Explanation: He does not cancel all the days, like the Gemara explains, for R. Eliezer said above (16b) that if he became Tamei after Melos, he cancels seven days!

Rather, "he cancels [everything]" refers to Korbanos. R. Eliezer is consistent with his reason that he said in the Gemara, "after all the actions" he may drink wine and shave;

Inference: From when one of the bloods was thrown until he brings the other Korbanos, he is not proper to shave;

Since he became Tamei before offering all of them, it is as if he became Tamei in the morning before they offered any one of them, and he was not proper to shave the entire day;

The first Korban he offered, it is as if he brought it within Melos, during days when he is not proper to shave at all.

Explanation: [He brings his other Korbanos] when (after) he becomes Tahor. So explains the Yerushalmi. He does the act of Taharah, and then brings Korbanos.

Surely, that Korban that was Kosher, he does not bring again. Rabanan hold like they taught elsewhere, that after one act he may drink wine and shave;

Before he became Tamei, it was proper for him to shave. Why should he cancel it (the Korban he brought b'Taharah)?!

Distinction: However, the Korbanos he brought after he became Tamei, he cancels, for the Torah was adamant that he bring Korbanos Nazir in Taharah. After he becomes Tahor, and he receives Haza'ah (they sprinkle Mei Chatas on him) on days three and seven, he will bring them.

Note: This Dibur continues into what is printed in our Gemara as Dibur ha'Maschil veha'Amar. Dibur ha'Maschil b'Miryam is a separate Dibur afterwards.

This is like we said above (6b, 16b) that Tum'ah after Melos cancels 30 days according to Rabanan.

I explained above (6a DH v'Nitma) that this is mid'Rabanan, for mid'Oraisa, seven days suffice. Perhaps here, since it is proper to shave through one [Korban], once Zerikah was done, also according to Rabanan, seven days of Stirah suffice [even mid'Rabanan].

He cancels [his] Korbanos, like I explained in our Mishnah.

Also, we may infer that it discusses [canceling] Korbanos, since Rabanan bring a proof for their words from what Chachamim said "she brings the other of Korbanos."

Explanation: [Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah means] a Kohen Gadol anointed with the anointing oil. [The Kohen Gadol] was called Merubah Begadim from when the Shemen ha'Mishchah was hidden. Yoshiyahu [ha'Melech] hid the Shemen ha'Mishchah that Moshe made, like it says in Yoma (52b);

After him, there was no Kohen anointed with the oil. Rather, there was Merubah Begadim, without oil. They inaugurated him to serve through the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol;

They could not make more Shemen ha'Mishchah to anoint him, like it says "Shemen Mishchas Kodesh Yihyeh Zeh Li l'Doroseichem" - this, and no other;

Source - Citation (Kerisus 5b): Was there only one miracle with the Shemen ha'Mishchah? There were many miracles with it!

Citation (cont.): Initially, there were only 12 Lugim, and with it they anointed the Mishkan and all its Kelim, Aharon and his sons and seven days of the Milu'im (inauguration), and with it they anointed Kohanim Gedolim and kings, and all of it is intact for the future - "Mishchas Kodesh Yihyeh Li l'Doroseichem."

Implied question: It says there (5a) that one who composes Shemen [ha'Mishchah] in order to learn, or to give it to the Tzibur is exempt! (One who makes Shemen ha'Mishchah for his own use is Chayav Kares.)

Answer #1: "To give it to the Tzibur" refers to one who made it in the days of Moshe.

Answer #2: He would give it to the Tzibur to teach them so they will know how to make it, but not to use it.

Consequence: After Yoshiyah, there was no Kohen Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah. Rather, he served with the eight garments, and he was Kosher through this without anointing;

Source (Megilah 9b - Beraisa): [Had it said only] "Mashi'ach", I would know only one anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah. What is the source for Merubah Begadim? It says "ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach."

Implied question: How can there be a Mashu'ach and a Merubah Begadim in the same generation [that the Gemara much teach which of them buries a Mes Mitzvah? Until Yoshiyah, every Kohen was Mashu'ach. After Yoshiyah, every Kohen was Merubah Begadim!]

Answer #1: The case is, one was anointed to be Kohen Gadol, and the Shemen ha'Mishchah was hidden, and the Kohen Gadol had an emission [on Yom Kipur], and they appointed another for Avodas Yom Kipur.

Objection: If so, it should have said that the Mashu'ach [does not become Tamei, because he] is proper to serve, and the Merubah Begadim is not proper to serve, for the first returns to his Avodah, like it says regarding a Mashu'ach she'Avar! (If the Kohen Gadol (Eliyahu) became Tamei on Yom Kipur, and Ploni served in place of him, Ploni does not serve again in the life of Eliyahu.)

Answer: The case is, the Kohen Gadol (Elazar) was exiled, and they appointed another (Pinchas) in place of him through wearing the extra garments, e.g. the Shemen ha'Mishchah was already hidden, and Pinchas served several years;

Even if Elazar returns, he does not return to his Avodah, because Pinchas served several years. Both of them were walking on the road [and saw a Mes Mitzvah...]

