THE SOURCE FOR KORBANOS THAT OVERRIDE TUM'AH
Question: If so, it should not need to list goats of Rosh Chodesh!
Answer: It must teach goats of Rosh Chodesh, for one might have thought that it (Rosh Chodesh) is not called 'Mo'ed', and they would not Docheh Tum'ah - the Mishnah teaches that this is not so, for it is called Mo'ed:
(Abaye): "Kara Alai Mo'ed" - Tamuz (when the Meraglim toured Eretz Yisrael) was a full month of 30 days, causing that they returned before the eve of the ninth of Av.
Question: We learn that all of these are Docheh Tum'ah because they are called Mo'ed - what is the source of this?
Answer (Beraisa - Rebbi) Question: Va'Ydaber Moshe Es Mo'adei Hash-m - what do we learn from this?
Answer: It says "B'Mo'ado" regarding the Tamid and Korban Pesach, teaching that they may be offered on Shabbos and b'Tum'ah.
Question: What is the source for other Korbanos Tzibur?
Answer: We learn from "Eleh Ta'asu la'Shem b'Mo'adeichem" [in Parshas Pinchas, where all the Musafim are taught].
Question: What is the source for the Omer, Shtei ha'Lechem and the Korbanos that accompany these [in Parshas Emor]?
Answer: We learn from "Va'Ydaber Moshe Es Mo'adei Hash-m" (in that Parashah) - this makes each like a Mo'ed [to Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah].
Question: Why does the Tana need separate sources that these Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah?
Answer: All are needed:
Had it only taught about the Tamid, we would say that this is because it is Tadir (brought most frequently) and Kalil (entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach), but Pesach would not Docheh;
Had it only taught about Pesach, we would say that this is because there is Kares [for not bringing it], but the Tamid would not Docheh;
Had it taught only these two, we would say that this is because each has a stringency - Tadir and Kalil, or Kares - but other Korbanos Tzibur would not Docheh - therefore it says "Eleh Ta'asu la'Shem b'Mo'adeichem";
Had it written only "Eleh Ta'asu...," we would say that this applies to Korbanos Tzibur that atone - but the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem merely come to permit [new grain], they would not Docheh.
Had it taught only about the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem, we would say just the contrary, that because they permit, they are Docheh [so Yisrael will get the Heter], but other Korbanos Tzibur would not Docheh!
Therefore the Torah teaches that all of these Docheh Tum'ah.
IS OUR MISHNAH LIKE R. YEHOSHUA?
Assumption #1: Tum'ah is Nidcheh b'Tzibur (we may do b'Tum'ah only what cannot be done b'Taharah), and this relies on the Tzitz - the only Tana who holds that it is Hutrah [totally permitted] is R. Yehudah:
(Beraisa - R. Shimon): The Tzitz is Meratzeh (makes acceptable Korbanos brought b'Tum'ah) whether or not the Kohen Gadol is wearing it at the time.
R. Yehudah says, it is Meratzeh only when he is wearing it.
R. Shimon: We can learn from Yom Kipur - he does not wear it [during the Avodah in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, when he wears only linen garments,] nevertheless it is Meratzeh [it is a Korban Tzibur with a fixed time, if it was done b'Tum'ah it is Kosher]!
R. Yehudah: No, Avodah b'Tum'ah is Kosher because Tum'ah is Hutrah b'Tzibur.
Inference: R. Shimon holds that Tum'ah is Nidcheh b'Tzibur.
Assumption #2: Both of them agree that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for Achilos (to consider Tamei Kodesh that is normally eaten as if it was Tahor) - R. Eliezer is the only Tana who says that it is:
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): The Tzitz is Meratzeh for Achilos;
R. Yosi says, it is not.
Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike R. Yehoshua:
(Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): "V'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam" - Zerikas Dam may be done only if there is [Tahor] meat, and Haktarah of the meat may be done only if there is [Tahor] blood;
R. Eliezer says, Zerikah can be done even without meat - "V'Dam Zevachecha Yishpoch";
"V'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam" teaches that just like blood is thrown, also meat - there is a gap between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach [to force or remind Kohanim to throw Eimurim].
Question: How does R. Yehoshua expound "V'Dam Zevachecha Yishpoch"?
Answer: [This is on condition that there is meat -] the verse ends "Veha'Basar Tochel"!
Question: According to R. Yehoshua, why do two verses teach the same thing?
Answer: One teaches about Olah and the other about Shelamim - both are needed:
Had it taught only about Olah, we would have said that it is more stringent because it is Kalil;
Had it taught only about Shelamim, we would have said that we are more concerned for its meat because it is consumed by the Mizbe'ach and people.
Question: How does R. Eliezer expound "Veha'Basar Tochel"?
Answer: This teaches that only after Zerikah ("V'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech") it is permitted to eat the meat.
