Explanation #1: Rashi explains that we hold 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur'.

Question #1: In that case, the Gemara ought to have said 'But Rebbi Yehoshua holds 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur', like the Gemara concluded above - that he holds 'Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos'.

Question #2: Moreover, how can the Gemara suggest shortly 'Let us say that this is not like Rebbi Yossi, who holds 'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos!', when for the very same reason - that 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur', that we established it like Rebbi Yehoshua, it can also go according to Rebbi Yossi?

Proof: Like we say at the end.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that really he holds 'Tum'ah Dechuyah ... ', only he holds Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos'

Explanation #2 (cont.): That a Yachid cannot sprinkle Lechatchilah is merely mi'de'Rabbanan, and that is what it means when it says 'Pesulah'.

Explanation #2 (concl.): Consequently be'Tzibur, they can be brought even Lechatchilah.

Question: What is now the difference between Tzibur and Yachid - seeing as mi'd'Oraysa even by a Yachid one may sprinkle Lechatchilah?

Answer: The difference manifests itself with regard to Tum'as ha'Guf, which be'Tzibur it overrides, but not by a Yachid.

Question: The Rashba asks from where we know this? Perhaps he holds like Rebbi Eliezer, and the ramifications of 'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos' are with regard to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

Question: The Ri asks that, according to Resh Lakish, who says in the first Perek of Menachos (Daf 9.) that if the Shirayim diminished between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah, one is not permitted to burn the Kometz -to the contrary, the Pesukim are written with reference to the Menachos ...

Question (cont.): Because as far as Zevachim are concerned, as long as a k'Zayis Basar remains, one is permitted to sprinkle the blood ...

Question (concl.): And it is implied there that he learns this from the word "ha'Minchah"?

Conclusion: According to Rebbi Yochanan however, there is no problem.

Question: The Rashba wonders what the Kashya is. Perhaps what Rebbi Yossi means is that he agrees with Rebbi Eliezer by Tzibur, since even Rebbi Yehoshua only said his Din by a Yachid ... '?

Question (cont.): Just as the Gemara says in the first Perek of Chulin (Df 12.) and in many other places.

Answer: The Ri answers that one cannot say that here, since the Beraisa mentions neither Tzibur or Yachid.

Clarification: Because of 'Tzitz Meratzeh'.

Question: The Ri asks that the Pasuk is speaking about Shechitah, from which we learn that a Machsheves Ochlin renders Pasul by Shechitah, whether by Zerikah we learned earlier that 'There is no Machsheves Ochlin by Zerikah' ...

Question (cont.): So how can one now ask from Shechitah on to Zerikah?

Answer: And he answers that it is specifically a Machsheves Ochlin that applies only to Shechitah, but not to Zerikah, but where there are no Ochlin at all - even at the time of Zerikah it is logical to render it Pasul ...

Answer (cont.): Since as it is the main Avodah - seeing as the Torah is particular by Shechitah even on the Machshavah.

Question: The Rashba asks from the fact that at the time of Zerikah one is no longer able to retract, in which case it is not fit to eat?

Answer #1: Perhaps Rebbi Nasan concurs with Rebbi Shimon, who learns in a Mishnah later in Perek ha'Ishah (Daf 89.) that one can in fact, be designated and retract until the blood has been sprinkled.

Answer #2: Alternatively, if some of the owners became Tamei or died, it is still fit for the others.

Question: Why, when the Gemara earlier asked on the Rabbanan 'u'le'Akeiv Lo?' did it not give the same answer?

Question (cont.): Why did it not answer that when the Pasuk comes to teach us that it is Me'akev (crucial), it means that it is the owner who is Me'akev, but not the Basar?

Answer: This is not a good question, since the Rabbanan require Basar that is fit to eat ...

Proof: As we learned earlier in a Beraisa 'The last ones, who do not have a k'Zayis, are not permitted to eat, and are therefore Chayav to bring a Pesach Sheini.

Refuted Question: Neither can one ask - why the Gemara does not ask according to Rebbi Nasan that "Ish L'fi Ochlo" is written for a Mitzvah (Lechatchilah), as it tried to say earlier?

Answer: Since we do not find a Tana who does not compare those who eat it to those who are designated to eat it other than the Ziknei Darom in the second Perek of Zevachim.

Clarification: Having established our Mishnah like Rebbi Nasan, we have to say that when the Tana says 'Yotz'in be'Pesach Echad' means Davka Bedi'eved.

Question #1: How can the Gemara establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Nasan, asks the Ri, since the Machlokes between Rebbi Nasan and the Rabbanan is confined to Basar, but as far as Gavra (the owner) is concerned, they both agree that that he needs to be fit to eat the Korban?

Question #2: Moreover, even if they did argue by Gavra, then it should apply even if it is Shechted she'Lo le'Ochlav, so why does the Tana say 'Shochto le'Ochlav'?

Question #3: Furthermore, how can the Gemara even suggest that 'There is Machsheves Ochlin by Zerikah', when throughout Shas, the Gemara takes for granted that there is not, as is evident in Zevachim (Daf 4.) and in 'Tamid Nishchat' (above, Daf 68. [Tosfos discusses it there])?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that when the Tana says 'Nizrak Damo she'Lo le'Ochlav' it means (not she'Lo le'Shem Ochlav, but) that at the time of Zerikah the owner is ill.

Answer (cont.): And it is in this light that the Gemara asks 'Like whom, like Rebbi Nasan - because the Gemara thinks that, since Rebbi Nasan is so lenient as not to require the Basar to be fit to eat, he is also not worried if the owner is not fit to eat it at the time of the Zerikah.

Answer (concl.): Whereas the Rabbanan, who are strict and require the Basar to be fit, will also require the owner to be fit at the time of the Zerikah.

Support: And this is also the opinion of Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das), who says shortly that Rebbi Nasan requires the owner to be fit to eat the Pesach at the time of the Shechitah exclusively.