Implied question: We needed Saviv regarding Olah, like it says above (53b) 'one might have thought that one throws [Dam Olah] once - it says "Saviv"!'

Answer #1: Rather, it asks why we need Saviv of Chatas. Four corners are written regarding it!

Question #1: This is difficult according to R. Yishmael. He needs the Gezeirah Shavah [Saviv-Saviv] to teach that Olah has four separate Matanos [just like Chatas], like it says above (53b)!

Question #2: According to the opinion above (53a) that one puts Dam Chatas within an Amah of the edge here or here (on one of the two outer faces of the Keren), we need Saviv regarding Chatas for it itself, lest you say that one may put two Matanos on one side on two Keranos (e.g. he puts on the east side of the southeast and northeast corners)!

Answer #2: Perhaps we discuss Saviv written regarding Olah. Saviv is written many times regarding Olah in Parshas Vayikra;

Also, we could learn [two Matanos that are four] for Olah from Shelamim!

Explanation: This is because we make a Hekesh in the stringent way.

Question: We should make a Hekesh [of Bechor] to Chazah v'Shok of Eil Nazir, about which it says explicitly that it is eaten for one day and a night, like we include above (36a)!

Suggestion: This that we include [Eil Nazir] from "Besar Zevach Todas Shelamav" is considered a Hekesh (so it cannot teach through a Hekesh).

Rejection: If so, how does [R. Yosi ha'Gelili] learn [Bechor] from Chatas and Asham? He learns also [them] from that verse, and above (50a) we asked whether something learned from a Hekesh returns to teach through a Binyan Av, and it was not resolved!

Answer #1: It is reasonable to equate to Todah, which applies to all [Tahor] Behemos, like Bechor, and not to Eil Nazir, which applies only to a ram.

Answer #2: It is written about Bechor "k'Shol ha'Yamin", and Todah we learn from Shelamim, about which it says Yamin, but Yamin is not written regarding Eil Nazir.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The entire matter of the Heichal we need to learn from inside. Since the Hekesh was given to be expounded for matters explicit inside, e.g. [Matanos Dam] below of the Par and above of the Sa'ir, we expound and learn with it at once even what is learned inside from a Hekesh.

Also regarding the Hekesh above, if we would need to learn to Bechor Tenufah of Chazah v'Shok and the time it may be eaten, and Bechor was equated to Todah itself to learn both of them from it, since Todah teaches about the time to eat it, which is written regarding it, it would teach also about Chazah v'Shok, which was learned from a Hekesh from Shelamim.

However, now that Bechor is equated to Todah only for Chazah v'Shok, and to learn only the time to eat, if you will say that the verse equated [Bechor] to Chazah v'Shok of Todah, and this itself is learned in Todah only from a Hekesh [it cannot teach through a Hekesh]. Until here is from Rashi.

Question #1: It says above (49b) that Yoseres ha'Kaved and the two kidneys of [Se'ir] Avodah Zarah, which is something that is learned from a Hekesh, and it does not return to teach through a Hekesh, even though that Hekesh is written for matters written in Par Helam Davar itself, such as Haza'os and several things. We do not say that we learn at once!

Question #2: We said above (55a) that we do not learn the north for Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur from Chatas, because it is something learned from a Hekesh, and it does not return to teach through a Hekesh, even though we need that Limud to learn that they are Kodshei Kodoshim and male Kohanim eat it, which is written in [Chatas] itself!

Explanation #2 (Ri): We learn from one [Matanah] above written regarding Se'ir [Yom Kipur] to outside, both regarding the Par and Sa'ir;

Similarly, from the seven [Matanos] below written about the Par inside, we learn to outside, both regarding the Par and Sa'ir, i.e. to all animals.

Explanation #3 (R. Chananel in Yoma 57a): We learn at once. We learn that all of the actions are the same, both inside and outside. All the Haza'os done from them everywhere are the same.

Alternative text: Some texts say "outside from inside we learn at once."

