Explanation: [The Kli] was found outside Yerushalayim, for they did not decree on Safek Kelim in Yerushalayim, like it says in Pesachim (19b);

[If he found it] on the 14th he slaughters with it immediately, for presumably [the owner] immersed it yesterday so it will have Ha'arev Shemesh.

Implied question: We should be concerned lest it became Tamei through a Tum'ah mid'Rabanan, which does not require Ha'arev Shemesh, and he was not concerned to immerse it before the 14th, and he did not immerse it yet!

Answer #1: Since he needed to immerse it on the 13th due to Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, we are not concerned lest it became Tamei afterwards through any Tum'ah. (Sefas Emes asks that perhaps the owner had no concern for Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, and intended to immerse on the 14th for Tum'ah mid'Rabanan! Tosfos in Chagigah says that this is a Safek mid'Rabanan; Chachamim were not stringent. Alternatively, it is normal to immerse the night before. Our Tosfos could hold like the first answer.)

Answer #2: When they decreed about Safek Kelim that were found, they decreed due to Safek Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, and not due to Tum'ah mid'Rabanan.

Observation: There is a Tum'ah that requires Ha'arev Shemesh.

Source #1: We find in Pesachim (92a) "anyone who separates from Orlah (becomes circumcised) is like one who separates from a grave." He must receive Haza'ah [with Mei Chatas] on days three and seven, and all the more so Ha'arev Shemesh.

Source #2: A case occurred with R. Yishmael ben Kimchis (the Kohen Gadol) in Yoma (47a) in which spit of an Aravi splashed on him, and his brother served in place of him. Even though Tum'ah of Nochrim is mid'Rabanan, it requires Ha'arev Shemesh (so he could not serve that day).

Source #3: The case in Chagigah (23a) of a tube cut for [Mei or Efer] Chatas - R. Yehoshua says, he is Metamei it and immerses it (and uses it the same day, to show that Ha'arev Shemesh is not needed).

[The Gemara] asks, who cut it? If a Chaver cut it, why does it need Tevilah? If an Am ha'Aretz cut it, would R. Yehoshua say about this "he is Metamei it and he immerses it?" (It is already Tamei!) This explicitly connotes that [elsewhere] Tum'as Am ha'Aretz requires Ha'arev Shemesh. (If not, we would say that an Am ha'Aretz cut it, and he is Metamei it to show that even when Ha'arev Shemesh is normally needed, it is not needed for Parah!)

Source #4: The case of the Kohen who burns Parah Adumah, his fellow Kohanim put their hands on them to be Metamei him, for a Heker (overt disproval) for the Tzedukim, who said that it was done only through people who had Ha'arev Shemesh;

Garments [even] of people who eat Kodesh are Midras (considered Tamei) for Chatas, and it connotes that [elsewhere, such Tum'ah] requires Ha'arev Shemesh.

Correction: R. Tam's text does not say so, because in the Gemara (102b), in the Kal v'Chomer of R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, he expounds this from a different verse "ha'Zorek Es Dam ha'Shelamim";

This verse "ha'Makriv..." comes for a Kohen who does not admit to Avodah, like we expound in Chulin (132b), like Rashi explained in the Gemara according to the first Tana of Aba Sha'ul.

Defense (of our text): We can say that we expound everything from the verse ha'Makriv. We expound about a Kohen who does not admit to Avodah from "v'Es ha'Chelev", and we expound ha'Makriv to teach that he must be Tahor at the time of Zerikah;

Perhaps we need these two verses, one for Zerikah and one for Kabalah;

Ha'Makriv connotes Kabalah, like we expounded above (13a) "v'Hikrivu" - this is Kabalas ha'Dam.

Disclaimer: However, since it says there in Chulin and in Menachos (18b) "what is the source to include Kabalah and Haza'ah?", this connotes that we still do not know Kabalah (we do not learn it from ha'Makriv).

Question: Why don't we answer that the Torah included a minor (it is an exception to the Klal "whoever cannot be Mechaper, may not eat"), like it answers afterwards about a Ba'al Mum, after it concludes "what is `he will eat'? He will divide!"? (A Ribuy teaches that a Ba'al Mum divides, unlike the Klal.)

