Suggestion: Perhaps he asks that they should be Pasul, for we learn from Chatas and Pesach through the Hekesh of v'Zos ha'Torah, like I explained below (DH Ha), or through a Mah Matzinu (Binyan Av - just like Chatas or Pesach Lo Lishmah is Pasul, the same applies to Asham)!

Rejection - part 1: We can challenge [the Mah Matzinu], for there is Kares (for one who neglects to bring Korban Pesach, and a Stam Chatas is for an Aveirah for which there is Kares for Mezid).

Rejection - part 2: And if [he wants to learn] through the Hekesh of v'Zos ha'Torah, if so the Torah should have written one of them [twice, to teach that it is Me'akev, i.e.] only Chatas or only Pesach.

Answer #3: If we will say that everywhere [in Kodshim], that we require that something is written twice to teach that it is Me'akev, we learn from here, since it says Motza Sefasecha..., if so it is fine that he asked "they should be Pasul"! (The Makshan did not yet know that it is Me'akev only if it was written twice.) Until here is a comment.

Question: There is different! These [Ashamos slaughtered with Shinuy Kodesh or Shinuy Ba'alim] do not count [for his obligation], but [Korbanos] brought after death count totally for the obligation!

According to the opinion that Shibud mid'Oraisa, if the Korban was Pasul, the heirs would need to bring another [Korban].

And even according to the opinion that [Shibud] is not mid'Oraisa, if he separated two Korbanos for Achrayus, if the first became Pasul, [the heirs] must offer the second. It turns out that after death it is Meratzeh regarding that they count for the obligation. This does not apply to Shinuy Kodesh.

Answer: In any case, they resemble each other somewhat, that they are not totally Meratzeh, for there is no Kaparah for a Mes, and he is not obligated to bring, just he was obligated [the Korban] in his lifetime;

Also Shinuy Kodesh and [Shinuy] Ba'alim, they are not totally Meratzeh.

Question: What was the proof from [Korbanos] brought after death? Do we learn from it in every place that [something] was not written twice to teach that it is Me'akev, that it is only l'Chatchilah, that we should say that [if it was not done] they are Kosher and do not count?

Answer: Only regarding Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim we compare them, for Shinuy Ba'alim is like offering after death, for there is no owner;

Just like there [after death] it is Kosher and it is not Meratzeh, also here that he changed it from its owner, it is as if it has no owner. (Shitah Mekubetzes adds that we learn also Shinuy Kodesh from Shinuy Ba'alim.)

Inference: However, if she were alive, she could offer her Chatas after her Olah, and her Olah counted for her [Chiyuv to bring an] Olah.

Support: Toras Kohanim in Parshas Tazri'a connotes like this. If she brought her Olah first, she brings her Chatas from the same species as her Olah (if she brought a Tor, she may not bring a Yonah, and vice-versa). Also Maseches Kinim [connotes like this].

Question: In Pesachim (59a), we say "this is a Binyan Av. All Chata'os come before Olos, even Chatas ha'Of comes before Olas Behemah";

Even b'Di'eved (if the Olah was offered first), it says that it is Pasul, for it answers 'Olas Metzora is different, for the Torah said "v'He'elah [ha'Kohen Es ha'Olah]" - he already offered it';

This refers to b'Di'eved, for l'Chatchilah, the Chatas is first, like it says explicitly in the verse. This teaches that elsewhere, even b'Di'eved no (it is Pasul)!

Answer #1 (R. Chayim): Likewise, elsewhere it is Kosher b'Di'eved;

Implied question: [If so] why do we need a verse for Metzora?

It is because it is written Havayah - "Zos Tihyeh", it must be b'Havayaso (the way the Torah specified), which connotes that it is Me'akev, like it says in Menachos (5a).

Answer #2: I say that we learn Chatas and Olah of a Yoledes from Chatas and Olah of a Metzora. The Torah revealed that if he offered the Olah first, it is Kosher, from "v'He'elah", like it says in Pesachim (59a);

If not for the verse "v'He'elah", which is Machshir, it would be Pasul everywhere, because there is Mechusar Zman (it is not yet time to offer the Korban) on the same day (i.e. even if one may offer it later today), for the verse said to offer the Chatas before the Olah;

[We would disqualify] even elsewhere, where it does not say "Tihyeh" to teach that it is Me'akev.

