Question: What is the difference between [separation of] the Kohen who burns the Parah, and the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur?

Answer: This (for Parah) is for the sake of Taharah, and his brethren Kohanim do not touch him (to disprove the Tzedukim, who says that a Tevul Yom cannot burn Parah Adumah, we are Metamei the Kohen and he immerses right before burning it. To compensate for this, we are extra stringent about his Taharah in every other way);

This (for Yom Kipur) is for the sake of Kedushah (to enter Machaneh Shechinah) and his brethren Kohanim may touch him.

According to R. Yochanan, who does not learn [separation] from this verse for Parah, it is a mere stringency. It is fine [that we are stringent not to let Kohanim touch him].

Question: According to Bar Kaparah, who learns from this verse [separation also for Parah], why here [Kohanim] touch him, and here they do not touch?

Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Ada): It is lest his brethren Kohanim be Metamei him.

Objection: Without [them touching him], is he not Tamei due to Haza'ah [with Mei Chatas every day]?!

Answer #2 (R. Bun): Even Bar Kaparah holds that we are extra stringent about Parah and distance more than for Parah (just he holds that the Torah obligates separation for both).

Question (Reish Lakish, to R. Yochanan): [If we learn Yom Kipur from the Milu'im,] we should say that just like the ram of the Milu'im was Me'akev (the calf brought with it), also the Se'ir Yom Kipur is Me'akev [the Par]!

Remark: R. Yochanan accepted from [Reish Lakish, that we do not learn Yom Kipur from the Milu'im,] based on what R. Mana said "I am astounded that Reish Lakish challenged R. Yochanan, and he accepted from him!''

Question (R. Mana): [R. Yochanan should have asked back] do we not find something that is Me'akev learned from something that is not Me'akev, or something that is not Me'akev learned from something that is Me'akev?!

"U'Malak v'Hiktir'' - just like Melikah [of Olas ha'Of] is on top of the Mizbe'ach, also Haktarah is on top of the Mizbe'ach. Melikah is Me'akev, and Haktarah is not Me'akev!

[There is a Gezeirah Shavah] "Tamid-Tamid.'' It says Tamid regarding Chavitim, and it says Tamid regarding Lechem ha'Panim. Just like Tamid said about Chavitim, there are 12 [loaves], also Tamid said about Lechem ha'Panim is 12. This is Me'akev Lechem ha'Panim, but it is not Me'akev Chavitim (in any case, they are not all offered together)!

[There is a Gezeirah Shavah] "Lekichah-Lekichah.'' It says Lekichah in Mitzrayim (to take a bundle of Ezov, to put Dam Pesach on the doorposts), and it says Lekichah regarding the Lulav. Just like Lekichah said in Mitzrayim is a bundle, also Lekichah said about Lulav. Making a bundle is Me'akev the Lulav (this opinion obligates tying the myrtle and willow to it), but not in Mitzrayim!

Summation of question: We not find something that is Me'akev learned from something that is not Me'akev, and something that is not Me'akev learned from something that is Me'akev!