Explanation: The bull [to atone for idolatry] is an Olah, and it requires Minchas Nesachim. Even though it is a Korban Tzibur, we strive [to offer it b'Taharah].

Suggestion: We say "be clever, and be silent", and offer it b'Tum'ah. This is because Tum'ah Dechuyah b'Tzibur!

Rejection: It is not Docheh Shabbos, since it does not have a fixed time. Similarly, it is not Docheh Tum'ah;

This is like it says below (50a) that any Korban without a fixed time is not Docheh Shabbos or Tum'ah, even if it is a Korban Tzibur.

Implied question: Why may we offer it b'Tum'ah?

Answer: This is because the Tzitz is Meratzeh. It helps only for Tum'ah of the Korban;

If the Kohanim [who offer it] are Tum'ah, Tum'ah is not overridden for them at all. It is totally considered a Korban Yachid.

Explanation: Here, surely it is considered a Korban Tzibur to be Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah, even Tum'ah of the people [offering it].

However, Tum'ah is not [totally] permitted, rather, it is only overridden, since an individual brings the Korban.

Question: We learn all of these from verses in Pesachim (77a). "Va'Ydaber Moshe Es Mo'adei Hash-m" fixes one Mo'ed for all of them. (There is only one day to offer each, so it is Docheh Shabbos.)

Why for some, Tum'ah is Hutrah, and for others, it is Dechuyah?

Answer (part 1): According to the opinion that it is Hutrah, mid'Oraisa it is Hutrah for all of them;

Rabanan decreed about those that individuals offer to strive that Tehorim offer them;

Answer (part 2): According to the opinion that it is Dechuyah, mid'Oraisa it is Dechuyah for all of them.

Question #1: What is the question? The Gemara says that Lo Hurtzeh, i.e. to permit eating the meat. All agree that Tum'ah is not Hutrah b'Tzibur for this!

Question #2: The Gemara connotes that we challenge only the opinion that Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur;

Why is this? We can ask even against the opinion that Tum'ah Dechuyah b'Tzibur, just like against the opinion that it is Hutrah;

You are forced to say that they argue only about whether we strive that Tehorim offer them before offering it. They do not argue about after it was offered!

Answer: It is a proper question against the one who says that it is Hutrah.

Granted, there is no Heter to eat it, i.e. when the Shirayim themselves (the meat) became Tamei.

However, when the meat itself is not Tamei, he should permit even eating it, since he is so lenient to say that Tum'ah of the people [who offer it] and what is offered is Hutrah!

However, according to the opinion that Tum'ah is Dechuyah, we understand;

Since before offering he is so stringent about Tum'ah of what is offered and the people, it is reasonable to be stringent about the meat, even though it is Tahor, and even after Hakravah.

Question: Above we said that b'Mezid Lo Hurtzeh, and here we say that it is Meratzeh even for Mezid. The Gemara in Menachos (25b) asked this.

Answer #1: One opinion [there] answered that [it is Meratzeh] only if the Tum'ah was b'Shogeg, but not if it was Mezid. This is whether the Zerikah was b'Shogeg or Mezid;

Answer #2: Another opinion [there] answered oppositely. (It is Meratzeh only if the Zerikah was b'Shogeg, whether the Tum'ah was Shogeg or Mezid.)

Question: In Yevamos (90a), the Gemara asked from this Beraisa that if Tamei blood was thrown, b'Mezid, it was not Meratzeh, against the opinion that Beis Din cannot uproot a matter from the Torah;

Here, mid'Oraisa it is Meratzeh, for the Beraisa says that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for blood, whether it became Tamei b'Shogeg or b'Mezid. Rabanan said that it is not Meratzeh!

What is the question? We already answered in Menachos that one of these Beraisos discusses Tum'ah, and one discusses Zerikah;

If so, we can say that the Beraisa teaches that if blood became Tamei b'Mezid, even mid'Oraisa it was not Meratzeh!

Answer: Mid'Oraisa, it is unreasonable to distinguish between Shogeg and Mezid, whether regarding Zerikah or Tum'ah. Surely, mid'Oraisa it is Meratzeh in every case.

The distinction between Shogeg and Mezid is only mid'Rabanan, each opinion like it holds.

