Rejection: Likewise, we should bring a Kal v'Chomer to override the Hekesh!

Question #2: How do we learn Tamei Sheretz of an individual from Tamei Mes of an individual? Tamei Mes itself of an individual, we learn via Mitoch;

Such a case is considered a Binyan Av below (51a). It says that Linah of blood is Kosher, since land if Eimurim is Kosher, and something learned from a Binyan Av does not teach through a Kal v'Chomer!

Answer #1: This is a question below (whether one may learn from it). Here, we say "if you will say that we learn..."

Answer #2: This Mitoch is not a Binyan Av. If it were a Binyan Av, an individual would eat [b'Tum'ah], like a Tzibur.

Explanation #1: Chachamim of the south are Tana'im. They argue with our Mishnah in Pesachim (61a) which teaches that one who slaughters for Arelim and Temei'im, it is Pasul.

Explanation #2: [Chachamim of the south] hold like R. Nasan. They disagree with what the Gemara says in Pesachim (78b) that R. Nasan agrees when the person is not proper.

Implied question: I explained (at the end of the previous Dibur) that Chachamim of the south [are Tana'im, or] Tana'im argue about their law! (How can one challenge them from a Beraisa?)

Answer: [The Makshan] relies on the question from the Seifa. If he became Tamei through Tum'as ha'Tehom (a Tum'ah that no one knew about), the Tzitz is Meratzeh. All hold that Tum'as ha'Tehom is Meratzeh. It is a tradition from Sinai, like it says in Pesachim (80b).

Support: Similarly the Beraisa of R. Chiya "they said Tum'as ha'Tehom only regarding a Mes", we ask from it there against R. Yosi.

Explanation: This is difficult for Ziknei Darom, who say that "Ish Ish" is only a Mitzvah [l'Chatchilah, but if a Tamei Mes sent his Pesach, he was Yotzei].

Question: In any case, R. Chiya's Beraisa is difficult "they said Tum'as ha'Tehom only regarding a Mes." This implies that if the Kohen became Tamei through a known Tum'ah, it is not Meratzeh!

Answer (R. Chayim): We discuss a [Tamei] Mes on his seventh day. This is like Tum'as Sheretz, that we slaughter and do Zerikah for him. It is not Meratzeh because Mechaprin are like Miskaprin.

Observation: Now, the seventh day is stringent, that it is not Meratzeh, but a Tamei Mes on the first day is Meratzeh!

This is because on the seventh day he can offer in Taharah, through a Shali'ach, and it is proper to eat at night;

However, on the first day it is impossible to fix it and do it in Taharah. Therefore, b'Di'eved it is Kosher.

Answer (cont.): R. Chiya's Beraisa discusses Tum'as ha'Tehom, for if the Kohen became Vadai Tamei through a Sheretz or Mes on his seventh day, it is not Meratzeh for an individual, even b'Di'eved.

This is because Mechaprin are like Miskaprin, and a Tzibur of people who are Tamei Sheretz or the seventh day of Tamei Mes do not offer b'Tum'ah. Rather, they send their Korbanos through Tehorim, since [such Temei'im] are proper to eat at night.

However, Tum'as ha'Tehom of a Kohen is Meratzeh for an individual.

Opinion #1: We cannot establish R. Chiya's Beraisa to discuss the owner. Since we slaughter and do Zerikah for a Tamei Sheretz, and send his Korbanos through Tehorim, what Ritzuy of the Tzitz applies?

Also Tum'as ha'Tehom, they themselves may not offer, since we slaughter and do Zerikah for them, and they can offer through Tehorim.

Opinion #2: We can say that we discuss a Kohen who received blood amidst Tum'as ha'Tehom of Mes. [The Tzitz] is Meratzeh l'Chatchilah to do Zerikah. We do not pursue Tehorim, even if there is a Tahor Kohen;

Regarding a known Tum'ah, it is not Meratzeh l'Chatchilah. Rather, we pursue Tehorim, for Tum'ah is Dechuyah b'Tzibur (we may do b'Tum'ah only what cannot be done b'Taharah).

Support: We must explain like this in Chulin (81a). It asks there "a Kohen who is offering the Tamid - is Tum'as ha'Tehom Hutrah (permitted) to him, or not?"

