Question: How does this opinion infer [that the Kohen Gadol's Avnet is different] from the word Oso?

It says also Osam. We should infer from Osam that they are the same! If so, the verses do not favor either opinion!

Answer #1: It is reason to establish the verse "v'Es ha'Avnet Ta'aseh Shesh Mashzar..." only regarding the Kohen Gadol, since also [some of] his other garments were Kil'ayim, e.g. the Efod and Choshen;

[All] the other garments of a Kohen Hedyot are [pure] linen. We should say that also his Avnet was [pure] linen!

Support: We find like this regarding the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur. Since the rest of his [four] garments [that he wears in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim] were of linen, also his Avnet was of linen.

Answer #2 (R. Menachem of Yu'ani)): We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Rokem-Rokem."

Source: It says in Tetzaveh "v'Avnet Ta'aseh Ma'aseh Rokem." This refers to the Kohen Gadol, for it says "uli'Vnei Aharon Ta'aseh Kutanos v'Asisa Lahem Avnetim u'Migba'os."

This shows that the first [Avnet] is of the Kohen Gadol.

In Parshas Pekudei it says regarding making it "v'Es ha'Avnet Shesh Mashzar Techeiles v'Argamon v'Tola'as Shani Ma'aseh Rokem."

We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah. Just like this Rokem was Kil'ayim (Shesh is linen, and the other three colors are wool), also "v'Avnet Ta'aseh Ma'aseh Rokem" written regarding the Kohen Gadol was Kil'ayim.

It does not say Rokem regarding the Avnet of a Kohen Hedyot.

Explanation: The opinion that both of them were of Sha'atnez equates them, since it says "Osam".

Rashi's opinion: Rashi explains [in the Hava Amina] that his wife should be permitted to come with him, for we must say that Lishkas Parhedrin was not Kadosh.

Support: One may not sit in the Azarah, all the more so one may not lie there! (The Kohen Gadol was there for a week, so he had to sleep there.)

Rejection: Even though it is not Kadosh like the Azarah, in any case it was Kadosh like Har ha'Bayis!

Proof: We say in Zevachim (115b) that all of Har ha'Bayis is [Kadosh like] Machaneh Levi. A Ba'al Keri may not enter Machaneh Levi;

In Pesachim (67b) we expound "v'Chol Zav" to include a Ba'al Keri. (Also he may not enter Machaneh Levi.)

Conclusion: Rather, we asked why he must separate from his wife, i.e. we should say that they separate him to a tunnel [under] Har ha'Bayis [and his wife may be with him];

We say in Pesachim (86a) that the tunnels were not made Kadosh.

Citation (Pesachim 68a) Question: If you will say that [the Beraisa in Yoma teaches that] a Bo'el Nidah is like a Tamei Mes regarding Tum'ah, [this is not needed, for] verses are explicitly Metamei both of them for seven days!

Citation (cont.): Rather, it teaches about which Machanos he must leave. Since the Seifa teaches about Machanos, also the Reisha!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: They need not be the same! The Seifa refers to Machanos, but the Reisha refers to Tum'ah.

Question: Tosfos there struggled to explain why the Gemara gave a poor answer, that the Reisha and Seifa discuss different matters. Why didn't it answer like here?

Note: Different editors compiled Tosfos on different Masechtos. The editor for Yoma (Maharam me'Rotenburg - Ya'avetz 2a) questions the Tosfos in Pesachim.

Really, it refers to Tum'ah, and we need the Seifa [to teach the stringency of a Bo'el Nidah over a Tamei Mes!

Answer #1: The Gemara preferred to answer that we need it (also the Reisha) itself, than to say that we need [only] the Seifa, and the Reisha was taught unnecessarily, [merely] for the sake of the Seifa.

Here we could not answer like there, for we ask about the Seifa itself! We were forced to give a poor answer.

Answer #2: There we could not answer like here, for here we conclude that a Bo'el Nidah is like a Tamei Mes regarding Tevilah, and he immerses during the [seventh] day;

Rav Simi of Neharde'a holds that a Bo'el Nidah is like a Nidah regarding immersing at night.

Initially, we asked from the Beraisa, assuming that it teaches that a Bo'el Nidah is like a Tamei Mes regarding Tevilah.

Citation (Pesachim 68a) Answer: It teaches that a Bo'el Nidah is like a Tamei Mes regarding Tum'ah, and the Chidush is the Seifa.

Citation (cont.) Rejection: A Beraisa explicitly says that a Bo'el Nidah and Tamei Mes immerse during the day;

Therefore, we could not answer there [that they are the same] for Tum'ah, for you must say that they are the same also for Tevilah, like we conclude here;

Question: Why is he like a Tamei Mes regarding Tevilah?

