Explanation (cont.): Since the Tana did not teach a difference between males and females, when it is written Kohen Stam, e.g. regarding Matanos Kehunah, rather, regarding a Minchah, about which it says "Aharon u'Vanav", this teaches that when it says Kohen Stam, there is no difference between a Kohen and Kohenes.

Question: If it is due to "since he was permitted for his Tzara'as, he is permitted for his Keri", why do we say that an Aseh with Kares should override an Aseh without Kares? Even without this [it should be permitted]!

Answer: Regarding Machaneh Levi, that a Tevul Yom of a Ba'al Keri enters, it needed to say that the Aseh of Pesach with Kares overrides the Aseh, for another Tevul Yom may not enter, whether this is mid'Oraisa, if a Tevul Yom of a Zav is like a Zav, or mid'Rabanan, from Yehoshafat's decree.

There we cannot say "since he was permitted for his Tzara'as", for he is on his eighth day, and he is only Mechusar Kipurim. He was never forbidden in Machaneh Levi. One cannot say there "he was permitted"!

However, regarding Machaneh Shechinah, that he enters his hands for Behonos, and he is a Tevul Yom of Keri, about this it says "since Mechusar Kipurim of Metzora was permitted", for normally he is forbidden in Ezras Shechinah, and here he was permitted, also Tevul Yom of his Keri was permitted.

Implied question: Rav Tachlifa said in the name of Rava "this shows that Tum'ah is Hutrah b'Tzibur", in Yoma 6b!

Answer: He inferred so [from the Mishnah], but he does not hold like this.

Implied question: How can they add to [Yerushalayim] and the Azaros? (David received from prophecy how big everything must be!)

Answer: This is when we can say that they found a verse and expounded [that we may make it bigger], like in Sukah (51b-52a. It asked how they could build balconies on the Ezras Nashim for Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah, and brought a hint from a verse.)

Question: Also here, there is no greater verse than this, that we should make a Pishpesh (small opening) to fulfill the Mitzvah of Semichah. The Torah said "v'Samach"!

Partial answer: According to the conclusion that Semichah of Asham Metzora is not mid'Oraisa, this is fine.

Question: However, according to the reason [that Semichah is mid'Oraisa, but we do not do so,] lest he take extra steps (enter the Azarah more than needed), this is difficult. We should make a Pishpesh (through which he can enter his hands, but not his body), for there is no concern!

Answer: "Lest he take extra steps" is a mere decree mid'Rabanan. We apply "ha'Kol bi'Chsav" (since mid'Oraisa there is no need for a Pishpesh).

Implied question: It says in Chulin (83b) that Kisuy ha'Dam does not apply to Kodshim, because it is impossible. If we will be Mevatel it (permanently leave earth for blood of Melikah to fall on it), he increases on the Binyan, and it is written ha'Kol bi'Chsav! (The Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam should be like a verse hinting that we should add!)

Answer: This is not like a verse (that we should add), since the verse does not explicitly say that Kisuy ha'Dam applies to Kodshim.

Explanation: [He should enter and do Semichah] since it is not possible another way, and we cannot fulfill Semichah in Taharah.

Implied question: Why is this unlike other Temei'im, who send Korbanos [through Sheluchim, without Semichah]. We do not say that he should enter and do Semichah!

Answer: They could [bring their Korbanos after they become Tahor, and] fulfill Semichah in Taharah.

Explanation: And we tell (the Metzora'im) to put their hands softly [on the Korban while doing Semichah], lest it be Avodah with Kodshim (in proper Semichah, one leans on the animal and it supports his weight).

Observation: Based on our Sugya, it is fine what it says below (76a) about a Safek Metzora. He brings his Asham and Log (of oil) with it, and says that if he is a Metzora, this is his Asham... (and if not, it is a Shelamim), and that Asham requires Semichah and [putting blood] on his Behonos;

Question: Why does it teach that it requires Semichah? Whether or not it is an Asham, it requires Semichah!