Note: Tosfos connotes that Elazar does not serve at all. However, if so, he would become Tamei, and not Pinchas! Do not say that "both of them" refers to Elazar and a Mashu'ach she'Avar. I.e. before Elazar was exiled, he became Tamei one Yom Kipur, and Ploni served in place of him that day. Now, neither Elazar or Ploni serves. Ploni becomes Tamei for the Mes Mitzvah, for he was only Merubah Begadim, and not Mashu'ach. Tosfos does not connote like this at all! (PF) Rather, Tosfos means that Elazar does not return to serve exclusively (Birkas Rosh). Rather, also Pinchas may serve. (Perhaps the text of Tosfos should say "Eino Chozer l'Avodaso Levado (alone).)

Citation of Gemara: In contrast, Mashu'ach brings a bull for [a sin through a mistaken ruling about] all Mitzvos [for which a commoner brings a Chatas, i.e. Chayavei Kerisos].

Source: It says "Im ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Yecheta l'Ashas ha'Am...; v'Hevi [Es ha']Par...";

A Merubah Begadim does not bring a bull, for it says in the Parshah "ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach." It refers only to a Mashu'ach.

Suggestion: Perhaps the Gemara means that a Mashu'ach brings a Par Helam Davar of the Tzibur (if the majority of Yisrael transgressed Kares due to a mistake ruling of the Great Sanhedrin). I.e. a Kohen Mashu'ach offers it, and not a Merubah Begadim, like it says regarding it "v'Hevi ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach mi'Dam ha'Par."

Rejection: In Toras Kohanim, it is explicitly proven unlike this. Even a Kohen Hedyot may offer it.

Note: This is not in our Toras Kohanim. Mitzpas Eisan (Kidushin 36b) brings a Sifri that connotes unlike Tosfos. Rashi there says that a Kohen Mashu'ach is required. There was a Havah Amina (Horiyos 6a) that they offered Par Helam Davar at the beginning of Bayis Sheni. Rashi must say that we could have rejected it also because there was no Kohen Mashu'ach. Alternatively, Rashi permits making more Shemen ha'Mishchah for needs of the Tzibur, unlike Tosfos above (DH v'Chen).

Question: If we discuss after Yom Kipur, we should not call [the latter] Merubah Begadim, rather, [Kohen] she'Avar;

Note: This question refers to earlier in this Dibur, when Tosfos asked how Kohen Mashu'ach and Merubah Begadim can coexist.

Suggestion: They found a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kipur. (It is proper to call him Merubah Begadim, for he serves today. He is not Kohen she'Avar!)

Objection: Burying a Mes Mitzvah does not override Yom Tov, and all the more so Shabbos or Yom Kipur!

Answer: Really, it was on Yom Kipur itself. We do not discuss burial, rather, moving the Mes from the sun to the shade [lest it decay rapidly]. This is permitted even on Shabbos;

Regarding this, it says that Mashu'ach b'Shemen is preferable. The Merubah Begadim is Mitamei to move it from the sun to the shade;

The Mashu'ach is preferable because he brings a bull for all Mitzvos [of Kares], if the Kohen Mashi'ach ruled and gave a mistaken ruling;

Merubah Begadim does not bring a bull for all Mitzvos, for the verse says specifically Mashi'ach. Rather, he brings a female lamb or goat, like a commoner. This matter is primarily in Horiyos (11b).

Explanation: "The bull that is brought for all Mitzvos" is the bull he himself brings when he ruled for himself and did like his ruling. The ruling of a Kohen Mashi'ach for himself is like the ruling of Beis Din (the Great Sanhedrin) for the Tzibur.

Implied question: We could have discussed a Mashu'ach and a Mashu'ach she'Avar, or a Merubah Begadim and a Merubah Begadim she'Avar!

Answer: The Gemara teaches a bigger Chidush. Even if the one who ceased serving was Mashu'ach, Merubah Begadim is preferable to him.

Comment - Explanation #1: Merubah Begadim and Mashu'ach she'Avar - seemingly, this connotes that Merubah Begadim is after Shemen ha'Mishchah was hidden, and the Kohen Gadol was Merubah Begadim;

He had an emission, and they appointed another in place of him, anointed him, and Yom Kipur passed, and the first, who is Merubah Begadim, returns to his Avodah. Now there are in front of us Merubah Begadim and Mashu'ach she'Avar.

Rejection: This cannot be! How can it be that they anointed the latter, and did not anoint the first?

Explanation #2: Rather, there is here a Kohen Gadol Mashu'ach, and he had an emission, and they anointed another in place of him, and he served one Yom Kipur, and then the first Mashu'ach returned to his Avodah and served several years afterwards, and the second Mashu'ach does not serve;

Meanwhile, Shemen ha'Mishchah was hidden. The first Mashu'ach who returned to his Avodah was exiled with (1000 Chachamim and) Yechanyah (11 years before the first Churban) and they appointed another in place of him, a Merubah Begadim;

However, we do not appoint the Mashu'ach she'Avar in place of him as long as the first is alive, even when he went to exile, due to enmity. Therefore, we cannot say that the Mashu'ach died, for if so, we would appoint the Mashu'ach she'Avar in place of him.