Answer #1: Since a minor and a Ba'al Mum eat, what does [this Klal that we learn from] the verse come to teach?!

Suggestion: We will expound that "one who cannot be Mechaper cannot eat" excludes a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim.

Rejection: We learn them from another verse in Yevamos (74b) that one who brought his Kaparah eats Kodshim!

Therefore we expound that ["does not eat" means that] he does not divide.

Answer #2: Had we answered that the Torah included [a minor], it would still be difficult from a Ba'al Mum (also he cannot be Mechaper, and he eats), like it asks below. (It is better to expound so there is only one exception to the rule - Olas Shlomo.)

Question: A Kohen Gadol Onen, or a Tamei regarding Korbanos Tzibur, they are proper to be Mechaper, but they do not divide, like it says below!

Answer: The verse primary is needed for the inference that one who is not proper to be Mechaper does not divide.

Explanation: Hesech Da'as disqualifies for Kodshim.

Implied question: Why did it mention an Onen? (The same applies to anyone who had Hesech Da'as!)

Answer: It is common that he has Hesech Da'as, because he cannot eat.

Version #1: [He was careful about something that would be Metamei him] Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, which requires Ha'arev Shemesh, but not from something that disqualifies him mid'Rabanan from eating Kodshim, which does not require Ha'arev Shemesh. This is Rashi's text.

Version #2: It seems that the text says "the case is, he says 'I was not careful about something that disqualifies me from Kodesh, but I was careful about something that disqualifies me from Terumah.'"

An Onen is forbidden to eat Kodesh. Therefore he did not guard himself from something that disqualifies him from Kodesh, and he did not put his mind [to be careful] so he will be permitted at night;

However, he is permitted to Terumah even during the day, like we say [about Terumah] "I (the Torah) forbade Zarus to you, but not Aninus." Therefore he guarded himself from something that disqualifies him to Terumah.

Question: What is that Tum'ah that is Tamei for Kodesh, and not for Terumah, that the Mishnah in Chagigah (20b) taught that Tevilah is needed for Kodesh, but not for Terumah?

Answer #1 (R. Chaim): The case is, he ate a Terumah loaf that was a Shelishi [l'Tum'ah]. His body is a Sheni l'Tum'ah for Kodesh, but not for Terumah, like it says in Chulin (33b). (Olas Shabbos - the Torah forbids eating a Shelishi of Terumah! Rather, the loaf was Chulin Al Taharas Terumah. Even this disqualifies him to eat Terumah until he immerses. Now Tosfos holds that he must immerse before touching Kodesh, but not before touching Chulin.)

Implied question: Below we cannot explain so regarding "my mind was on the basket, but not on the rake, [the rake] is Tamei to disqualify Kodesh, but it does not disqualify Terumah Peros in the basket"! [We cannot say so,] for a load does not disqualify a Kli. (What Tum'ah is discussed there?) (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

Suggestion: It is liquids. They are Metamei a Kli due to a decree due to fluids of a Zav or Zavah.

Rejection: If so [they should be Metamei] even for Terumah!

Suggestion: It is liquids that a Tevul Yom touched. They are not a Rishon for Kodesh, like a Mishnah (Parah 8:7) teaches "anything that disqualifies Terumah, it is Metamei liquids to be a Rishon, except for a Tevul Yom."

Rejection: If so, also for Kodesh [the liquids] are not Metamei, only to disqualify, like it says in Me'ilah (8a). If so, they would not be Metamei the rake to disqualify Kodesh. (Zivchei Efrayim - this is like R. Meir there, who says that a Tevul Yom is like a Sheni for Kodesh. Tosfos assumes that all Tana'im agree with the Mishnah he cited. The liquid he touches is a Shelishi. A Kli receives Tum'ah only from an Av ha'Tum'ah, or mid'Rabanan from a liquid that is a Rishon! Eliyahu Rabah says that Kelim that will contact Kodshim are like Kodshim.)

"Tamei" connotes to make Pasul afterwards, since it does not say "the rake is Pasul."