One opinion [distinguishes regarding] Tum'ah, for he holds that we should be more stringent than when it became Tamei b'Mezid, since this was the beginning of the Pesul. Also, he did not intend to do a Mitzvah;

We did not fine about Zerikah b'Tum'ah, since this was not the beginning of the Pesul. Also, he was engaged in a Mitzvah;

The other opinion holds that it is more reasonable to be more stringent about Zerikah, for this is more despised to offer to Hash-m something that is not Tahor.

Question: If so, in Menachos 25b, we should have answered that the Beraisa that says that the Tzitz is Meratzeh [even b'Mezid] discusses mid'Oraisa, and the Beraisa of blood that became Tamei discusses the law mid'Rabanan!

Answer: If it were mid'Rabanan, we would not distinguish between Tum'ah and Zerikah. Regarding both, we would say that b'Mezid, Lo Hurtzeh;

If so, the Beraisa that says that the Tzitz is Meratzeh whether Shogeg or Mezid is only mid'Oraisa;

It should not have been taught Stam, since at the time the Beraisa was taught (after Chachamim decreed), it would not be Meratzeh b'Mezid.

Support: The Ri explained like this in Yevamos.

Rashi's opinion: In Pesachim (16b), Rashi explained that this is like R. Yehoshua, who says that if there is no meat [that may be eaten], we do not throw the blood. (All agree that the Tzitz does not permit eating Tamei meat. Rather, regarding Zerikah, it is as if the meat was Tahor, and the Zerikah is Kosher.)

The Ri's opinion: However, the Ri says that it is even like R. Eliezer, who says that we throw the blood even if there is no meat.

Implied question: If so, for what must the Tzitz be Meratzeh?

Answer: This is like it says in Pesachim (78a), to enable Pigul to take effect on it (i.e. if an Avodah was done with intent Chutz li'Zmano, it is considered as if there was no other Pesul) and to uproot Me'ilah.

The text: This is the text in all editions of the Gemara. However, Rashi changed the text to say oppositely (Lo Yeratzeh applies to Pigul, and Lo Yechashev applies to Nosar), based on the Toras Kohanim.

Rejection #1: There was no need to alter the text. We conclude in Zevachim (28b) that both of them (Pigul and Nosar) are expounded from one long verse.

The verse begins "if he will eat on the third day Lo Yeratzeh." This refers to [intent to eat] Chutz li'Zmano;

The Seifa "Pigul Yihyeh" refers to [intent to eat] Chutz li'Mkomo. If so, the standard text is correct.

Rejection (of Rashi's support from Toras Kohanim): Several Beraisos are taught there according to the initial Hava Amina;

We can say that it was taught according to what Zevachim 25b initially mistakenly thought, that we learn Chutz li'Mkomo from the short verse in Parshas Kedoshim, and Chutz li'Zmano from the long verse in Parshas Tzav.

Rejection #2: According to Rashi, why do we call [intent] Chutz li'Mkomo Pigul, and Chutz li'Zmano Nosar? In the entire Gemara, Chutz li'Zmano is called Pigul!

Support (for R. Tam): This is not difficult for R. Tam's Perush, since we learn Chutz li'Mkomo from "Pigul Yihyeh" in the long verse. Therefore, it is called Pigul.

Question: According to all Perushim, why does the Beraisa mention Pigul first? Chutz li'Zmano is written first!

Answer: We must say that it is mentioned first because it is more lenient than Chutz li'Zmano. There is no Kares for Chutz li'Mkomo. Also, it is totally permitted on a Bamah (private altar. There are no walls within which the Korban must be offered or eaten.)

Answer (continued): This is why the Tana first sought to establish Ritzuy of the Tzitz for Chutz li'Mkomo, rather than Chutz li'Zmano, which is more stringent. (It would be a bigger Chidush that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for it.)

After we show that the verse cannot discuss Chutz li'Mkomo, we try to establish it to discuss Chutz li'Zmano.

Another Perush: In Pesachim (16b), Rashi says that some explain that Pigul is Chutz li'Zmano, like in the entire Gemara.

[Our Gemara says] "if [you will say that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for] the sin of Pigul, [this cannot be, for] it already says Lo Yechashev. If [it is Meratzeh for] Avon Nosar" refers to actual Nosar (meat not eaten within the time).

Rejection #1: How could the Gemara reject this "it already says Lo Yeratzeh"?

If it means that the Korban is not accepted, can we say that after it was accepted, it becomes Pasul [due to leaving over meat]?!

If it refers to one who eats it (he will not be pleasing to Hash-m), is there no Kaparah for Chayavei Kerisos?!