Answer: Rather, this shows that he is like a Nidah for everything explicitly written [in the Torah];

For what the Torah did not include him [like a Nidah], it is logical to compare him to a Tamei Mes, since both of them are due to touching.

If so, the same applies to their Machanos [in which they are forbidden]!

Implied question: Initially, when we suggested that he is like a Tamei Mes for Tum'ah, the only objection was that Tum'as Shivah is explicitly written regarding both of them! (We did not say that if so, they must be the same also regarding Machanos.)

Answer: The Gemara gave the simplest objection;

Had it answered that it is for Tum'ah, and the Chidush is the Seifa, it could have objected that we must say that a Bo'el Nidah is like a Tamei Mes regarding Tevilah, like we conclude here;

Since they are the same for Tevilah, they are the same also for Machanos, like I explained.

Question: (Why do we say that Bo'el Nidah is more stringent than Tamei Mes?) Also Tamei Mes is more stringent than Bo'el Nidah!

A Tamei Mes requires Haza'ah [of water with ashes of Parah Adumah] on days three and seven, and he is Metamei metal Kelim to be an Av ha'Tum'ah like himself, like it says at the beginning of Maseches Ohalos!

Citation (Ohalos 1:3 - Mishnah): Four [levels of people and Kelim] can become Tamei through a Mes. If Kelim touched a Mes, a person [touched the Kelim], and Kelim [touched the person], all are Tamei for seven days...

Answer: Perhaps the Seifa of the Beraisa also mentions the stringencies of a Tamei Mes over a Bo'el Nidah. (We know this Beraisa only from the Gemara's citation. Perhaps it has a Seifa; the Gemara needed to cite only the Reisha.)

Observation: Here Rashi retracted from what he explained in Pesachim (67b).

Citation (67b): There, we said that a Zav is more stringent than a Metzora, for he makes Mishkav u'Moshav. This implies that a Metzora does not make Mishkav u'Moshav.

Question (Rashi) Citation (Toras Kohanim): "V'Gilach Es Rosh Sa'aro" excludes Beis ha'Starim (covered places on the body).

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: We should be able to derive this without the verse! The Torah discusses shaving in Yemei Sifro (after counting seven days from the first time he shaves), and shaving in Yemei Gamro (when the Simanei Tum'ah of a Muchlat went away);

Just like the former excludes Beis ha'Starim, also the latter!

Question (Rashi): If we are lenient in Yemei Sifro, when he is not Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav, and he is not Metamei through Bi'ah, can we be lenient in Yemei Gamro, when he is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav?

Answer (Rashi and R. Tam): The Gemara in Pesachim connotes that a Zav is more stringent than a Metzora, for he makes Mishkav u'Moshav but a Metzora does not, i.e. that the Mishkav or Moshav will be Metamei a person and his clothes;

Toras Kohanim teaches that he imparts light Tum'ah [to Mishkav u'Moshav], to be Metamei food and drink.

We learn [light Tum'ah] from a Kal va'Chomer (Nidah 54b). A Zav is not Metamei through Bi'ah (entering a tent), yet he is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav;

An Even Menuga'as (a rock from a house with Tzara'as) and Metzora are Metamei through Bi'ah. All the more so they are Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav!

The exclusion "ha'Zav", and not Even Menuga'as excludes severe Tum'ah. The verse similarly excludes a Metzora from severe Tum'ah.

Rashi's opinion here: Here, Rashi explains that he (a Bo'el Nidah) makes Mishkav u'Moshav to be Metamei food and drink, and not like a regular Mishkav u'Moshav, which is Metamei people and Kelim, e.g. [if] a Zav or Metzora [sat on it].

R. Moshe's opinion: R. Moshe of Pontaiza explains like Rashi here. He establishes Pesachim to discuss a Metzora bi'Yemei Sifro, like Toras Kohanim connotes, that he does not make a Mishkav u'Moshav.

Tosfos elaborated in Pesachim (67b). This is not relevant here.

Question: Tosfos (there) explained that we learn Metzora and Even Menuga'as from Zav regarding light Tum'ah.

How can we learn from Zav? One can ask that a Zav is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav severe Tum'ah, but they are not!

Answer: Bo'el Nidah proves [that one can be Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav light Tum'ah, even though he is not Metamei them severe Tum'ah. We learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah of Zav and Bo'el Nidah.]

Question: However, one can challenge [the defense from Bo'el Nidah] based on the Tzad ha'Shavah of them;

They (Zav and Bo'el Nidah) are Metamei Klei Cheres through Heset (moving, but a Metzora is not). Also Bo'el Nidah is Metamei Klei Cheres through Heset, like the Ri proved from Nidah 33a;

The Ri's proof: It says just like she (a Nidah) is Metamei Klei Cheres, also he (Bo'el Nidah). Since it mentions Klei Cheres, which do not receive Tum'ah from their outside, this shows that we discuss Heset. (Any Av ha'Tum'ah is Metamei a Kli Cheres through entering its airspace. Rather, we must discuss Heset.)