Source: We say like this in Pesachim (20a) regarding "the meat is Tamei - for what? If it is to count (levels of Tum'ah of matters that touch it, i.e.) Rishon and Sheni through Chibas (the dearness of) ha'Kodesh, we should resolve the question of Reish Lakish, if a dry Minchah" [became Tamei, does it make a Sheni, i.e. can it be Metamei other foods? It was not Huchshar through a liquid, only through Chibas ha'Kodesh.]

Answer #2: We find [Tum'ah for Kodesh, and not for Terumah] through the 24 hours of Nidah (when she first becomes Nidah, she is retroactively Temei'ah, lest the blood left the Makor earlier). We say in Nidah (6a) that it is for Kodesh, but not for Terumah.

Answer #3: Garments of people who eat Tum'ah are Midras for Kodesh.

Implied question: Why does he say "I guarded [the rake] from something that is Metamei it?" [The Nidah or garment] made [the rake] Metamei for Kodesh!

Answer: Anything that does not do anything (to its own kind, e.g. Chulin or Terumah), and later it does so (is Metamei) to Kodesh, is called Pesulah, like a Sheni of Chulin.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Mishnah says that an Onen needs Tevilah in order to eat [Kodshim], but he need not immerse in order to touch.

Consequence: Now, R. Yochanan's answer above (99a, that an Onen or Mechusar Kipurim may touch Kodesh only after immersing) is not sustained!

Explanation #2: One can sustain [his answer]. Really, our Mishnah discusses when he immersed, and in the Mishnah in Chagigah, he did not immerse. This that it says that an Onen who immersed, his Aninus returns to him, this is regarding eating.

Conclusion: Rashi's Perush is primary.

Assertion: This is a Mishnah in Pesachim (91b), and the text does not say Mechusar Kipurim, for only an Onen does not eat Kodshim at night, due to Aninus of the night;

However, a Mechusar Kipurim, since he brought his Kaparah and immersed, why should he not eat?!

Remark: In the conclusion (100b), we answer "this is [when his relative died] before they did Shechitah and Zerikah for him, and [there] is after they did Shechitah and Zerikah for him";

The case that he does not bring his Pesach is when he died before they did Shechitah and Zerikah for him. The case when he immerses and eats at night is when he died after they did Shechitah and Zerikah for him.

The other Amora'im did not want to answer like this, for they hold that eating [Korban Pesach] is not Me'akev (Pesachim 75b). Since it is not Me'akev, why should eating it override Aninus of the night, which is mid'Rabanan, more than other Kodshim?!

Distinction: However, when he died before they did Shechitah, [they agree that he may eat at night,] even though eating is not Me'akev, [for] if we do not permit him to eat, he will not bring.

Question: It connotes that R. Shimon permits to do Shechitah and Zerikah after his relative died, because Aninus of the night is mid'Rabanan;

Aninus of the day is mid'Oraisa! Ignore eating - in any case offering during the day is forbidden, like for Chatas, Olah and Asham. He may not bring when he is an Onen, since it says "Korbano" - whatever is called Korban! (Perhaps Tosfos mentioned these because we include them even though they are very unlike Shelamim - PF.)

Suggestion: The Aseh of Pesach overrides the Aseh of Aninus that he may bring [only] when he is complete (not an Onen).

Rejection: If so, how do we infer that Aninus of the night is mid'Rabanan? Even if it were mid'Oraisa, [Korban Pesach] would override it!

Answer #1: Rashi connotes that [the Gemara] holds now that it is all a mere Asmachta. (The Isur for an Onen to offer any Korban is only mid'Rabanan.)

Answer #2: It seems that primarily, Pesach comes only to be eaten, like the Mishnah (Pesachim 76b) says that Pesach brought in Tum'ah is eaten in Tum'ah, for primarily it comes only to be eaten. (If we would not eat it b'Tum'ah, we would not bring it);

Therefore, we are not concerned for Aninus at the time of offering, rather, at the time of eating, even though eating is not Me'akev. (For other Korbanos, Hakravah is primary, so the Torah forbids an Onen to offer them.)