha'Ger is written explicitly!" It is written in Parshas Nasa "la'Kohen Lo Yihyeh."

Rebuttal (Rashi): The text does not say so, for Chatas and Asham and other [matters] said in the Parshah are written explicitly, each in its place, and the Torah arranged (taught) here that they are to Aharon, due to Korach's feud.

Citation: In Menachos (45b), regarding Shtei ha'Lechem of Shavu'os, R. Akiva says 'does it say 'Kodesh Yihyu la'Shem vela'Kohen'? It says "la'Shem la'Kohen", [to teach] like Rav Huna. Rav Huna taught that Hash-m acquired it, and gave it to the Kohen.'

Explanation (Rashi in Menachos): [Kohanim] acquire from Hash-m's table. Rav Huna's teaching was taught primarily regarding Gezel ha'Ger, in Bava Kama (109b).

Remark: We do not find Rav Huna's words there. Rather, it is a Beraisa there (109b) and in Erchin (28b) "ha'Asham ha'Mushav la'Shem la'Kohen" - Hash-m acquired it, and gave it to the Kohen in that Mishmar.

Correction: It seems that in Menachos, the text does not say "like Rav Huna." Rather, it says '"la'Shem la'Kohen" - Hash-m acquired it, and gave it to the Kohen.'

Observation: We cannot explain "to the Kohen in that Mishmar", like the case of Gezel ha'Ger, [for here it refers also to the Omer, which was during Pesach, and] during the festival all the Mishmaros are equal, like we expound in Sukah (55b), from "u'Va b'Chol Avas Nafsho v'Sheres"!

Rather, it is like Rashi explained regarding "they acquire from Hash-m's table."

Question: Rashi connotes that they acquire Gezel ha'Ger from Hash-m's table. One cannot say so, for we say here "it is to you (Aharon) and your children", even to be Mekadesh a woman;

In Kidushin (52b) it says that one who is Mekadesh with his share [of Kodshim], whether Kodshei Kodoshim or Kodshim Kalim, she is not Mekudeshes, because they acquire from Hash-m's table!

Answer: Here is different, for the Torah revealed "to you and your children."

Question: Why does it say "la'Shem" regarding Gezel ha'Ger? For Gezel ha'Ger, how is it relevant that Hash-m acquired, to say that they acquire from Hash-m's table?

Implied question: It says in Gitin (54b) that the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur is Yochi'ach (that one witness is believed about Isurim). If he says that he was Mefagel [in the Heichal, where no one else could be present to witness this], he is believed!

Answer #1: Granted, it is not Pigul, but it is Pasul from a Kal v'Chomer, like it says above (14a) that R. Shimon agrees that it is Pasul from a Kal v'Chomer. Lo Lishmah...

Answer #2 (R. Chaim): [In Gitin], "Pigul' refers to the Pesul of Lo Lishmah.

Rebuttal: Lo Lishmah is not called Pigul, like it says above (13a) "also the wording [of our Mishnah] supports this. It says that the Zevach is disqualified. It does not say that it becomes Pigul!"

Assertion: He argues with what [Rava] expounds below (49b) from "Ka'asher Yuram", that it is needed for Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys for Par He'elem Davar of the Tzibur, and this Tana learns it from another verse. (Yad Binyamin, citing Meleches Yom Tov - below, due to Ka'asher Yuram, we consider that Yoseres ha'Kaved and the kidneys were explicitly written about Par He'elem Davar, so we may learn to Se'irei Avodah Zarah. In Toras Kohanim, a Tana expounds a different verse to teach about Se'irei Avodah Zarah.)