(Beraisa #1): If Yisrael was half Tehorim and half Temei'im, Tehorim bring by themselves and Temei'im by themselves;

If there were more Temei'im than Tehorim, even one more, they [may all] bring b'Tum'ah, for we do not divide a Korban Tzibur.

R. Eliezer ben Masya says, the Tzibur is not considered Tamei on account of an individual - "Lo Suchal Lizbo'ach Es ha'Posach b'Echad" (on account of one person).

R. Shimon says, even if one Shevet is Tamei and the others are Tehorim, Tehorim bring by themselves and Temei'im by themselves.

Question: What is his reason?

Answer: He holds that each Shevet is called a Kahal (congregation).

R. Yehudah says, if one Shevet is Tamei and the others are Tehorim, Pesach is brought b'Tumah, for we do not divide a Korban Tzibur

He holds that each Shevet is called a Kehal; it is as if Yisrael is half Tahor and half Tamei, and we do not divide a Korban Tzibur, therefore all bring b'Tum'ah.

(Rav): If Yisrael was half Tehorim and half Temei'im, we Metamei one person with a Sheretz [so Temei'im will be the majority and everyone can bring Pesach together b'Tum'ah].

Question: We should leave it half-half - Rav holds that in such a case Tehorim bring by themselves and Temei'im by themselves!

Answer #1: The case is, there was one more Tamei than Tahor.

Question: If so, we need not Metamei anyone - Temei'im are already the majority, everyone can bring it together b'Tum'ah!

Answer: He holds like R. Eliezer ben Masya, who says that the Tzibur is not considered Tamei on account of an individual.

Objection: The previous question returns - we should not Metamei anyone; Tehorim will bring by themselves and Temei'im by themselves!

Answer #2: Rather, he holds that if there is a Tana who holds like the first Tana, who does not allow everyone to bring together b'Tum'ah when Yisrael is half-half, and like R. Yehudah who holds that we do not divide a Korban Tzibur, then we Metamei one of them with a Sheretz.

(Ula): We send one of the Tehorim to Derech Rechokah.

Question: Why doesn't he say to Metamei him with a Sheretz?

Answer: he holds that we slaughter and Zorek for a Tamei Sheretz [since he can eat at night, therefore he is considered Tahor].

Question: Why doesn't he say to Metamei him through a Mes?

Answer: If so, he will not be able to bring Chagigah [of the 15th, since he will be Tamei for seven days].

Question: Since we send him away, he cannot bring Pesach!

Answer: He can bring Pesach Sheni.

Question: Likewise, if we would Metamei him b'Mes, he could bring Chagigah on the seventh day of Pesach, for it will be the eighth day from his Tum'ah!

Answer: Ula holds that the last six days one may bring Chagigah are compensation for the first day - only one who could have brought it on the first day may bring it later. (Sha'agas Aryeh (65) - we are not concerned that for six days he will be unable to fulfill Simchah by eating Shelamim, for mid'Oraisa one can fulfill Simchah in other ways, e.g. meat and wine.)

Objection (Rav Nachman): Ula's counsel is unreasonable - who will agree to uproot his tent and go away?!

(Rav): If most of Yisrael were Zavim and the minority were Tamei Mes, [even] those who were Tamei Mes do not bring either Pesach:

They do not bring Pesach Rishon, for they are a minority;

They do not bring Pesach Sheni, for it is brought only when the Tzibur brings Pesach Rishon.

Question (Shmuel): How do you fulfill "V'Ya'asu Venei Yisrael Es ha'Posach b'Mo'ado"?

Counter-question (Rav): According to you, what happens when all of Yisrael are Zavim?!

Answer: You must agree that then we cannot fulfill "ha'Posach b'Mo'ado";

Answer: Likewise, when most are Zavim and the minority is Tamei Mes we cannot fulfill it!

(Rav Huna): If most were Tamei Mes and the minority were Zavim, there is no compensation [on Pesach Sheni for the Zavim [or anyone else] who did not bring] Pesach ha'Ba b'Tumah;

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): There is compensation for Pesach ha'Ba b'Tumah.

Suggestion: Rav Ada holds that there is compensation because he holds that Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur (it is considered as if Pesach was brought b'Taharah, therefore there is compensation for other Temei'im); Rav Huna holds that there is no compensation because he holds that Tum'ah is Nidcheh b'Tzibur. (Tosfos - the Torah commands a Tamei to bring Pesach Sheni only when "Ish Ish Ki Yihyeh Tamei...," i.e. he is Tamei but the Tzibur is Tahor.)