Question: The entire verse is needed for this - what is his source to permit [Zerikas] Dam without meat?
Answer: If the Torah only wanted to teach that meat is forbidden until after Zerikah, it would have said 'Ha'Basar Tochel' and then 'v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech', just like "V'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam" mentions meat first (even though Zerikah precedes Haktarah);
Rather, it mentions blood first to permit offering blood without meat, and also to forbids the meat before Zerikah.
R. Yehoshua learns from a Kal va'Chomer that the meat is forbidden until Zerikah:
If the Chelev cannot be offered (e.g. it was lost), it is not Me'akev eating the meat, nevertheless when it can be offered it is Me'akev [eating before it is offered] - blood is Me'akev eating even when it cannot be offered, all the more so when it can be offered it is Me'akev!
R. Eliezer says, a verse teaches this even though we could have learned from a Kal va'Chomer.
R. Yehoshua says, whenever we can expound [a law for which there is no other source], we do so.
Reiteration of suggestion: Our Mishnah [which permits offering b'Tum'ah things that may not be eaten] is unlike R. Yehoshua, for he requires blood and meat, but the Tzitz does not Meratzeh for Achilos (it is as if there is no meat)!
Rejection #1: It is even like R. Yehoshua - he holds that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for Olim (things offered on the Mizbe'ach - since a k'Zayis of Chelev can be consumed, it is considered that there is meat to permit Zerikah).
Question: That applies to Zevachim (animals) - how can we answer regarding the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem, which are totally eaten by people?
Answer: R. Yehoshua only requires both [blood and meat] regarding Zevachim - he makes no such requirement [that the part that should be eaten is intact] regarding Menachos.
Objection: This is not true!
(Mishnah): Even if the Shirayim (the remainder of a Minchah after a Kometz (handful) is taken) became Teme'im, were burned or lost, the Minchah is Kosher according to R. Eliezer's opinion;
According to R. Yehoshua's opinion, it is Pasul.
Answer: It means, according to R. Yehoshua's opinion that both are required [it is Pasul] - but not totally like his opinion, for he said this only regarding Zevachim, not regarding Menachos, and this Tana says so even regarding Menachos.
Objection #1: Where do we find a Tana who is like R. Yehoshua but even more stringent?!
Objection #2 (Beraisa - R. Yosi): I hold like R. Eliezer regarding Zevachim and Menachos, and like R. Yehoshua regarding Zevachim and Menachos:
Regarding Zevachim I hold like R. Eliezer, who permits [offering] blood even without meat, and like R. Yehoshua, who says that each is Me'akev the other (this will be explained);
Regarding Menachos I hold like R. Eliezer, who permits [offering] the Kometz even if the Shirayim are not intact, and like R. Yehoshua, who says that each is Me'akev the other. (This shows that R. Yehoshua also said his law regarding Menachos!)
Rejection (of Assumption (b) and Rejection #1 of Suggestion (c)): Rather, R. Yehoshua holds that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for [Olim and] Achilos [and the Mishnah can be like him].
Question: If so, why is R. Yehoshua Posel [a Minchah without Shirayim in the Mishnah (g:1-2)]?
Answer: Indeed, he is Posel only when they were burned or lost [but not on account of Tum'ah, even though it sounds like he is Posel in all three cases].
Objection #1: If so, why did the Tana teach about when they became Tamei?
It is not a Chidush that R. Eliezer is Machshir - he is Machshir even if they are not here at all, i.e. they were burned or lost, all the more so if they are here, just they are Temei'im!
Rather, we must say that indeed R. Yehoshua is Posel in this case, and this is the Chidush.
Objection #2 (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): Regarding [almost] all Zevachim, whether the Chelev became Tamei and the meat is intact, or the meat became Tamei and the Chelev is intact, we Zorek.
Inference: If both of them are Temei'im, we do not Zorek, i.e. he does not hold that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for Olim and for Achilos!
Rejection #2 of Suggestion (c)): Really, the Mishnah can be like R. Yehoshua - he says that l'Chatchilah, we Zorek only if both are intact - b'Di'eved, he agrees that the Korban is valid.
Question: What is the source that he distinguishes between l'Chatchilah and b'Di'eved?
Answer (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If the meat became Tamei, Pasul, or left the Azarah, we throw the blood;
R. Yehoshua says, we do not throw it;
R. Yehoshua admits that if Zerikah was done, it was Meratzeh.
Objection #1: In the Mishnah of Shirayim, R. Yehoshua said that it is Pasul - this connotes, even b'Di'eved!
Objection #2: Our Mishnah says that five things are brought b'Tum'ah - this connotes l'Chatchilah!
Rejection #3 (of Suggestion (c)): Really, the Mishnah is even like R. Yehoshua - he is Posel regarding an individual, but Tum'ah is permitted (Rashi - Hutrah, we retract from Assumption (a); Tosfos - Nidcheh) for the Tzibur.