Question: If so, why did they decree not to take Mei Chatas or Efer Chatas (the ashes of Parah Adumah) on a river or in a boat, like the episode that occurred, like it says in Yevamos (116b, Chagigah 23a)!

Answer: There, it was before Kidush (putting the ashes on the water. "Mei Chatas" is Mayim Chayim proper for Kidush). Here is after Kidush.

Implied question: Why don't we know this from the Reisha? (Since it splashed on a garment, the blood is Pasul for Haza'ah!)

Answer: One might have thought that here is different, for [the Pesul and splashing on a garment] are at once. (In the Reisha, it was Pasul beforehand.)

Inference: The answer connotes that the question "why is also this needed?" refers to "Kivus is needed only for..."

Question: Why must it teach when it spilled on the ground? We know this from when it splashed from the neck!

Explanation #1: In Menachos (7b), Rashi explained that [we ask] because he sprinkled the blood on Har ha'Mishchah facing Pnei Ohel Mo'ed, and the Parah Adumah was burned in front of him after he descended from the mountain;

How could he descend between each Haza'ah and the next from Har ha'Mishchah to clean [his finger] on the cow itself?

Question: It says below (113a) that if he slaughtered it not facing the opening [of Ohel Mo'ed] it is Pasul, for it says "v'Shachat v'Hizah" - just like Haza'ah is opposite the opening, also Shechitah is opposite the opening;

Inference: Everything (Shechitah and Haza'ah) was in one place!

Explanation #2: What Rashi explained here is correct. He could not clean his finger on the cow itself, lest his finger get dirty from hairs.

Support: We find that we are concerned for hairs in Shabbos (116b) regarding "they flayed the Pesach until the chest (lest hairs stick to the Eimurim)."

Inference: Since we establish the inclusion for Sak, this implies that hide, even after it was flayed, need not be laundered according to R. Elazar;

The text of his teaching is "I might think to include hide after it was flayed." The text does not say "until it was flayed", for if so it would connote that after flaying it must be laundered. This is not so, for R. Elazar includes only Sak and kinds of garments;

We know also from our Mishnah that he holds that even after it was flayed it need not be laundered.

Rebuttal: This is not an inference. Just the contrary, hide after it was flayed and it is not lacking anything - not fixing and not intent in order to receive Tum'ah, it must be laundered even according to R. Elazar;

He excludes only because we require something that receives Tum'ah, like it says in a Beraisa. This shows that if it receives Tum'ah now, it must be laundered!

Also below (94a), it says that they argue about a cloth mat that he intended to cut it [before using it]. R. Elazar does not obligate laundering, because it is not Mekabel Tum'ah until he cuts it;

Inference: If he cut it, or he did not intend to cut it, that now the hide is Mekabel Tum'ah, it must be laundered.

Implied question: Why does [the Beraisa] include [only] Sak and other kinds of garments?

Answer: It is because even these are not included in "Beged." Only wool and linen are, like Rashi explained, and we need an inclusion to include them. Likewise, from that inclusion we include also hide.

Alternative text: If the text of R. Eliezer says "from when it was flayed", we discuss when it still needs intent before it is Mekabel Tum'ah, or he needs to nullify his intent to cut the mat.

Support: And so Rashi explained, that now it does not receive Tum'ah, and therefore it need not be laundered;

And according to R. Yehudah it needs to be laundered, since it is proper to receive [Tum'ah] without an action, through designation alone.

However, R. Elazar does not discuss a hide that needs fixing or an action before it receives Tum'ah;

Such [a hide], even R. Yehudah agree that it need not be laundered, for it is not proper to receive [Tum'ah], for it is Mechusar Ma'aseh.

Question: If the text says "from when it was flayed", why did [the Gemara] ask (94a) "what do they argue about? It should ask the Perush of [the words of] R. Elazar!

A hide that was flayed that is not Mekabel Tum'ah now, but it is proper to receive through intent - how do we find this?! If it is Mechusar Ma'aseh, even R. Yehudah agrees, for it is not proper!

Answer #1: This is what it means "what do they argue about?" The question must be based on both of them. (I.e. how can we find something proper for Tum'ah according to R. Elazar, that does not receive Tum'ah? It cannot be Mechusar Ma'aseh, for then R. Yehudah would not obligate laundering!)

Answer #2: If the text says even in R. Elazar's words "until it is flayed", it is fine that [the Gemara] asks "what do they argue about?"

Objection: However, this is difficult from our Mishnah, in which the text is "even after it was flayed."

Comment: Now, even if the text says "after it was flayed", R. Yehudah and R. Elazar argue only about this - R. Yehudah expounds "just like a Beged is proper to receive Tum'ah", and R. Elazar expounds "just like a Beged receives Tum'ah";

Therefore, R. Yehudah who expounds proper [to receive Tum'ah]" includes a hide after it was flayed, for it is proper to receive Tum'ah through intent, and it is not Mechusar Ma'aseh;

R. Elazar expounds that it receives Tum'ah. He excludes a hide after it was flayed, even though it is proper, because he requires something that receives Tum'ah. It is not lacking even intent;

However, after intent it receives Tum'ah without any action. If it were Mechusar Ma'aseh, even R. Yehudah would agree that it need not be laundered, for it is not proper [for Tum'ah].