Explanation: He is no worse than a Tevul Yom.

Implied question: An Onen is forbidden Ma'aser, even though a Tevul Yom is permitted!

Answer: That refers to eating. Regarding touching, both are permitted. (Only touching and similar matters apply to Parah.)

Explanation: He (Rashi) derives that he argues with the Tana above regarding a Mechusar Kipurim, the same applies to an Arel; he is Kosher.

Question #1 (Ri): What is the connection between these? Just because he is Machshir a Mechusar Kipurim is no reason to say that he is Machshir an Arel!

Question #2: We should have brought the Beraisa above that explicitly is Machshir an Arel, or R. Eliezer at the beginning of our Perek (70a), who does not include an Arel like a Tamei!

Alternate text: Some texts say "what an Arel or Mechusar Kipurim burns is Pesulah; Yosef ha'Bavli says, an Arel is Kosher, but a Mechusar Kipurim is Pesulah.' The text says "it is Yosef ha'Bavli."

Support: According to this, it is good that we bring this here, and not the Beraisa above, for it is better to bring the name of the Tana who explicitly permits.

Rejection (Ri): The text cannot say so, for in Zevachim (17b) it is clear that Yosef ha'Bavli and Chachamim argue about a Mechusar Kipurim.

Also, the text [there] says "Onen" in place of "Arel".

Suggestion (Ri): If the text was like Rashi's text, and the text said here and in Zevachim Arel together with Onen, this would be fine.

Observation: We could have asked that it has the stringencies PaNKAChS (of Kodshim over Terumah).

Explanation: This refers to "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na." Had it not said "Mimenu", we would have thought that this refers [also] to Matzah and Maror that were written above.

Explanation: One might have thought that it is forbidden because he eradicates it b'Tum'ah.

Implied question: We explicitly expound it for this in Ma'aser Sheni (5:12)! (How can we say that it comes to permit anointing the living?)

Answer: Here we ask that perhaps it comes only for this, but anointing is forbidden, because he eradicates it b'Tum'ah;

He answers that Mimenu [connotes] from the Ma'aser itself, which connotes also anointing.

Implied question: In Bechoros (34a), we establish this to teach about Terumah Teluyah (Safek Tamei), which one must guard [from Tum'ah]!

Answer #1: This is not the conclusion there (we do not expound this).

Answer #2: There we expound "Mishmeres", which does not refer to Tamei [Terumah]. "Lecha" refers to all Terumah.

Question: Also Terumah, she does not return [to eat it after being widowed or divorced from a Yisrael] when she has a son [from him]!

Answer: If the son died, she returns.

Implied question: In that verse, it says "v'Tam'ah Ad ha'Arev"!

Answer: We can say that it refers to Terumah and Kodshim, but in any case it connotes that [once] he immersed, he is Tahor.

Implied question: Kodshim Kalim apply equally to everyone!

Answer: Presumably, Kodshim are more stringent, for they are forbidden until one [who must bring a Korban to complete his Taharah] brings the Korban.

Explanation: We challenge Terumah (why it is permitted before Kaparah);

However, for Ma'aser, since Tevilah suffices without ha'Arev Shemesh, and he need not become totally Tahor, the same applies to [a Tum'ah] that requires Kaparah.

Explanation: The Torah could have written 'uvi'Mlos l'Ven Oh l'Vas."

Observation: We could have said that Kares overrides [the stringencies of Terumah].

Question: In Zevachim (19b), we expound that Mechusar Kipurim is Mechalel Avodah from "v'Taherah", which implies that [until Kaparah] she is Temei'ah;

Regarding a Tevul Yom, it expounds there (17a) "Chilul-Chilul" from Terumah, that one who is Pasul for Terumah is Mechalel Avodah...

Why don't we learn also Tevul Yom from "u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher", which implies that he is Tamei, like we say about Mechusar Kipurim?

Answer (R. Chayim): "U'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher" means that the day finishes, but not that the person becomes Tahor, like it says in Berachos 2a.