Explanation: This is written regarding Shtei ha'Lechem. We learn from it Chalos Chametz of Todah. Just like Shtei ha'Lechem is an Isaron for each loaf, also here, the Chametz [brought with] Todah is an Isaron for each loaf.

And the number of Chalos [Chametz] of Todah, we learn that they are 10 from a Gezeirah Shavah "Terumah-Terumah" from Terumas Ma'aser. This shows that there are 10 Esronim for 10 Chalos of Chametz;

We later learn Matzah from Chametz. Corresponding to [the amount of Soles for] Chametz, bring [the same amount for] Matzah. There are 10 Esronim for three kinds of Matzah, i.e. three Esronim and a third for each kind of Matzah;

Implied question: The number of loaves is not written regarding Chametz itself! (How can we learn from it to Matzah?)

Answer #1 (Rashi): It is considered as if it were written about Chametz itself, because something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Hekesh.

Answer #2: It is because Terumas Ma'aser (the first Lamed) is Chulin (what is learned from it returns to teach through a Hekesh).

Answer #3: It is because [the Gemara] asks in Menachos (77b) "I should say that there are two Esronim and no more, like Shtei ha'Lechem!", and answers that it says "Tihyenah";

The text says there 'how do we learn this from the verse? R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi said, it is written "Tihyenah". I can say that it is 10 Kefizim (30 Lugim)!' It answers "the verse discusses Esronim." He expounds the inclusion of the two Yud'im. One Yud connotes 10.

Assertion: Presumably, the Yud of "Tihyenah" refers to Lachmei Todah. If it referred to Shtei ha'Lechem, it is written "Shetayim Shtei Esronim" (there is nothing to learn that it is 10);

This is [learning] from it (Shtei ha'Lechem) and another matter, for 10 Esronim is written regarding [Lachmei Todah] itself, for "Tihyenah", which connotes 10 Chalos, refers to Tavi'u (which we expounded there to teach about anything else brought from Chametz).

Support: Rashi explained like this last Perush in Menachos (77b-78a).

Alternative text: Some texts say there 'R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi said, it is written "Tihyenah"', and no more. It does not say "the verse discusses 10 Esronim";

He expounds Tihyenah to be an exclusion. Only these (Shtei ha'Lechem) are two Esronim, but another is not two Esronim.

Support: The Yud is not extra to expound, for just like the singular form "Ta'aseh" becomes "Ta'asenu" in the plural, (the singular form) "Tihyeh" becomes "Tihyenah." One Yud is part of the root of the word, and one denotes [the plural]!

Question: How can we learn, from the Gezeirah Shavah of Terumas Ma'aser, 10 Chalos? Perhaps he makes one big Chalah, and takes a piece from it for Terumah!

Answer #1: We say in Pesachim (37b) "Echad" teaches that he does not take a piece [for Terumas Lachmei Todah. Rather, he takes a full loaf.]

Answer #2: We expound there that all the Korbanos should be the same. This shows that the other Chalos, each must be like the Chalos of Terumah.

Implied question: Why didn't Chachamim [enact] for Korbanos eaten for two days and a night [that one may eat them only] until midday, to distance [from transgression]?

Answer: It is evident when Shki'as ha'Chamah will be, but at night it is not evident [when dawn will come].

Alternative text: Rashi's text does not say v'Iba'is Eima.

Explanation: [Rav Yosef] infers from the fact that "until midnight" was not taught at the end (like regarding other Korbanos that are eaten), and it was taught in the middle. This shows that it is mid'Oraisa, just like "at night, and people who own a share, and roasted."

Pesak: The Halachah follows R. Elazar ben Azaryah, since our Tana taught Stam like him in our Mishnah, and in Pesachim (120b), and in Brachos (9a).

Consequence: One must be careful about Matzah (to eat it before midnight), because Rabah said at the end of Pesachim "according to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, one who eats Matzah after midnight was not Yotzei." (See Tosfos Pesachim 120b DH Amar, and Tosfos Megilah 21a DH Le'asuyei.)