Tosfos' opinion: Rather, I say that we exclude severe Tum'ah from "ha'Zav", and we learn light Tum'ah from a Hekesh "veha'Zav Es Zovo la'Zachar vela'Nekevah."

We expound this (Nidah 34b) to exclude Mayanos (fluids, e.g. spit and urine) of a Metzora...

Conclusion: A Metzora is equated to a full Zav. Letter of the law, we should have said that he is equated to a Zav even for severe Tum'ah, just we exclude this from "ha'Zav";

The exclusion applies to severe Tum'ah, and the Hekesh teaches that there is light Tum'ah.

Question: In Zevachim (33a), we infer that both of them, i.e. Abaye and Rava, hold that Tum'ah Dechuyah b'Tzibur!

Answer #1 (Ri): Here, Rava infers [from our Mishnah] that Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur, but he himself disagrees. He holds like he says below, that Tum'ah is Dechuyah.

Rebuttal (Tosfos): We need not say that he argues with our Stam Mishnah!

Rather, in Zevachim he discusses Ula's teaching that partial Bi'ah is considered Bi'ah, which refers to Pesach;

Citation (33a) Question (Beraisa): If a Metzora's eighth day was on Erev Pesach, and he saw Keri [and immersed], even though any other Tevul Yom may not enter [the Ezras Nashim], this one may. (From the Ezras Nashim, he enters his ear, thumb and toe into the Azarah, to enable putting blood of his Asham and oil on it to complete his Taharah.)

Citation (cont.): An Aseh (Korban Pesach) that has Kares [for one who does not fulfill it] overrides an Aseh (for a Tevul Yom to leave the Ezras Nashim) without Kares.

Citation (cont.): If partial Bi'ah is considered Bi'ah, there is Kares for both of these (also the Aseh for a Tevul Yom to leave the Mikdash)!

Citation (cont.) Answer (Ula): Since he is permitted to enter with [a remnant of Tum'as] Tzara'as (the Torah commands entering the ear, thumb and toe, even though this is considered Bi'ah, before his Taharah is complete), he may enter with [a remnant of Tum'as] Keri.

Citation (cont.) Inference (Rav Yosef): Ula holds that if most of the Tzibur were Zavim (on Erev Pesach), and they became Tamei Mes, since they are permitted [to bring Korban Pesach amidst Tum'as] Mes, they are permitted [also amidst Tum'as] Zivah.

Citation (cont.) Question (Abaye): The Torah permits [bringing Korban Pesach amidst] Tum'ah [of a Mes. They never were permitted, for Tum'as] Zivah is not permitted!

Citation (cont.) Suggestion (Abaye): Perhaps you meant that [Ula holds that if] most were Tamei Mes [and they became Zavim, since they were permitted amidst Tum'as Mes, they are permitted also amidst Tum'as Zivah].

Citation (cont.) Question [Abaye]: Still, these are different! A Metzora is [totally] permitted to [partially] enter, but Tum'ah [of Mes is] Dechuyah [b'Tzibur]. It is overridden [only] for this (Mes), but not for Zivah!

Citation (cont.) Objection (Rava): It is more reasonable to say oppositely!...

Explanation: There, regarding Pesach, we can say that even though Pesach is brought en masse, and hence it is considered a Korban Tzibur and it is Docheh Tum'ah and Shabbos...

Even so, since all of Yisrael do not bring one Pesach in partnership, we strive to offer it through Tahor people.

This is even according to the opinion that Tum'ah is Hutrah for an absolute Korban Tzibur brought in partnership.

Support #1: Below (7a), we say that even though there is a fixed time for the Kohen Gadol's ram [on Yom Kipur], and it is Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah like a Korban Tzibur...

Even so, since it is an individual's Korban, all agree that we strive to offer it through Tahor people.

Support #2: All the more so, this helps explain why the Gemara needed to infer there that both of them hold that Tum'ah Dechuyah [b'Tzibur];

Question: Why do we need this inference?

Answer: Rather, it is because here Rava holds that Tum'ah Hutrah. Therefore, we needed to infer there [that he holds that it is Dechuyah], and even so he agrees about Pesach.

Application: This supports the answer we give below (7a), that "rams" refers to Aharon's ram;

Even according to the opinion that Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur, for a Korban Yachid, like Aharon's ram and Pesach, even though they have a fixed time and override Shabbos and Tum'ah, he agrees that we pursue to offer them in Taharah.