Question: What was the question? We hold that "b'Mo'ado", even b'Tum'ah!

Answer: He asked whether or not he may do Zerikah b'Tum'ah l'Chatchilah, like I explained, even if there are Tehorim.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): E.g. he saw Bein ha'Shemashos of the 13th. We are unsure whether the entire sighting was during the day, or all at night, and there is only one sighting...

Or, perhaps he saw half during the day, and half at night, and there are two sighting, for a Zav is Metamei through days and through sightings (even one sighting on two days, or two sightings even on one day).

Question: In Pesachim (81a) we cannot find according to R. Yosi (who holds that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, i.e. part of a clean day is like a whole clean day) Tum'as ha'Tehom of Zivah. We should say that it is in such a case!

Answer (R. Baruch): I say that we require that the Safek is not known until after Shechitah.

Implied question: Perhaps they told him after Shechitah "you saw Bein ha'Shemashos at the end of the 13th"!

Answer: Tum'as ha'Tehom must be that no one knew about [even] at the end of the world.

Explanation #2: This is why it asks there "granted, according to Rabanan, we find this. They slaughtered for a Zav on his seventh clean day, for we slaughter and do Zerikah for a Tamei Sheretz (he is like the Zav, for he will be Tahor at night), and afterwards he saw, and canceled [the clean days, and it joins with the first sightings to continue his Zivah]";

However, according to R. Yosi, who holds that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, and he is Metamei from now and onwards, and he does not cancel anything, how do we find [Tum'as ha'Tehom of Zivah]?

Question (Rabbeinu): We should say that he saw before Shechitah (one sighting, which makes him like a Ba'al Keri, who is like a Tamei Sheretz) and they slaughtered for him, and afterwards the Zav saw a second sighting, which cancels [the time in between and makes him a Zav] even according to R. Yosi. He must count seven [clean days], for Zav depends on sightings, and he does not have the beginning of the day in Taharah, and not the end of the day [in Taharah].

Answer #1 (R. Baruch): Since he saw in the morning, immediately he has a Safek lest he see again during the day. This is like a Safek that was known before Shechitah.

Answer #2 (Rabbeinu): Since the first sighting does not have Tum'as Masa, if so it help for him that they did Shechitah and Zerikah for him;

Even though the second sighting joins to the first to obligate him to count seven days, in any case he was called a [Ba'al Keri, who is like a] Tamei Sheretz at the time his Korban was offered. Also afterwards, he does not lose this status [retroactively], and he was Yotzei Pesach.

Question: Our Perush is difficult, for our Sugya discusses a Kohen offering b'Tzibur! (Even after one sighting, he may not offer that entire day.)

Explanation #3: The case is, he saw one sighting on the 13th, immersed and had Ha'arev Shemesh, and slaughtered Pesach the next day, and afterwards he saw a second sighting, and it joins [to make him a Zav];

This is not called a Safek that was known before Shechitah, since he was totally Tahor at the time of Shechitah, and we cannot say "perhaps he will see two days" and they will join, for according to R. Yosi, it does not join to the first (since the beginning of the second day was clean). This is from R. Baruch.

Version #1: This is Rashi's text, because we say below (28a) that the great Isur, i.e. Chutz li'Zmano (which is called here "Nosar", like the next Tosfos says), which has Kares (for eating it) is from the big verse and the big Parshah, in Parshas Tzav...

And the small Isur, i.e. Chutz li'Mkomo (which is called here "Pigul"), which has no Kares, is from the small verse and the small Parshah, in Parshas Kedoshim. Rashi brought a proof from Toras Kohanim.

Version #2: R. Tam justifies the text of Seforim, which says oppositely. Pigul [is from] "Lo Yechashev", and Nosar [is from] "Lo Yeratzeh."

Source: Below (28b) we conclude that we learn both of these from a different verse, which says both "Lo Yeratzeh" and "Lo Yechashev."

Implied question: Why does it mention Pigul before Nosar? The verse writes Nosar first, i.e. Chutz li'Zmano!

Answer: This is "Pigul" is written explicitly in the verse.

