Refutation of Text: The Riva omits 'Nazir' from the text ...

Reason: Since there is no difference between a (Shalmei) Nazir and other Korbanos.

Justification of Original Text #1: What Rashi explains that one needs to place the Nazir's hair underneath the pot (containing the Shelamim) ...

Refutation: This does not seem to be crucial.

Justification of Original Text #2: And what he also explains - because of (the Mitzvah) Tenufah ...

Refutation: Other Shelamim also require Tenufah.

Refutation (cont.): In fact, wedo not find a Tana who holds that Tenufah is Me'akev other than Rebbi Eliezer, at the end of 'Sheloshah Miynim (Nazir, Daf 46.).

Support: The Tosefta does not include 'Nazir'in the text.

Implied Question: Even though one can be careful not to touch the Basar ...

Answer: Since Tum'as Emurim is permitted, so is the Tum'as Basar ...

Source: As the Gemara says in 'Mi she'Hayah Tamei' (later on Daf 96.) "Wherever Tum'as Basaris permitted, so is Tum'as Emurim' - implying that they are equal.

Question: Why does the Tana then say 'Afilu', seeing as this is synonymous with the Reisha ...

Question (cont.): 'Hayu Yisrael Tehorim ve'Kohanim u'Kelei Shareis Teme'im', since the person (i.e. the Kohanim) became via the knife?

Question #1: Why can one not Shecht using a ling knife, circumventing the need to enter the Azarah?

Question #2: Alternatively, one can hold a knife with a straight wooden handle (which is not subject to Tum'ah) and Shecht?

Answer: The Ri answers that there would not be time to Shecht all the Pesachim in this manner, even if they were to bring additional knives.

Question: Mah Nafshach, asks the Riva, if half is considered 'Ish', let them be pushed off to the Pesach Sheini, whereas if it is considered a Tzibur, then let the Pesach Rishon be brought be'Tum'ah?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that Rav Kahana has a Safeik as to whether it is considered 'Ish' or 'Tzibur' ...

Refutation: Since then, one would be able to be Metamei one of the Tehorim.

Refutation (concl.): There would not be problem if he did not have a Safek, since then, why would one render a Tahor to bring the Pesach be'Tum'ah, seeing as the Din is that Teme'in are completely Patur.

Answer: The Ri answers that half is not in fact, considered 'Ish', yet the Tehorim cannot bring it be'Tum'ah on their behalf, seeing as, when all's said and done, there is not a majority of Teme'im ...

Implied Question: Neither can both groups bring it independently ...

Answer: Due to the principle 'Ein Korban Tzibur Chaluk'.

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Yehudah, who holds later (at the beginning of the next Amud) 'Ein Korban Tzibur Chaluk', nevertheless says that 'They should all bring it be'Tum'ah'?

Answer: Rav Kahana does not concur with that S'vara. He holds that, because of that, they are pushed away completely.

Clarification: It is necessary to say this because of Rav ...

Ptoof: Since, if it would be a Chovah for them to bring it on Pesach Rishon, we would say that 'Each one makes their own Korban.

Conclusion: Whereas according to Rev Kahana, even if they would be a Chovah on Pesach Rishon, there would be no problem, seeing as half do not bring on Pesach Rishon, but on Pesach Sheini, since on Pesach Sheini women are R'shus, it transpires that Teme'im are the minority.

Implied Question: And when, in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 12.), with regard to Chizkiyahu, who made Yisrael make a Pesach Sheini, in answer to the Kashya 'How does it speak?', Rav Ashi establishes it where Yisrael were half Teme'im and half Tehorim, and where women made up the Tehorim, turning them into a majority.

Implied Question (cont.): The Gemara first thought that 'Women are Chayav to bring Pesach Rishon, in which the Teme'im there are a minority, and are therefore pushed off to the Pesach Sheini ...

Implied Question (cont.): but it concludes that, in fact ' "Women by Pesach Rishon are R'shus", in which case the Teme'im were in the majority, and the majority of Teme'im do not bring the Pesach Sheini'.

Implied Question (concl.): Now, according to both Rav and the second Lashon of Rav Kahana, the Genara need to explain that the women made up the Tehorim' ...

Answer: And the reason that it did was in order to establish that Chizkiyah's ruling did conform with Torah-law according to all opinions.

Implied Question: The Gemara could in fact, have established the Chizkiyah's conclusion as being that 'Women are a Chovah by the Pesach Rishon and R'shus by the Pesach Sheini.

Implied Question: Which explains why he was wrong to make them bring the Pesach Sheini.

Answer #1: Only the Gemara there goes according to Rebbi Shimon, who holds later in Perek ha'Ishah (Daf 91:) 'Nashim ba'Rishon R'shus!'

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara prefers to explain why the fact that Chizkiyahu did not make them bring the Pesach Rishon was also not according to the Halachah.

Implied Question: The Beraisa could have referred to a case where the majority are Tahor, and the women make it a majority of Teme'im, where they are pushed off to the Pesach Sheini ...

Implied Question (cont.): Since when it comes to the Pesach Rishon, women are R'shus, in which case there are only a minority of Teme'im.

Implied Question: Now too, the Beraisa could have mentioned a Chidush, namely even where the Teme'in do not bring the Pesach Sheini ...

Implied Question (cont.): Since, without the women, the Tehorim are the minority.

Answer: Perhaps the Tana mentions the case that it does, to teach that 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah is not considered a majority'.