Question: The Gemara should ask that Hash-m's name is exposed on the Tzitz, so we cannot learn to Tefilin, in which Hash-m's name is covered with leather!

Suggestion: Also Shakai (a name of Hash-m) is written in folds.

Rejection #1: This is not a proper writing. Only the Shin [on the box of the head Tefilin] is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai, but the Dalet and Yud are not!

Rejection #2: The Tzitz has Hash-m's special four-letter name, which is more stringent than Shakai.

Answer: It is not a proper Kal va'Chomer. The law is mid'Rabanan.

The Gemara means that even though the Tzitz has a stringency, like I explain[ed], since in one aspect Tefilin are more important, for they have many Azkaros, it is reasonable that Chachamim enact to touch them at all times.

Question: If so, why is it enough to sprinkle on days three and seven regarding Parah? It is not a Korban Tzibur to be Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah!

Note: Haza'ah on days three and seven is Metaher him in any case. It suffices even if Tum'ah is Dchuyah! Gevuras Ari - we know that R. Yosi holds that Tevilah bi'Zmanah (to immerse to become Tahor on the first day possible) is a Mitzvah, and we assume that he holds that also Haza'ah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah. However, if he holds that Tum'ah is Hutrah, Haza'ah on days three and seven suffices.

Answer: A Tevul Yom is Kosher for Parah, for it says "v'Hizah ha'Tahor", and we say that any level of Tahor suffices;

If so, also that is a source to be Machshir the Kohen who burns the Parah without any Haza'ah at all, since it is not clear that he became Tamei!

Likewise, even the third and seventh days are not necessary. They are a mere stringency.

Question: Regarding Yom Kipur, we should say that we need Haza'ah due to Aharon's ram, which is offered on Yom Kipur. Since it is an individual's, we strive to offer it b'Taharah!

Answer: This is only when it became Vadai Tamei, like above;

For a mere concern, like here, surely the one who is lenient and says that it is Heter b'Tzibur would not require anything;

This is even for an individual's Korban like Aharon's ram, since it is considered a Korban Tzibur to be Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah.

Question: Why didn't we answer like above, that it is R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who holds (Nidah 29a) that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Lav Mitzvah?

Strengthening of question: The Gemara answers like this below (88a)!

Answer: Since R. Meir explicitly argues, this shows that the Tana is R. Yosi b'Ribi Chalifta (Stam R. Yosi, and not R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah), the colleague of R. Meir.

R. Tam's opinion: R. Tam rules that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Lav Mitzvah.

Question: In Nidah (30a, regarding a woman who must immerse 95 times due to Safek), it says "we learn from this that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah"!

Answer: The Halachah does not follow this. Rather, the Halachah follows R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says there that it suffices for her to immerse at the end.

Support: It is common practice that a Nidah, Zavah or Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom does not immerse at the first possible time (mid'Oraisa. She does not immerse until Bi'ah is permitted even mid'Rabanan, i.e. after counting seven clean days after her last sighting of blood.)

Support: In Nidah (67b), we say "nowadays, Rabanan consider any woman [who saw blood] a Safek Zavah. She should immerse during the seventh day!

Inference: They never used to immerse during the day [even though mid'Oraisa, a Zavah can become Tehorah then].

R. Chananel's opinion: R. Chananel rules like Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in Nidah, who hold that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah.

Rebuttal: The fact that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel hold like this does not prove that this is the Halachah. Surely, R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah does not argue with them!

Rather, he holds that they do not argue about this. If so, we can say that the Halachah follows R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

Implied support for R. Chananel: R. Eliyahu ha'Zaken wrote in his warnings "Tevilah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah. On the four corners [of your garment, put] strings. Have a shovel [among your Kelim] and cover excrement.

Rejection: He was not particular to write according to the Halachah.

Proof: He wrote about Stam people who are stoned 'you judged, and sentenced to be stoned. Stone him, and the king will say "hang him"';

This is like R. Eliezer, (Sanhedrin 45b), who says that everyone stoned is hung, and unlike Rabanan, who say that only a blasphemer or idolater is hung.

Suggestion: Our Sugya supports R. Chananel. It says "all agree that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah"!

Rejection #1: This is not a proof, because the Gemara could not have said oppositely, that all agree that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Lav Mitzvah, for if so, what is the reason for R. Meir?!

Rejection #2: Also, R. Yosi must hold that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah, like we find regarding someone who had Hash-m's name written on his skin.

Question: Why is it more obvious that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah than regarding Haza'ah [bi'Zmanah]?

Answer: It says "v'Hizah ha'Tahor Al ha'Tamei ba'Yom ha'Shelishi uva'Yom ha'Shevi'i v'Chit'o ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i v'Chibes Begadav v'Rachatz ba'Mayim v'Taher ba'Arev";

You must say that "v'Chit'o ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i" is not repeated to teach about Haza'ah, for Haza'ah is already written!

Implied question: Perhaps it was repeated to teach that Haza'ah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah!

Rejection: If so, it should have repeated mention of Yom ha'Shelishi along with Yom ha'Shevi'i!

Conclusion: Rather, you must say that it was repeated to teach that one must immerse immediately after Haza'ah. We infer that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah.

Implied question: How can the opinion that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah explain the repetition?

Answer: He expounds like it says in Kidushin (62a);

Citation (62a) Question: Why do we need "v'Chit'o ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i

Citation (cont.) Answer: One might have thought that Haza'ah is needed on both days only for Kodshim, but for Terumah it suffices on either day!

Citation (cont.): [The verse teaches that] this is not so.

Implied question - Citation (cont.) Question: Why do we need "v'Hizah ha'Tahor Al ha'Tamei"?