Answer: Because Semichas Asham Metzora is not mid'Oraisa, it comes to teach that it requires Semichah, due to the Safek that it is a Shelamim.

Observation: Also above (4b), regarding Asham, it asks "you cannot learn from Shelamim, because it requires Semichah." It said so due to Asham Metzora (which does not require Semichah mid'Oraisa);

This is unlike Rashi explained, that the text should not say "Semichah", like I explained above (4b DH Mah).

Implied question: A Mishnah below (90b) says that all Ashamos are in their second year, and are bought for [at least] two Shekalim of silver, except for Asham Nazir [Tamei] and Asham Metzora. Why didn't it teach that all Ashamos require Semichah, except for Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora?

Answer: It could not teach so, for mid'Rabanan [Asham Metzora] requires Semichah.

Implied question: In a Mishnah in Menachos (61a), R. Shimon says that there are three matters that require three Mitzvos. Each of them requires two, but not the third - Asham Metzora requires Semichah and Tenufah (waving) in its lifetime, but not Tenufah after Shechitah. (This connotes that Semichas Asham Metzora is mid'Oraisa!)

Answer: It is not because Semichah is mid'Oraisa.

Implied question: The Gemara asks (Menachos 62b) that Asham Metzora should require Tenufah after Shechitah from a Kal v'Chomer! An individual's Shelamim does not require Tenufah in its lifetime... (We can challenge this. Shelamim requires Semichah mid'Oraisa!)

Answer: We cannot challenge that an individual's Shelamim requires Semichah mid'Oraisa, because the Kal v'Chomer is from Tenufah to Tenufah.

Question: The Gemara asks there that Shelamim of the Tzibur (Kivsei Atzeres) should require Semichah from a Kal v'Chomer! An individual's Shelamim does not require Tenufah in its lifetime, but it requires Semichah, all the more so...

Why don't we say that Asham Metzora Yochi'ach? It requires Tenufah in its lifetime, but it does not require Semichah!

Strengthening of question: Also in Toras Kohanim, in Parshas Tzav, it makes a Kal v'Chomer like this, and says that Asham Metzora is Yochi'ach. (Kodshei David - in Toras Kohanim, it tries to learn that Shalmei Tzibur should require Tenufah after Shechitah from a Kal v'Chomer from Shalmei Yachid. Asham Metzora is Yochi'ach; it requires Tenufah in its lifetime, but not after Shechitah. Tosfos asks that also in Menachos, we should bring Asham Metzora to refute the Kal v'Chomer.)

Note: We explain like Shitah Mekubetzes and Tzon Kodoshim, who say that the last words of this Tosfos refer to the coming words, and it is all one Dibur.

Question: This is astounding. Why do we say that Semichah of Asham Metzora is not mid'Oraisa?

Above (11b), we learn [Semichah on] other Ashamos, since it says ka'Chatas ka'Asham - just like Chatas requires Semichah, also Asham requires Semichah. If so, this is difficult. Also Asham Metzora (Semichah should be mid'Oraisa)!

Answer (Rashi): He holds that it is not included in other Ashamos, because it comes only to be Machshir (permit the Metzora to the Mikdash and Kodshim).

Question: This is difficult, for we said in Yevamos (7a) and below (49a) "because Asham Metzora was given a new law, that [some of the blood is put] on the thumb and big toe, one might have thought that it does not require Matan Damim and Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach!"

Citation (7a): It says "ka'Chatas ka'Asham Hu la'Kohen." Just like Chatas requires...

Summation of question: If so, we should say that just like Chatas requires Semichah and Matan Damim and Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach, also Asham...!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Partial Bi'ah is considered Bi'ah regarding lashes,] but not regarding Kares, that you would ask from a Metzora who saw Keri.

Question #1 (R. Chaim): Still, we can ask that an Aseh is not Docheh a Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh - the Lav of "v'El ha'Makdish Lo Savo", if partial Bi'ah is considered Bi'ah, and the Aseh here "Tamei Yihyeh" to include a Tevul Yom!