Rejection: No, all agree that Tum'ah is Nidcheh b'Tzibur - Rav Huna holds that only [Pesach brought in] Taharah detains people to Pesach Sheni, Rav Ada holds that even Tum'ah detains people to Pesach Sheni.

(Rav Mani bar Patish): If a third of Yisrael were Zavim, a third were Tehorim, and a third were Tamei Mes, [even] those who were Tamei Mes do not bring either Pesach:

They do not bring Pesach Rishon, for they are a minority (the Zavim join with the Tehorim to outnumber them);

They do not bring Pesach Sheni, for the majority did not bring Pesach Rishon, and a majority is not detained to Pesach Sheni.

(Mishnah): If blood of Pesach was thrown and then it became known that it (Tosfos - the blood; Rashi - or meat) was Tamei, the Tzitz is Meratzeh;

It is not Meratzeh if the owner became Tamei (he must bring Pesach Sheni);

It was taught that the Tzitz is Meratzeh Pesach and Korbanos Nazir if the blood became Tamei, not if he was Tamei.

If he became Tamei through Tum'as ha'Tehom, the Tzitz is Meratzeh. (Rashi - this is a Tum'ah which at the time the person became Tamei, perhaps no one ever knew that there was Tum'ah there; Rambam - at the time, no one knew about it.)

(Gemara) Inference: It is Meratzeh because he did not find out until after Zerikah - but if he knew at the time of Zerikah, it is not Meratzeh.

Contradiction (Beraisa): The Tzitz is Meratzeh for blood, meat and Chelev that became Tamei, whether [Zerikah was] b'Shogeg or b'Mezid or b'Ones, for a Korban Yachid or a Korban Tzibur.

Resolution #1 (Ravina): The Beraisa discusses the Tum'ah (the Tzitz is Meratzeh even if they became Tamei b'Mezid), our Mishnah discusses the intent during Zerikah (it is not Meratzeh for Mezid. Tosfos - mid'Oraisa, whether it was Shogeg or Mezid, it is Meratzeh - mid'Rabanan, it is not Meratzeh to allow eating the meat, but he does not bring Pesach Sheni.)

Resolution #2 (R. Shila): There is Ritzuy for Zerikah whether it was Shogeg or Mezid; there is Ritzuy only if the Tum'ah was b'Shogeg.

Question (against R. Shila - Beraisa): ...Whether [Tum'ah was] b'Shogeg or b'Mezid.

Answer: No - it means that if the Tum'ah was b'Shogeg, whether Zerikah was b'Shogeg or b'Mezid it is Meratzeh.

Question: The Mishnah says that it is Meratzeh if he did not find out until after Zerikah - but if he knew at the time of Zerikah, it is not!

Answer: Really, it is Meratzeh in either case - it discusses finding out after Zerikah for parallel structure with the Seifa, which teaches that if the owner became Tamei it is not Meratzeh [even] if he did not find out until after Zerikah.

(Mishnah): If he became Tamei through Tum'as ha'Tehom...

Question (Rami bar Chama): If a Kohen offering Korbanos [Nazir or Pesach] was Nitma Tum'as ha'Tehom, are they valid?

Perhaps the leniency only applies to the owner - or, perhaps it is a law of Zevachim, it applies to the Kohen and owner alike!

Answer (Rava - R. Chiya's Beraisa): Tum'as ha'Tehom applies only to Tum'as Mes.

Question: What does this come to exclude?

Answer #1: It excludes Tum'as Sheretz.

Question: Whose Tum'ah does it discuss?

Answer #1A: It discusses Tum'ah of the owner.

It cannot discuss Nazir, for the only Tum'ah that interrupts Nezirus [or invalidates the Korban] is Tum'as Mes - "V'Chi Yamus Mes Alav"!

Rather, it must discuss Pesach.

Objection: This is according to the opinion that we do not slaughter and Zorek for one who is Tamei Sheretz - but according to the opinion that we do, there is no Chidush of Tum'as ha'Tehom - even known Tum'ah is Meratzeh!

Answer #1B: Rather, it discusses Tum'ah of the Kohen.

Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question (1) - Rav Yosef): Indeed, it discusses Tum'ah of the owner regarding Pesach - however, it comes to exclude Tum'as ha'Tehom of Zivah (retroactive Tum'ah on account of a later sighting - at the time, no one knew about it), it is not Meratzeh.