Explanation: This is not truly Nosar (after the allowed time to eat the Korban), like we say below (29a) "after the Korban was Kosher, will it become Pasul?!"

Rather, it refers to intent for Nosar, i.e. intent to eat it Chutz li'Zmano (after the allowed time).

Question: (Why do we need this reason, that the Isur is Hutrah mi'Chlalah, i.e. sometimes permitted?) We should know this because we can establish the verse only to discuss Tum'ah!

Answer (R. Tam): It is because it says regarding the Tzitz "l'Ratzon Lahem", which connotes that something that is accepted elsewhere. Therefore, we struggle to find she'Hutrah mi'Chlalah in everything we asked (that perhaps the Tzitz permits it) in Menachos (25a) - Yotzei, the left hand and a Ba'al Mum.

Question: If so, how are Nosar and Pigul Hutru mi'Chlalan, that we need "Lo Yeratzeh" and "Lo Yechashev"?

Answer (R. Tam): Pigul is Hutrah mi'Chlalah on a Bamah. Chutz li'Mkomo does not apply.

Implied question: Why does it ask in Menachos (25a) perhaps it is the Aveirah of Yotzei, which is Hutrah mi'Chlalah on a Bamah? It says "l'Ratzon Lahem Lifnei Hash-m" - an Aveirah that is Lifnei Hash-m, and not the Aveirah of Yotzei!

Answer: Chutz li'Mkomo is properly considered Lifnei Hash-m, that the intent is inside.

Implied question: On a Bamah is not called Hutrah mi'Chlalah, since it is Kosher this way, like it says there about the left hand!

Answer: Since [Chutz li'Mkomo] is forbidden inside, this is not called "it is Kosher this way."

Explanation #1: Nosar was mentioned without need. Nosar was mentioned Agav (along with) Pigul, since we find a [word in] the verse for it.

Explanation #2: Nosar is Hutrah mi'Chlalah on top of the Mizbe'ach. There is an opinion that Linah does not apply on top of the Mizbe'ach, in Pesachim (59a) and below (87a).

Question: However, Amora'im argue about this. This Beraisa is difficult according to the opinion that Linah applies (on top, if we will not say like Explanation #1)!

Answer: We can learn Nosar from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Avon-Avon" from Ritzuy of the Tzitz, and so we can learn also Pigul, and even if we do not find that they are Hutrah mi'Chlalah;

And we cannot establish "l'Ratzon Lahem" like we expound in Yevamos (60b) - for them (Yisrael) it is accepted, and not for punishment, but for Nochrim, it is even for punishment.

Explanation #3: Nosar is Hutrah mi'Chlalah in Minchas Kohanim, Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, Kometz, and everything without Matirim. One is not liable for them due to Pigul, like the Mishnah below (43b);

Note: It seems that "everything without Matirim" includes Minchas Nesachim, which Tosfos mentions below.

It seems that there is not even a Pesul (due to improper intent), since it says above (14a) that R. Shimon agrees about Holachah of inner Chata'os (that Pigul applies);

[The Gemara] asks that R. Shimon said that anything that is not [offered] on the outer Mizbe'ach, one is not liable for it due to Pigul. It answers that R. Shimon agrees that it becomes Pasul, from a Kal v'Chomer;

Lo Lishmah is Kosher [b'Di'eved] for Shelamim, but it is Pasul for Chatas. Chutz li'Zmano, which is Pasul for Shelamim, all the more so it is Pasul for Chatas!

Inference: If not for the Kal v'Chomer, I would say that there is not even a Pesul. If so, in Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Nesachim, for which there is no Kal v'Chomer, for Lo Lishmah does not disqualify them, there is no Pesul [of Pigul] at all!

Conclusion: We find that Nosar is totally Hutrah mi'Chlalah.

Question: What was the question? He should establish it to discuss Tum'as Dam. If the blood became Tamei, the Tzitz is Meratzeh;

This is brought in the entire Gemara regarding Tum'as Dam. Below (45a) it says that if the blood became Tamei, and they did Zerikah b'Shogeg, it is accepted.

Also a Mishnah (Pesachim 78b) says that if the blood [of Korban Pesach] became Tamei and the meat is intact, he does Zerikah!