Question #2: Even a Lav alone, how does it override it? At the time the Lav is uprooted, he does not fulfill the Aseh!

Answer: We can say that an Aseh with Kares is severe, and overrides them (a Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh, and not at the time that the Aseh is fulfilled), like we find in Pesachim (59a) that an Aseh with Kares overrides the Aseh of Hashlamah, even though normally an Aseh is not Docheh an Aseh.

Question: The Aseh of [Taharas] Metzora is severe, due to Shalom Bayis (it permits him to his wife), and it overrides an Aseh. Even so, it does not override a Lo Sa'aseh together with an Aseh, like it says in Chulin (141a) "we need [to teach that Taharas Metzora does not override Shilu'ach ha'Kan in a case that] he took [the mother] with intent to send her. There is no Lav [if he keeps the mother. Even so, the Aseh of Taharas Metzora does not override the Aseh of Shilu'ach!]

Answer: The Aseh of Metzora, even though it is severe, since there is no Kares, it does not override both of them. However, there is Kares for [neglect of] Pesach.

Remark: The text says "R. Yochanan says, he is not lashed."

Observation: Regarding stringencies of Terumah [over Kodshim], it says that they are MaChPaZ (Misah, Chomesh, Pidyon, Zarim). It could have listed also touching Kodesh]! One is lashed for Terumah, but not for Kodesh, according to R. Yochanan!

There are many other stringencies [of Kodshim over Terumah that the Gemara did not mention], like I explained in Yevamos (73b DH she'Chen Panka'aks).

Question (R. Chaim): Still, he should be lashed for Kodesh, like we find in Kerisus (4b) that one who eats Chelev of Kodshim is lashed three times (sets of 39 lashes) - [one is] due to "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh", even though it is written about Terumah, since it is written in an expression of Kodesh!

Answer #1 (R. Chaim): There, there is Me'ilah, for he benefits. We learn from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Chet-Chet" from Terumah, like it says about one who was Mezid about Me'ilah. Everywhere, we learn Me'ilah "Chet-Chet" from Terumah;

However, regarding other Lavin, we do not learn to lash for Kodesh like for Terumah.

Answer #2 (Ri of Orlins): The text [in Kerisus] does not say "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh", rather, "v'Zar Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Hem" which is written about Kodesh itself, and we do not learn from Terumah.

Question #1: We should know this from "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha", just like we learn [from it] in Yevamos (73b) that one who eats Ma'aser or Bikurim b'Tum'as Atzman (when the food is Tamei), he is lashed!

Source: It is written (about Ma'aser, Bikurim and other matters) Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha", and below it says (about a blemished Bechor) "bi'She'arecha Tochalenu ha'Tahor veha'Tamei Yachdav" - even a Tamei and Tahor may eat from the same bowl (even though the food becomes Tamei), and the Torah said bi'She'arecha Tochalenu;

Here (Ma'aser and Bikurim, which are in the first verse) Lo Suchal Le'echol. The verse discusses both Tum'as ha'Guf (when the person is Tamei) and Tum'as Atzman!

Question #2: That Sugya itself it is difficult! Regarding Ma'aser and Bikurim, the Torah explicitly [forbids] eating them b'Tum'as ha'Guf - "Lo Yochal Min ha'Kodoshim Ki Im Rachatz." Why do we need this? We learn both of them, Tum'as ha'Guf and Tum'as Atzman, from this verse (Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha...)!

Answer #1: Some say that we can learn from this verse only a Tum'ah that applies to [forbid] Ma'aser, which is written in the verse. Therefore, we need a verse for a Tevul Yom, who is permitted to Ma'aser and forbidden to eat Kodshim.

Question - Citation (Pesachim 24a) Question: Why do we need "veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel"? We know this from Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha!

[According to Answer #1,] we learn from [Lo Suchal] only a Tum'ah that applies to Ma'aser. We need "veha'Basar..." for Temei'im (e.g. a Tevul Yom) who are Tehorim for Ma'aser!