Rejection #2: Also, we already know that it cannot refer to one who eats it, for [the Tzitz is Meratzeh for] "Avon ha'Kadashim", and not for sin of the eaters!

Defense: My Rebbi, R. Yehudah of Mitz said in the name of R. Vaish of Afrak said that "Avon Nosar" refers to actual Nosar.

Question (Rashi): After the Korban was accepted, it cannot become Pasul!

Answer: Perhaps the Beraisa is like R. Akiva, who said to R. Eliezer (Zevachim 29a) "we find that a Zav, Zavah, or Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom had Chezkas Taharah, and if one of them sees [blood or Zivah], this negates [the clean day(s) counted, and he or she is Tamei retroactively].

Similarly, it is not astounding if after the Korban was Kosher, it becomes Pasul!

Implied question: R. Eliezer answered R. Akiva that "ha'Makriv" teaches that it can be disqualified through Hakravah, and not through [being left until the] third day.

It seems that R. Akiva accepted this, that the Korban is not disqualified. Here he expounds from Lo Yeratzeh that it is disqualified if one leaves over from it!

Answer: Our Gemara means "if the Tzitz is Meratzeh for Avon Nosar" and we will say that there is Avon in the Korban, and expound the verse like R. Akiva, that it refers to eating from the Korban on the third day..."

Support for Hava Amina: It is reasonable to establish the verse to discuss this, for it is a light Isur that occurred after the Korban was Kosher;

Therefore, it is better to say that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for it, than to say that it is Meratzeh for other Isurim!

Gemara's rejection: "Lo Yeratzeh" shows that the Tzitz bears only Avon of Tum'ah.

Therefore, we cannot establish the verse "if he will eat on the third day" to discuss one who ate from the Korban on the third day.

Explanation: The Hava Amina to establish the verse this way was in order to establish the verse of Ritzuy Tzitz in a more reasonable case, when an Avon occurred after it was Huchshar.

Explanation (continued): We would have to say that he expounds "ha'Makriv" differently, like we expound in Zevachim 13a;

It teaches that Zerikah was included [among Avodos that permit a Korban to be eaten]. It was singled out ("Lo Yeratzeh") to equate the other Avodos to it;

Just like Zerikah is essential for Kaparah, and improper intent during it disqualifies a Korban, the same applies to all such Avodos;

This excludes pouring Shirayim and burning Eimurim [on the Mizbe'ach].

Conclusion: However, since even if we would establish the verse to discuss eating from the Korban on the third day, the Tzitz would not be Meratzeh, for it says Lo Yeratzeh;

Therefore, we do not needlessly establish the verse to discuss this;

Rather, we learn from ha'Makriv that it is disqualified only through Hakravah, but not through the third day.

Question (R. Tam): Why must we say that it is because Tum'ah is totally permitted?

It should suffice that we cannot establish the verse to discuss Pigul or Nosar, so automatically it must discuss Tamei!

Answer (R. Tam): We can establish the verse only to discuss something that is totally permitted. "L'Ratzon Lahem" connotes an Aveirah that is accepted elsewhere.

Support: In Menachos (25a) we ask "perhaps it bears the sin of Smol (Avodah using the left hand), which is totally permitted on Yom Kipur!"

We answered that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for "Avon" that was forbidden, but was Nidcheh;

We must say that we learn from "l'Ratzon Lahem." If not, what is the source that the verse discusses Dichuy?

We should have answered 'the verse discusses what is always "Avon", but not Smol, which is permitted on Yom Kipur!'

Implied question: Why didn't the Gemara explicitly say that we learn from l'Ratzon?

Answer: L'Ratzon does not connote that it excludes Smol, for it is acceptable [on Yom Kipur]. Rather, we expound also Avon. It refers to an Avon that is Merutzeh.

Continuation of Support: The Gemara asked many questions there, but only from matters that are totally permitted.

Question: If so, what was the Hava Amina to establish the verse to discuss Pigul and Nosar, if not for Lo Yechashev and Lo Yeratzeh? These are not totally permitted!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Pigul is totally permitted on a Bamah. There is no Isur of [leaving the] place on a Bamah;

The Beraisa mentioned Nosar needlessly. (It is not totally permitted, so really, we do not need a verse to exclude it.)

Answer #2 (regarding Nosar): Alternatively, it is permitted on top of the Mizbe'ach. (What is left there is not forbidden due to Nosar.)