Answer: This version holds that we should say that it bears the sin of Tum'ah only in such a case that is permitted b'Tzibur, i.e. Tum'ah of the owners. It is permitted to eat it when they are Tamei...

[This is] according to what we are thinking now, that we did not think [to expound] "Avon of the Kodshim, and not Avon of the Makdishim."

Possibility #1: If he holds that we slaughter and do Zerikah for a Tamei Sheretz, and similarly for a Tamei Mes on his seventh day, who is considered like a Tamei Sheretz, a Tzibur [of such people] does not offer b'Tum'ah;

Since an individual is not Nidcheh [to Pesach Sheni], the Tzibur does not offer b'Tum'ah. Rather, they make a Shali'ach to slaughter for them, since they may eat at night.

Possibility #2: And if he holds that we do not slaughter and do Zerikah for a Tamei Sheretz, so now a Tzibur offers b'Tum'ah, if so the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for an individual, for we do not slaughter and do Zerikah for him;

The owner became Tamei Mes, and before the seventh day [the Tzitz] is Meratzeh for an individual who brought his Pesach.

This supports Chachamim of the south, who say that "Ish Ish" is [only] a Mitzvah [l'Chatchilah].

Question #1: What was the question "where was it permitted?" We should establish it to discuss a Kohen who became Tamei through a Sheretz. [The Tzitz] is Meratzeh b'Tzibur, from the Kal v'Chomer above according to Rami bar Chama, who does not hold like Ziknei Darom hold, that Mechaprin (Kohanim, who atone) are like Miskaprin (the owners, who get atonement)!

Question #2: When [the Gemara] answers that really, [he is Tamei] Sheretz. [The Tzitz bears the sin of Tum'ah. Even though it is a different Tum'ah], all Tum'ah is considered one...

Since we slaughter and do Zerikah for a Tamei Sheretz, if so, why do we need the Tzitz to be Meratzeh? It is offered b'Taharah, like Rashi explained (DH Ileima)!

And if he holds that we do not slaughter for a Tamei Sheretz, if so the Tzitz will not help, like [the Gemara] asked above - if he is [Tamei] Sheretz, where is it permitted?

Answer: Initially, we wanted to establish it to discuss Tum'as Ba'alim b'Sheretz, and we could have asked "why do we need the Tzitz"? Rather, we asked properly "where was it permitted?"

When [the Gemara] answers that really, [he is Tamei] Sheretz, it means that we do not discuss Tum'as Ba'alim, rather, Tum'as Kohanim alone, and all the more so regarding Tum'as Mes.

Rami bar Chama holds that [the Tzitz] is Meratzeh for Tum'as Mes of a Kohen for a [Korban] Yachid.

Question: It should not have said "Tum'ah is one name", [which] connotes that it discusses Tum'as Mes b'Tzibur. Also Tamei Sheretz is permitted for a Kohen, from the Kal v'Chomer above!

Answer: Because the primary Heter b'Tzibur is written regarding Tum'as Mes, it said so. This is from R. Baruch.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We should learn from a Mah Matzinu. A Zar disqualifies Avodah and he is Chayav Misah. Also one who sits, who disqualifies Avodah, is Chayav Misah.

Question: Also regarding an Arel or Onen, we should ask so, that he should be Chayav Misah from a Binyan Av!

Explanation #2: It seems that he asks because we expound "I chose [Aharon, and his sons] standing, and not sitting." [Hash-m] did not choose Kohanim sitting. Rather, they are considered like Yisraelim Zarim. Therefore, he is Mechalel Avodah like a Zar, and therefore he should be Chayav Misah like a Zar.

[The Gemara] answers that Mechusar Begadim and one who did not wash his hands and feet are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad;

Misah is written regarding Mechusar Begadim - "v'Lo Yis'u Avon u'Mesu", and also regarding one who did not wash his hands and feet Misah is written - "v'Lo Yamusu";

This was written needlessly, for we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah Chukah[-Chukah]! Rather, it is to teach that we do not learn Misah from this that the Torah called [such a Kohen] a Zar.

Support: Now it is fine [what one could ask,] that Zar is a third verse. If so, they are a Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad!