1)

(a)The only two Korbanos that are disqualified when the owner becomes Tamei are - the Korban Pesach (which can only be brought by someone who can eat it) and the Korban Nazir (who must begin his Nezirus all over again once he becomes Tamei).

(b)The Beraisa rules that the Tzitz ...

1. ... atones for a Nazir and someone bringing his Pesach, if the blood became Tamei ...

2. ... but not if the owner became Tamei.

(c)According to the Ziknei Darom, this Beraisa cannot be referring to where the owner was a Tamei Sheretz - because they hold Shochtin ve'Zorkin al Tamei Sheretz (in which case he does not require a Kaparah).

(d)If, on the other hand, the Tana is talking about where he was a Tamei Meis - we have a proof that Ein Shochtin ve'Zorkin al Tamei Meis (a Kashya on the Ziknei Darom).

2)

(a)To answer the previous Kashya, we establish that it was neither the owner nor the blood that was Tamei Sheretz - but the Kohen.

(b)The Tana nevertheless mentions specifically a Nazir and someone who is bringing his Korban Pesach (even though the Kohen is Pasul from bringing any Korban Yachid) - because of the Seifa, where he talks about Tum'as ha'Tehom, which only affects a Nazir and an Oseh Pesach).

(c)The problem with the Seifa Nitma Tum'as ha'Tehom, ha'Tzitz Meratzeh is the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya Lo Amru Tum'as ha'Tehom Ela le'Meis Bil'vad - which implies but not Tum'as Sheretz, in which case the Reisha cannot be speaking about Tum'as Sheretz either.

(d)We cannot learn Tum'as ha'Tehom de'Sheretz with a Kal-va'Chomer from Meis (since it does require Haza'ah like a Tamei Meis, as we explained earlier) - because Tum'as ha'Tehom is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, and one cannot learn a Kal va'Chomer from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

3)

(a)If the Beraisa does not come to preclude Tum'as ha'Tehom of Sheretz from Ritzuy Tzitz (because that would create a problem with the Ziknei Darom, as we just explained) it comes to preclude - Tum'as ha'Tehom de'Zivah (which is precluded from the leniency because it concerns a Tum'ah that emanates from the body itself).

(b)Tum'as ha'Tehom is a general term which incorporates Safek Tum'ah - which pertains to every Tum'ah according to its specifications. With regard to Zivah, it means that the Zav saw Zivus for the duration of bein-ha'Shemashos, which might be all night or all day, in which he case he only saw one day (and is not a Zav), or it might be half a day and half a night, in which case he saw on two consecutive days, and is a Zav.

(c)When Rami bar Chama asks about Kohen ha'Meratzeh be'Korb'noseihem, he is asking - whether a Kohen who is bringing the Korbanos of a Nazir or of someone who is bringing his Korban Pesach, is subject to Ritzuy Tzitz or not.

(d)We cannot resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from the Beraisa ve'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh al Tum'as ha'Guf, according to the Ziknei Darom, as we just explained - because he disagrees with them, establishing the Beraisa by Tum'as Meis of the owner, and he holds Ein Yachid Tamei Meis Meshale'ach Korbenosav.

4)

(a)The Beraisa explains that the Tzitz cannot come to atone for the sin of Pigul, because the Torah writes there "Lo Yeratzeh", or for the sin of Nosar, where it writes "Lo Yechashev". When the Tana refers to ...

1. ... Pigul (in this context) - he means a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo.

2. ... Nosar - he means a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano.

(b)The problem with our text, which pairs Pigul with "Lo Yechashev", and Nosar with "Lo Yeratzeh" is that - seeing as elsewhere, we establish the Pasuk of "Lo Yechashev" by Pigul (Chutz li'Zemano), Nosar in connection with "Lo Yeratzeh" must mean literally Nosar (and not a Machsheves Pigul), in which case, there is be no reason to invalidate the rest of the Korban.

(c)The Tana therefore concludes that the Tzitz must come to atone for the sin of Tum'ah which possesses the leniency that it is permitted be'Tzibur. Initially, we reject the suggestion that the Tana is speaking about Tum'as Sheretz - because (seeing as a Yachid is not Nidcheh) it does not possess a Heter be'Tzibur.

(d)So it must be speaking about Tum'as Meis. Seeing as it does not pertain to where the owner was a Nazir, because he is obligated to begin his Nezirus all over again (and has therefore no justification to bring his final Korbanos), it must pertain to - a Tamei who sent his Korban Pesach to the Beis-Hamikdash ...

(e)... a Kashya on Rami bar Chama.

5)

(a)We therefore conclude that the Beraisa must be speaking by a Tamei Sheretz after all, and we reconcile this with the statement she'Hutrah mi'Chelalah be'Tzibur - with Shem Tum'ah ba'Olam (we establish Ritzuy Tzitz by Tum'ah of a Sheretz, because Tumah (albeit of a Meis) is permitted be'Tzibur.

(b)In the second Lashon, we ask from the inference "Avon ha'Kodshim" 'In, Avon ha'Makdishim, Lo'! - by which we mean that - we follow through the same arguments as we did in the first Lashon, arriving at the initial conclusion that the Tzitz must atone for the sin of Tum'as Kodshim of a Korban Pesach, but not if the owner became Tamei, because Tamei Meis Eino Meshale'ach Korbenosav, a Kashya on the Ziknei Darom.

(c)And we answer like we did in the first Lashon that - the Tana is speaking about Tum'as Sheretz, and with reference to Shem Tum'ah (as we just explained).

6)

(a)Rav Nachman learns from the Pasuk in Parshas "La'amod Leshareis" that - a Kohen is obligated to perform the Avodah standing.

(b)The Beraisa quotes this Pasuk, too. And from the Pasuk "ha'Omdim Sham", the Tana learns that - he also desecrates the Avodah if he sits.

(c)The Beraisa rules that a Kohen Areil, Tamei, Yoshev and Onan' who performs the Avodah - are all subject to Malkos, but not to Misah.

(d)Based on his assumption that Yoshev is considered a Zar, Rava asks - why a Kohen who serves sitting should even be Chayav Misah (like a Zar).

7)

(a)Rav Nachman answered Rava by citing the Halachah by a Mechusar Begadim and a Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim - both of whom the Torah sentences to Misah ...

(b)... thereby answering Rava's Kashya, in that we now apply the principle Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin (when the Torah issues the same ruling in two places, we cannot extend it to any other cases).

(c)We might need to add a Kohen who drunk wine - to fall in line with those who say that Sh'nei Kesuvim ... Melamdin, but who agree that Sheloshah Kesuvim ... Ein Melamdin.

(d)We have two problems (which remain unsolved) with this Sugya however. Seeing as we consider Yoshev a Zar ...

1. ... we ought not to need to learn the Chiyuv Misah from Mechusar Begadim and a Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim - seeing as the Torah writes it explicitly by a Zar (which is in fact, the source of Chiyuv Misah by a Mechusar Begadim).

2. ... he ought not to desecrate the Avodah either - because in that regard too, there are a number of Pesukim (just like there are by the Chiyuv Misah [see Tosfos DH 'Eima']).