Support: In Menachos (5a), it says that if one [slaughtered a Metzora's] Chatas before his Asham, one does not stir the blood (to prevent coagulation, and offer the Asham before Zerikas ha'Chatas). Rather, [it is totally Pasul, and] it is burned;

It says that the reason it is disqualified is not due to Tihyeh, for that does not refer to Shechitah, for it is not an Avodah. Rather, it is because Mechusar Zman applies on the same day. The verse said to do the Asham first.

Why shouldn't this reason apply to a Chatas and Olah in general? (Surely, it does!) Therefore, "v'He'elah" is needed regarding Metzora to be Machshir, and we learn from it in general to be Machshir if he offered the Olah before the Chatas.

Limitation: However, we do not learn from it Chatas and Asham, only Korbanos like [Chatas and Olah]. This is from R. Baruch.

Remark: The text is errant in Toras Kohanim. I explained it in Menachos (4b DH Lo. It should say that one might have thought that if one brought his Olah but not his Chatas, and died, his heirs bring the Chatas. "Echad l'Chatas" teaches that this is not so. This is an Asmachta, for a tradition from Sinai teaches that if the owner of a Chatas dies, the Chatas must die.)

Question: Since he was not bothered about Olah and Shelamim (that even if there was Shinuy Kodesh, they are Kosher), he should learn Asham from it through the Hekesh of v'Zos ha'Torah. Why do we need Motza Sefasecha?

Answer: Just the contrary, one might have thought oppositely, that we learn other Korbanos from Asham, that they do not come at all (Shinuy Kodesh disqualifies them)!

Question: He did not need Motza Sefasecha at all, only for Asham, for other Kodshim we know from reasoning, like we say "we do not need the verse [for an Olah, or for similar Korbanos], for they can be brought after death"!

Answer: Now he retracts from that reason;

Even though [Reish Lakish] said [to R. Elazar] I agree with you about an Olah", he said so only amidst difficulty.

Question: Why do we need "Osah"? Since we need verses to teach that [Shinuy Kodesh] is Me'akev (disqualifies b'Di'eved) Pesach and Chatas, this implies that other Korbanos are Kosher!

Suggestion: We would learn from them (if not for Osah)!

Rejection: We cannot learn from [Pesach and Chatas], because they pertain to Kares.

Implied suggestion: We should learn [other Korbanos] from the Hekesh of v'Zos ha'Torah!

Rejection: Also from there we cannot learn, for if we could, the Torah would have written only one Ikuv, regarding Pesach or Chatas, and we would learn the other from the Hekesh.

Opinion #1: The text does not say "Semichah", for also Asham requires Semichah, like it says below (11a).

Opinion #2 (R. Chayim): The text can say "Semichah" due to Asham Metzora, according to the opinion below (33a) that Semichah on Asham Metzora is not mid'Oraisa.

Implied question: We find that Olah comes for Nedavah of the Tzibur. [The Tzibur] offers Olos on the Mizbe'ach (when it is idle. Perhaps the Tzibur can bring also Todah for Nedavah! - Shal-m Rav)

Answer: Todah and Shelamim do not come for Nedavah of the Tzibur. We exclude them in Toras Kohanim, in Parshas "v'Im Min ha'Tzon Korbano l'Zevach Shelamim."

Explanation: And even though (we offer also Mosar Chatas), it is Pasul Lo Lishmah, since it does not come after death for Chatas, rather, for Olah;

Also Asham, since it is not offered l'Shem Asham, rather, l'Shem Olah, it is unlike other Kodshim (and it is Pasul Lo Lishmah, like Chatas).

Explanation #1: According to this conclusion, it connotes that it is left difficult. R. Elazar should say that also Asham (Lo Lishmah is Pasul)!

Explanation #2: It seems that the text says "v'Chatas", with a Vov, and all of this is from Rav Sheshes' words. It means as follows;

And Chatas, even though we offer its Mosar, the Torah excluded "Hu", lest you be Machshir it since it comes after death, just like in his lifetime;

This is why above, Reish Lakish needed "Osah".

Explanation #2 (cont.): The question 'it says "Hu" also regarding Asham!' was not to refute Rav Sheshes' words. Rather, it means as follows;

How can you exclude it from a Pesul Lo Lishmah from "Osah" (only Chatas is Pasul Lo Lishmah)? It says regarding [Asham] Hu, to disqualify it [Lo Lishmah]!

Observation: In several places it connotes that since it says "Hi" regarding Chatas, we learn that [Lishmah] is Me'akev;

Below (10b), R. Eliezer says "even Asham." R. Yehoshua said to him 'regarding Chatas, it says "Hi" regarding Shechitah...'