Implied question: Regarding a Yoledes, it says "uvi'Mlos Yemei Taharah", which implies that she is Temei'ah [until her ha'Arev Shemesh]!

Answer: Yoledes is Mechusar Kipurim. We do not learn from her to a regular Tevul Yom.

Implied question: Why don't we learn from "v'Lo Yochal Min ha'Kodoshim Ad Asher Yithar"?

Answer: We can say that the Tana in Zevachim establishes it to discuss a Zav who had three emissions, who is Mechusar Kipurim, like the Tana below (75a).

Question: Regarding touching, it says "v'Tamei Ad ha'Arev v'Taher." This implies that [now] he is Tamei!

Answer (Ri): Had the Torah not revealed about a Tevul Yom from "v'Lo Yechalelu", that he is considered like a Tamei, even though his Tum'ah is weakened, we would not have expounded about a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim "this implies that he is Tamei", because their Tum'ah is weakened.

Implied question: It says there "the Torah should not have written regarding Tevul Yom, and we would learn from these";

The Torah needed to write about Tevul Yom to reveal about Mechusar Kipurim!

Answer: It means that the Torah did not need to write about Tevul Yom, and it could have written explicitly about Mechusar Kipurim.

Question: In Nazir (45a), we expound "Tamei Yihyeh" to include a Tevul Yom. "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes a Mechusar Kipurim, regarding Bi'as Mikdash;

Since he is called Tamei, why do we need a verse?

Answer: Regarding a Tamei who entered the Mikdash, it says regarding Tum'as Mes "v'Lo Yischata";

One might have thought that it depends [only] on Haza'ah, and once [Mei Chatas] was sprinkled on him on days three and seven, he is not liable for Bi'as Mikdash.

Implied question: Kodshim and the Mikdash are equated to each other! (Once we know that a Tevul Yom is considered Tamei regarding Kodshim, we do not need another source for Bi'as Mikdash!)

Answer: Regarding this we would not learn to equate them [due to "v'Lo Yischata"].

Question: The Torah could have omitted "v'Taherah" here, and "v'Lo Yechalelu" of Zevachim, and we would learn Kodesh and Avodah, since they are called Temei'im regarding Bi'as Mikdash!

Answer (Ri): If not for the verses here, we would not expound there "Tamei Yihyeh" to include a Tevul Yom [and "Od Tum'aso Bo" for a Mechusar Kipurim]. Rather, we would establish it for another Drashah.

Question (Ri): The Gemara should have said that we apply here "v'Tum'aso Alav v'Nichresah", for we discuss when the person is Tamei!

Answer: The Gemara teaches a Chidush, that there is even [an Isur due to] Tum'ah of the meat. (Aruch l'Ner - even though others could put the meat in the Tamei's throat, and the meat will remain Tahor, it is unreasonable to call him Tahor regarding Kodshim if he cannot eat normally.)

Alternate text: Some texts say "a freed slave." It seems that this is correct, for we ask "a convert and Shifchah may not eat Terumah!"

If she was not freed, she may eat Terumah if a Kohen owns her!

Assertion: Also a slave who was not freed has Tum'as Yoledes, for it says in Shabbos (135b) 'if one bought a pregnant Shifchah and she gave birth, this is "Yelid Beiso" who is circumcised on day eight';

There it connotes that a baby is circumcised on day eight only in a case that his mother has Tum'as Yoledes.

Support #1: In Kerisus (7b), a Mishnah teaches "similarly, a Shifchah brings a Korban [Yoledes] and it is eaten."

Support #2 - Citation (Toras Kohanim): What is the source [that Parshas Yoledes] applies to a convert and Shifchah, whether or not she was freed? The Torah says "Ishah."

Question: However, it is astounding how we include a Shifchah from "Ishah", since we need it to include a convert and freed slave!

Answer: It seems that we include a Shifchah who was not freed from the Gezeirah Shavah "Lah-Lah" from a [free] woman, like it connotes in Kerisus.

Observation: Our Sugya is unlike R. Shimon, who permits above (60b) to a Kohen one who converted before three years old.