Answer #2: Perhaps we would establish the verse Lo Suchal only for a Tamei who ate, which is more severe, had the Torah not written it explicitly, and we would not know a Lav for Tum'as Basar.

Question #1: Here it connotes that this Beraisa establishes this verse to discuss Kodesh, and not Terumah;

And in Yevamos (75a), we say 'alternatively, we learn touching Terumah from here, like a Beraisa teaches "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga"', and it brings this Beraisa!

Answer: We can say that there, [the Gemara] was discussing the verses of touching Ma'aser and Terumah. According to the question "I can say oppositely!" (a Tevul Yom may touch Terumah, but not Ma'aser), he must distinguish between touching and eating of Terumah;

Therefore, [to reject this, the Tartzan] brings a proof from this Beraisa, that regarding Kodesh touching is like eating, and the same applies to Terumah.

Question #2: In that Sugya there, and in Shevuos (7a), we say that b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga includes Terumah, and it is a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim, and it discusses eating Terumah;

This is proven in the Sugya there, for it refers to what it says "if you will say that it discusses Terumah, may a female convert or Shifchah eat Terumah?!" (The verse is in Parshas Yoledes, and we expounded to include a Giyores and Shifchah. The Gemara could have said that a Kohen's Shifchah may eat Terumah, but it could not answer for a convert. Alternatively, "Shifchah" refers to a freed Shifchah.)

If it discusses touching, surely they may touch! Rather, it discusses eating.

Summation of question: Now, like whom is the Drashah? It is not Reish Lakish, and not R. Yochanan! Reish Lakish establishes the Lav for a Tamei who ate Kodesh from the Hekesh of Kodesh to the Mikdash...

... And since [the Torah] expressed [the Isur to eat] as "Lo Siga", in an expression of touching, he derives a Lav for touching Kodesh, and from the inclusion "b'Chol" a Lav for eating before Zerikah;

He does not establish it for Terumah at all. Rather, he learns a Lav for [Temei'im] eating Terumah from "Ish Ish".

And [the Drashah is not like] R. Yochanan, [who] establishes it for a Lav against touching Terumah, but he does not establish it for eating Terumah!

Answer (R. Efrayim): [The Beraisa] in Yevamos (75a) that establishes [b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga] for a Lav against eating Terumah, is like the opinion that establishes "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon" to discuss a Zav who saw three sightings, and "Lo Yochal Ad Asher Yithar" until he brings Kaparah and for Kodesh, like it says there;

If so, what is his source for a Lav against eating Terumah [b'Tum'as ha'Guf]? Rather, it is from b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga.

Implied question: There, [Rav Shisha] asked [that b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga cannot discuss Terumah, for a convert may not eat Terumah!]

Answer: [Rav Shisha holds] like the Tana who establishes [Ish Ish] to discuss a Zav who saw two sightings [regarding Terumah, and b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga discusses Kodshim].

Note: There is an implied question. If Rav Shisha expound like a Tana, how could Rava challenge him there, and say that b'Chol Kodesh must discuss Terumah?!

Answer: Even so, he asks properly, for there is an opinion that establishes b'Chol to discuss Terumah, even though a female convert and Shifchah do not eat Terumah. (They are included in Parshas Yoledes for other laws, e.g. for Kodshim.)

Implied question: Regarding eating Kodshim, we require two verses - one for a Zav, and one for a Yoledes! (Why do all agree that one verse suffices for Terumah?)

Answer #1: Regarding Terumah, we do not need [two verses]. Since we already see that regarding eating Kodesh, Zav and Yoledes are the same, the same applies to eating Terumah.

Answer #2: For Terumah, which does not depend on Kaparah (a Mechusar Kipurim may eat Terumah), we do not need two verses for a Zav and Yoledes. [We need] only for Kodesh, for one must wait for [his or her] Kaparah.