And in Menachos (4a), it says 'what is the reason for Chatas? It says about it "Hi".'

Question: Below (7b), it says "except for Pesach and Chatas", and we learn from different verses!

Answer #1 (R. Chayim): We need two verses, one for a Chatas slaughtered l'Shem Olah, and one for a Chatas [to atone for eating] Chelev slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Nazir or Metzora;

Even though all of them are called Chatas, since they do not come to atone, their law is like Olah, like we say below (9b). It is unlike Chatas Chelev slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Dam, which is Kosher.

Question: In Menachos (3b), it asks about a Chatas Chelev slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Nazir or Metzora "it should atone, for it says Zos ha'Torah!";

What was the question? The Torah revealed (that it does not atone when it was slaughtered for a Chatas that is not for Kaparah), for it says "Hi"!

Answer: We need "Hi" to reveal about Minchas Chotei (in Oleh v'Yored, a very poor person brings flour for his Chatas) and Minchas Kena'os (of a Sotah), for it says "Hu" regarding them, just like regarding Chatas and Pesach;

It says below (7b) about Pesach 'why does it say "Hu"? This is like a Beraisa teaches, wherever it says Hu...'

Remark: Rashi deleted this from the text, because it is not in the Beraisa below. There was no need to do so. Perhaps it is a Beraisa in the Tosefta!

Question: This is a little astounding. Why do we need two verses, one for Chatas and one for Pesach?

Answer #2 (Ri): One is for a female Chatas. Its Mosar cannot itself be brought for an Olah (which must be male), rather, it is Ro'eh (graze) until it is blemished, and he brings an Olah with its [redemption] money. Therefore, it is Pasul due to Shinuy Kodesh;

And one is for a [Chatas] Nasi, a male goat. Its Mosar is itself an Olah, when he separated two for Achrayus, and I would say that it is not Pasul when it is she'Lo Lishman;

Question: There is some Tzerichusa (reason) why we cannot learn one from the other, that had it written [only] about a Nasi, it would [not] suffice. This requires investigation.

Explanation #1 - Inference: Nitak l'Re'iyah (it grazes until it gets a Mum) is mid'Oraisa.

Question: In Pesachim (73a) it connotes that it is mid'Rabanan, for it explains there that this is only if he slaughtered it Stam, b'Di'eved. However, l'Chatchilah one may not [slaughter it itself]. This is a decree after Kaparah (he offered a different animal for his Asham) due to before Kaparah;

It does not say that it is a decree after Nituk due to before Nituk! (I.e. mid'Oraisa, even before Nituk one may slaughter it itself.)

Answer: [Our Gemara] means as follows. B'Havayaso Yehei (it retains its status, i.e. Asham) before Kaparah. Therefore, also after Kaparah, Nituk is needed, due to before Kaparah.

Explanation #2: R. Tam's text does not say here "if Nitak, yes. If not Nitak, no." Also in Menachos (4a) and below (115b) and in Temurah (18a) it is not [in the text];

Rather, the text says 'Asham, i.e. its owners died or they atoned through another [animal], and he slaughtered it Stam, it is Kosher for an Olah. "Hu" - b'Havayaso Yehei Olah, once its owners died or atoned through another.'

Question: A tradition teaches that [in such a case that a Chatas must die,] an Asham is Ro'eh;

Answer (R. Tam): that it is because it says "Hu", which connotes b'Havayaso Yehei. Havayaso is what it is destined to be, i.e. an Olah, which it is destined to be in the end, when it will be blemished and its money will fall to Nedavah.

Implied question: Does the verse teach about a tradition?!

Answer: This is not difficult if the verse refers to a tradition. We find like this in Bechoros (16a) that we need a verse, and we need a tradition.

Consequence: Now, what we say everywhere that in every case that a Chatas must die, an Asham is Ro'eh, it mentioned Re'iyah only because Chachamim enacted this;

The tradition is that in every case that a Chatas must die, an Asham is offered for an Olah, for Re'iyah is only mid'Rabanan.

Inference: He expounds from Nefesh.

Support: also in Menachos (104b) it teaches that everything comes in partnership, except for a Minchah, for it says Nefesh.

Question: In Toras Kohanim it expounds "Nefesh", and not a Tzibur. "Korbano", and not partners!

Answer: In every place (i.e. here and in Menachos) it brings the beginning of the verse.

Observation: We could have asked about a contradiction in R. Yochanan.