Note: Be'er Sheva (Horiyos 13a) asks what enmity exists, for the first was exiled. I (PF) ask why there is less enmity if we appoint someone new, as opposed to the Mashu'ach she'Avar! Also, the Kohen Gadol should exceed the other Kohanim in Chachmah, beauty, and strength. Seemingly, if the new Kohen exceeds the Mashu'ach she'Avar in all of these, we should appoint him! Sha'ar ha'Melech says that because the first was Mashu'ach, and the latter cannot be, the first has precedence.

Rather, he was exiled, and they appointed a Merubah Begadim in place of him. Now, the Mashu'ach she'Avar was [Kohen Gadol] before the Merubah Begadim, for there was still Shemen ha'Mishchah [when he served].

Both of them were walking, the Merubah Begadim and the Mashu'ach she'Avar. The Merubah Begadim has precedence, for he does Avodah, i.e. he is proper to serve;

The Mashu'ach she'Avar may not serve, like it says in Yoma (12b). He cannot serve like a Kohen Gadol, due to enmity. He cannot serve like a Kohen Hedyot, because we ascend in Kedushah, and do not descend.

This is like R. Yosi taught, that he cannot serve like a Kohen Gadol, and not like a Kohen Hedyot.

Question: There are many differences between them, like are brought in Yoma (72b)!

The garments in which a Kohen Gadol serves, a Mashu'ach Milchamah serves. A Segan serves in the garments of a Kohen Hedyot, until he serves on Yom Kipur in place of the Kohen Gadol (and then he is no longer called a Segan)!

Also, all five matters mentioned in the Parshah - he does not grow his hair or tear his clothes [when a relative dies], he is commanded to marry a Besulah, and is forbidden a widow, and does not become Tamei for relatives, do not apply to a Segan, and apply to Mashu'ach Milchamah, like we include in Horiyos (12b) from verses.

Note: Since the Torah is more stringent about a Mashu'ach Milchamah becoming Tamei for relatives, the Segan should become Tamei for the Mes Mitzvah! Turei Even (Megilah 9b) says that the order of precedence for Mes Mitzvah is only mid'Rabanan. Mid'Rabanan, also a Segan does not become Tamei for relatives!

Answer (Rav M"R): Surely, there are more ways in which Mashu'ach Milchamah is more stringent than a Segan. The Tana teaches leniencies;

The only leniency that applies to Mashu'ach Milchamah that does not apply to a Segan is this, that the Mashu'ach Milchamah becomes Tamei [for a Mes Mitzvah when only the two of them are there], and the Segan does not become Tamei.

Support: We say so also in Pesachim (55a). The Tana teaches leniencies.

Explanation #1: We are thinking that this means that he has precedence in every way.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): The Makshan knew that this was taught in Horiyos (13a) regarding saving his life, to unearth a rock-pile, if a rock-pile fell on both of them;

Note: The Mishnah there discusses precedence for sustaining lives, and the Gemara brought a Beraisa that puts Mashu'ach Milchamah above the Segan.

Even so, he asked that if the Segan has precedence regarding Tum'ah, we should excavate the Segan first.

Mar Zutra answers that regarding saving his life, to unearth a rock-pile, Mashu'ach Milchamah has precedence, because many depend on him;

Regarding Tum'ah, the Segan has precedence, for he was appointed for Avodah.

Implied question: However, also in Horiyos the Gemara establishes it regarding saving his life, like here!

Note: There, the Gemara asked the same contradiction as here, and answered only that it discusses precedence for sustaining lives. We cannot say that the Gemara already knew this!

Answer: This connotes that the Beraisa was not taught explicitly on this [Mishnah] regarding sustaining him.

Explanation: [A Kohen Hedyot is Mitamei for relatives], like it says in the verse, but he is not Mitamei for strangers. A Kohen Gadol is not Mitamei for relatives, like it says "l'Aviv ul'Imo Lo Yitama" - all the more so, he is not Mitamei for strangers!

Rather, you are forced to say that the verse "Al Kol Nafshos Mes Lo Yavo" discusses relatives. "L'Aviv" is extra to expound "he is not Mitamei for his father, but he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah."

Question: How does this make "l'Aviv" extra? There is no Kal va'Chomer unless the verse says "l'Aviv", for so concludes the Kal va'Chomer "a Kohen Gadol, who is not Mitamei for relatives..." What is the source for this, if it would not say "l'Aviv"?

Answer: The Kal va'Chomer it says is not precise. It was said only l'Ravcha d'Milsa (to dispel any possible objections). It is as if the Beraisa says that you are forced to say that the verse "Al Kol Nafshos Mes Lo Yavo" discusses relatives;

If it comes to warn about strangers, he was already commanded. From when he was a Hedyot, he was commanded about strangers. After he became Kohen Gadol, is his Kedushas Kohen Hedyot uprooted? To where did the Kedushah go?!

Conclusion: Rather, you are forced to say that it comes to warn about relatives, that a Kohen Hedyot is permitted [to be Mitamei for them]. "L'Aviv ul'Imo" is extra to teach that he is not Mitamei for his father, but he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah.