Clarification: This refers to one of the Tehorim, since the Gemara asks why one does not render him Tamei via a Sheretz.

Question: The Riva asks that to the contrary, why do we not send one of the Teme'im to a distant location ...

Question (cont.): Because that would make the Tehorin a majority, who could then bring the Pesach be'Taharah ...

Question (concl.): Since throughout the Sugya, we aim at bringing itbe'Taharah?

Answer #1: And he answers that Ula himself says later in 'Mi she'Hayah Tamei' (Daf 93:) 'Derech Rechokah le'Tahor ve'Ein Derech Rechokah le'Tamei'.

Answer #1 (cont.): Consequently, sending away a Tamei would not have achieved anything, since he would still combine with those in Yerushalayim.

Refutation: The Ri does not agree however, seeing as the reason that a Tamei is not subject to Derech Rechokah is due to the fact even if he would be in Yerushalayim, he would be unable to bring his Pesach, other than through a Shali'ach.

Refutation (cont.): Whereas here, a Tamei is subject to Derech Rechokah, since half the people are Tamei. Consequently, if he would be in Yerushalayim, he would be able to bring his Pesach himself.

Answer #2: The Ri therefore explains that the reason (that we do not send one of the Teme'im to a distant location) is - because we try to arrange that everyone should bring the Pesach Rishon, and that the Teme'in should not be pushed off to the Pesach Sheini.

Question: But we Pasken in 'Tamid Nishchat' (above Daf 62.) that an Areil and a Tamei may send their Korbanos'?

Answer: The Riva answers that, since it is obligatory to bring it on Yom-Tov, it has the Din of an Olas Re'iyah, with regard to which we Darshen in the first Perek of Chagigah (Daf 4:) that a Tamei is Patur, since theTorah writes "u'Vasa Shamah ve'Heveisem Shamah ... ".

Support: And so the Yerushalmi says, that the Chagigah is compared to the Olas Re'iyah.

Question: Now that one sends him away to a distant location too, one pushes him away from his Chagigah, seeing as he unable to come on Yom-Tov from outside the T'chum, and since he is not fit to bring it on the first day, he is not fit to bring it on the second day either?

Answer #1: Min ha'Torah, he is able to come on the first day and bring it, since Techumin is mi'de'Rabbanan.

Answer #2: Moreover, even though, when he is sent to a distant location up until the time of the Shechitah, he will not be able to return to Yerushalayim before nightfall, he will nevertheless be able to return to within the T'chum, and to enter Yerushalayim on the next day.

Answer #3: Furthermore, it is a person who is Tamei and one who is lame, who are not fit bodily to bring the Korban on the first day, are not fit to bring it on the second either ...

Answer #3 (cont.): Whereas in our case he is fit, only he is unable to come.

Proof: It is like when the first day falls on Shabbos, where, although he cannot bring it then, the Gemara says in Eilu Devarim (above, on Daf 70:) that one brings it on the other days.

Clarification: This is not a Kashya according to the opinion that considers it a Derech Rechokah from the threshold of the Azarah and outwards.

Question: What does Rav Nachman expect them to do, seeing as Rav Nachman himself holds in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei (later on Daf 93.) 'Shochtin ve'Zorkin al Tamei Sheretz'?

Answer: He holds that the other days of Yom-Tov do not complement the first day, and it is therefore possible to render him Tamei Meis.

Clarification: Now everyone holds that it is only by a Tahor Pesach that a Tamei is pushed away to the Pesach Sheini, but not by one that is brought be'Tum'ah.

Source: Because the Pasuk "Ish ki Yih'yeh Tamei" implies that one man alone is Tamei, but the Tzibur are Tahor.

Clarification (cont.): And according to the one who holds 'Tum'ah Hutrah', the Teme'im are considered Tehorim.

Clarification (concl.): And the Gemara concludes that they all hold 'Tum'ah Dechuyah ... ', and one opinion holds that it is only by a Tahor Pesach that a Tamei is pushed away (as Tosfos explained earlier), whereas according to the other opinion also holds that 'Tum'ah Dechuyah ... ', and what the Pasuk then implies is 'that one man is pushed away but not a Tzibur - who can bring the Pesach both beTaharah and be'Tum'ah'.

Clarification: The Ri explains that he holds like Rav and not like Shmuel who asks what Rav does with the Pasuk "Vaya'asu es ha'Pesach be'Mo'ado".

Clarification (concl.): Because according to him, since there are not a majority of Tehorin, the Teme'im are not pushed off to the Pesach Sheini.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'she'Hu Tamei' refers to the blood or to the Basar.

Question #1: The Ri asks that regarding Tum'as Basar the Tzitz does not atone for eating, only to exempt one from bringing a Pesach Sheini ...

Question #1 (cont.): According to the opinion that holds 'Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos', like Rebbi Nasan, who only requires the man to be fit.

Question #1 (cont.): That being the case, how can the Gemara extrapolate 'Ta'ama de'Nizrak va'Achar-Kach Noda, ha Noda va'Achar-Kach Nizrak Lo Meratzeh Tzitz!' - with regard to exempting him from the Pesach Sheini.

Question #1 (cont.): The fact that the Tzitz does not atone can only be mi'de'Rabbanan, seeing as it differentiates between Shogeg and Meizid (as the Gemara says in 'ha'Ishah Rabah (Yevamos, Daf 90. & 90:)

Question #1 (concl.): How can the Rabbanan render him Chayav to bring Pesach Sheini, since, seeing as mi'd'Oraysa he is Patur, it is Chulin ba'Azarah?

Question #2: Moreover, above (on Daf 78:) we learned in the Mishnahthat if the Basar became Tamei and the Cheilev is intact, one cannot sprinkle the blood - mi'de'Rabbanan, since the Gemara establishes it like Rebbi Nasan.

Question #2 (cont.): If so, when Rav infers earlier that if one sprinkled the blood, the Korban is atoned, that means even mi'de'Rabbanan, and it speaks where he knew before the Zerikah, since it says 'Lo Yizrok'?

Explanation #2: The Riva therefore explains that the Mishnah is speaking about Tum'as Dam exclusively.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And when the Gemara extrapolates 'Ha Noda ve'Achar-Kach Nizrak, Lo'- it is with regard to permitting the Basar to be eaten, but he is Patur from bringing a Pesach Sheini.

Reinstating Explanation #1: It is possible however, to resolve the Kashyos on Rashi - in that when it says 'ha'Tzitz Meratzeh', it is to permit the Emurim to be burned ...

Reinstating Explanation #1 (cont.): Whereas in the case of Noda ve'Achar-Kach Nizrak, it does not atone to burn the Emurim, but he is Patur from bringing a Pesach Sheini.

Question: In that case, seeing as 'Nizrak ve'Achar-Kach Noda' in the Mishnah is La'v Davka, what pushes Rebbi Shilo to draw a distinction between Tum'ah and Zerikah?

Answer: The Ri answers that Rebbi Shilo's statement is not referring to this Kashya ...

Answer: But rather to the Kashya of the Gemara in 'ha'Kometz Rabah' (Menachos, Daf 25:) which asks on the Beraisa here 'Al Mah ha'Tzitz Meratzeh ... ' from the Beraisa which states 'Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko, be'Shogeg, Hurtzah; be'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah'.

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara here concludes in accordance with the answer (just) given by Ravina.

Question: How is Tum'as ha'Tehom applicable to Tum'as Sheretz, seeing as Tum'as Sheretz is restricted to touching, and Tum'as ha'Tehom does not apply to what is revealed, only to what is covered by earth, straw or pebbles.

Source: As we learned in a Beraisa later (on Daf 81:)?

Answer: It is applicable where one places one's hand in the earth and touched it.

Question #1: Perhaps, asks the Ri, it refers to Nazir, and the ramifications will be where he Shechted his Korbanos and became Tamei, in which case the Tzitz will not atone?

Question #2: Similarly, one can ask shortly, where the Gemara asks 'But according to the opinion that holds Shochtin ve'Zorkin ... '. Nevertheless, the ramifications will be Shechted his Pesach and became Tamei (as Tosfos just explained)?

Answer: The Ri explains that the Gemara does not want to answer this, because if it did, we would be able to conclude (regarding the She'eilah with which the Sugya began) that 'the Halachah pertains to the Korban, irrespective of whether it concerns the owner or the Kohen.