Citation (cont.) Answer: One might have thought that Shelishi excludes Sheni, and Shevi'i excludes Shishi, for this reduces the days needed for Taharah, but one may sprinkle on days four and eight. The verse teaches that this is not so [because Haza'ah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah]!

Answer: It is even like the opinion that Haza'ah bi'Zmanah Lav Mitzvah. The Hava Amina was that one may sprinkle on day four or on day eight, i.e. on days four and seven, or on days three and eight;

The verse teaches that this does not help. There must be exactly four days in between. Also Rashi explained so there.

Question: In any case there is another difference. This one (the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kipur) separates to Lishkas Parhedrin, and this one (the Kohen who will burn Parah Adumah) separates to the Lishkah Al Pnei ha'Birah!

Answer #1: We consider only matters of importance, in which one of them is more important than the other. The fact that they separate to different chambers does not show more importance to one than the other.

Answer #2: We consider two matters. This one separates for Kedushah, to Lishkas Parhedrin, which was built in the Kodesh;

Question: It was open to Chol, so the interior was not Kodesh, for if not, since one may not sit in the Zohar, all the more so he would not be allowed to sleep there! If so, his separation is not for Kedushah.

Answer: Even so, since it was built in the Kodesh, next to the Azarah, his separation is for Kedushah.

Continuation of Answer #2: This one separates for Taharah, to the Lishkah Al Pnei ha'Birah. It is in Har ha'Bayis, which has no more Kedushah than Yerushalayim. However, it is more Tahor, for a Zav, Ba'al Keri, or anyone whose Tum'ah leaves his body may not enter there.

Alternate opinion: Some explain that Lishkas Parhedrin was open to Kodesh. (If so, all the more so his separation is for Kedushah!)

Implied question: If so, it was Kodesh, so one may not sleep there!

Answer: Since it was built in the Chol and open to Kodesh, even though the inside is Kodesh regarding eating Kodshei Kodoshim, like it connotes in Zevachim 56a, one may sit and sleep there, for it is not totally Kodesh like the Azarah;

Support: We say in Zevachim (ibid.) that Temei'im who enter there are not Chayav Kares. Similarly, one may sit and sleep there.

There is another difference between them. The former, his fellow Kohanim touch him, but the latter, his fellow Kohanim do not touch him.

Rejection of alternate opinion: The Gemara below (25a) says regarding the elder sitting in the west [of Lishkas ha'Gazis] that one may not sit in chambers built in Chol and open to Kodesh.

Question (Yerushalmi in Demai 2:4): A Mishnah (Demai 5:1) says that when one who buys from a baker tithes, he takes enough for Terumas Ma'aser and Chalah..., but here we say that the baker separates them!

Answer #1 (R. Yonah, in Yerushalmi): R. Yochanan and R. Elazar argue about this. One of them says that it depends on whether they make [the bread] in Taharah or Tum'ah.

Explanation: Our Mishnah [2:4] discusses an Am ha'Aretz baker who hires a Chaver kneader to separate Chalah in Taharah;

Since he toiled so much, we rely on him that he surely fixed it. The buyer need not separate (Ma'aser and Chalah);

The other Mishnah [5:1] obligates the buyer to separate. It discusses an Am ha'Aretz baker who does not separate.

Answer #2 (the other of R. Yochanan and R. Elazar): It depends on whether we discuss a small or large amount. We do not know who said which...

Explanation #1: The Yerushalmi explains regarding another Mishnah that the distinction between a small or large amount is due to children, lest they eat Tevel. (Children are wont to buy a small amount, therefore the seller must separate.)

Explanation #2 (in the name of R. Yochanan): Since the seller profits on a sale of a small amount, he separates. Since the buyer profits on a sale of a large amount, he separates.

Question (Yerushalmi, against R. Yochanan): If he does b'Taharah, he should separate on everything, i.e. even Ma'aser Sheni, and take it to Yerushalayim! (The Yerushalmi concluded that in the first argument, R. Yochanan says that it depends on whether he makes b'Taharah.)

Answer: Really, he should not need to separate anything, for one may not give Vadai [Tevel] to an Am ha'Aretz.

I.e. even Vadai, for which one might have thought that an Am ha'Aretz will tithe it, even so, we do not rely on him. We are concerned lest he not fix it. (Therefore, the seller must tithe it.)

Explanation: We said that one may not give even Vadai. This is only to an Am ha'Aretz. One may give Vadai to a Chaver;

Our Mishnah discusses a Chaver baker selling to a Chaver. It is proper to exempt the baker at least from separating Ma'aser Sheni, for it is a burden to take it to Yerushalayim.

This is why bakers are exempt from Ma'aser Sheni, and because officers beat them [and force them to pay heavy taxes];

However, a Chaver who buys from them (Chaverim bakers) separates Ma'aser Sheni and takes it to Yerushalayim and eats it there.

Suggestion: We say that one may not give Vadai to an Am ha'Aretz, but one may give Demai.

Rejection: In Eruvin (37b) it is clear that one may not give Demai to an Am ha'Aretz, from the case of an Am ha'Aretz who told a Chaver "buy for me a bundle of vegetables";

This is clear also from Bava Basra (88a) regarding one who buys vegetables in the market. (Once a Chaver bought, he may not return it to the Am ha'Aretz.)

This is clear also from Chulin 6a, which says that one who gives to his mother-in-law (an Am ha'Aretz) must tithe what he gives to her and takes from her [because she is suspected to switch his with hers].

Question (Yerushalmi, against R. Elazar): If one buys a small amount, he should separate everything!

Answer: The Yerushalmi does not answer at all, because it already answered for R. Yochanan, and the same [answer] applies to R. Elazar.