Question #1: Answer #2 is invalid according to the opinion (Zevachim 87a) that Linah applies on top of the Mizbe'ach!

Question #2: Intent for Nosar (Chutz li'Zmano) is never permitted!

Answer #3 (Ritzva): It is permitted in Minchas Kohanim, Minchas Kohen Mashu'ach, and everything without Matirim;

There is no Chiyuv [for such matters] for Pigul., like it says in Zevachim 43a.. There is not even a Pesul!

Proof: R. Shimon holds that there is no Chiyuv for Pigul for any Korban that is not on the outer Mizbe'ach like Shelamim (Zevachim 14a);

The Gemara says that R. Shimon agrees that it is Pasul from a Kal va'Chomer;

Lo Lishmah is Kosher for Shelamim, and Pasul for Chatas. Chutz li'Zmano is Pasul for Shelamim, all the more so it is Pasul for Chatas!

Regarding a matter without Matirim, there is no Kal va'Chomer, for Lo Lishmah is Kosher for Minchas Kohanim and every matter without Matirim.

Question: Why did we say that Chutz li'Mkomo is totally permitted on a Bamah?

"Totally permitted" refers only to an Aveirah "Lifnei Hash-m" (that applies in the Mikdash), like the Gemara answered there!

The Gemara suggested that it refers to the Aveirah of Yotzei, which is totally permitted on a Bamah, and rejected this, for it must be an Aveirah Lifnei Hash-m!

Answer: Yotzei is not an Aveirah Lifnei Hash-m, for the Pesul occurred outside;

The Pesul of intent Chutz li'Mkomo occurred inside. He was standing inside, and intended for outside.

Suggestion: What is on a Bamah is not called "totally permitted", for Hechshero b'Kach (this is the Kosher way to do it), like the Gemara answered there about Smol!

Rejection: These are different. Since the proper way to serve inside (hold the spoon of Ketores on Yom Kipur) is with Smol, this is called Hechshero b'Kach;

We do not say so about Chutz li'Mkomo, even though it is permitted on a Bamah, for it is never the proper way to serve inside.

Answer #4 (to Question (e)): Some say that even though Pigul and Nosar are never totally permitted, we would have established the verse of Ritzuy Tzitz to apply to them (if not for Lo Yechashev and Lo Yeratzeh);

This is because it says about them Avon, like it says about the Tzitz, and we would have learned from a Gezeirah Shavah;

Implied question: "L'Ratzon Lahem" connotes that we discuss only something that is totally permitted, like I explained!

Answer: We would have expounded "l'Ratzon" to teach something else, like we expound in Yevamos (60b), "l'Ratzon Lahem", but not for punishments.

In Menachos (25a DH v'Eima) I explained why we do not establish the verse to discuss the Aveirah of Nevelah and Terefah, which is totally permitted in Melikah, or [Avodah at] night, which is totally permitted for limbs and Chelev, or Oso v'Es Beno, which is totally permitted regarding birds, or Mechusar Zeman, which is totally permitted regarding birds. See there.

Question: What proof does R. Shimon bring from Yom Kipur that it is Meratzeh even when it is not on his head? Perhaps it is Meratzeh only when it is on his head!

Implied question: [If so, why is it Meratzeh on] Yom Kipur [when he wears only the linen garments]?

Answer: Since it cannot be on his head to be Meratzeh, [the Korban] is Docheh Tum'ah, since it is a Korban Tzibur, which may be brought in Tum'ah;

This is like Tum'ah of people, which the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for, and it is Docheh Tum'ah.

Answer: R. Shimon brings a proof from the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur;

If the Korban became Tamei in his hand, even if there is another Tahor Korban, we do not tell him to bring another in place of it;

We must say that this is because the Tzitz is Meratzeh even if it is not on his head;

Since there is both Ritzuy Tzitz, and it is a Korban Tzibur, he does not bring another.

If we would say that when it is not on his head it is not Meratzeh, he should bring another, since Tum'ah Dechuyah b'Tzibur.

Question: Above, regarding one who was offering the Minchah of bulls, we suggested that they are of Sukos;

Inference: According to the opinion that Tum'ah Dechuyah b'Tzibur, we bring another [Korban] even regarding an absolute Korban Tzibur!

Answer #1: That Tana holds like R. Yehudah that when it is not on his head, it is not Meratzeh. The case is, it was not on his head.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the case is, the Tzitz was broken. The Beraisa is like everyone.