Question: One who is sprinkled on is not Tahor until the night comes after he immerses. If so, in what sense is one who touched [Mei Chatas] more Tamei than one who was sprinkled on?

Answer #1: The Gemara means that sprinkling causes Taharah to one who is sprinkled on, but [the water] causes Tum'ah to one who touches it.

Answer #2: "One who is sprinkled on is Tahor" refers to a Tahor on whom Mei Chatas was sprinkled. He is totally Tahor.

Note: Gevuras Ari and the Ya'avetz asked why he is not Tamei due to touching Mei Chatas.

Question: What is the Gemara's source to uproot the verse from its simple meaning, and say instead that the Mazeh is Tahor, and "Mazeh" in the verse refers to one who carries Mei Chatas?

We should say that it literally refers to one who sprinkles!

Answer: Since it says "the Tahor will sprinkle", this shows that the Mazeh is Tahor. (Therefore, we must say that it refers to one who carries.)

Implied question: We expound [another law] from "Tahor", to deduce that he is Tamei [for other matters], to teach that a Tevul Yom [one who immersed from Tum'ah today] is Kosher for Parah Adumah!

Answer: We learn both of these from "ha'Tahor".

Explanation: [He is called Mazeh] to teach that [he is Tahor] unless he carries the amount needed for Haza'ah.

Question: If so, why did we retract from saying that Mazeh is one who touches?

Suggestion #1: It is because it says Noge'a, and it says [also] Mazeh. Also, one who sprinkles must immerse his clothes, and one who touches need not immerse his clothes.

Rejection: We can say that the Torah wrote Noge'a, but did not mention immersing clothes regarding Noge'a, for it refers to one who touched less than a Shi'ur for Haza'ah. Mazeh, who must immerse his clothes, refers to one who touched a Shi'ur for Haza'ah!

Suggestion #2: We do not establish it to teach about one who touches, like it explains, for one who touches need not immerse his clothes even if he touched a Shi'ur, since it says "veha'Noge'a b'Mei ha'Nidah Yitma", and it does not mention immersing his clothes.

Mei ha'Nidah connotes water proper for Haza'ah, i.e. it has the required Shi'ur.

Rejection: Surely Mei ha'Nidah does not connote this.

Support #1: If not, when the Gemara asked "the Torah should have written Nosei", what was the answer "it wrote Mazeh to teach that he must carry a Shi'ur for Haza'ah"?

The question remains! It should have written "veha'Nosei Mei Nidah Yechaves Begadav", since Mei ha'Nidah connotes that it has a Shi'ur for Haza'ah!

Support #2: If Mei ha'Nidah connoted that it has a Shi'ur for Haza'ah, if so, if there is not a Shi'ur, it is not Metamei one who touches it at all;

This is wrong. The beginning of Maseches Kelim connotes that it (less than a Shi'ur) is Metamei one who touches it;

The Mishnah there says that Avos ha'Tum'ah are a Sheretz... and Mei Chatas without a Shi'ur for Haza'ah. They are Metamei people and Kelim through touching, but not through carrying.

Suggestion #3: The Gemara means that "Mazeh" refers to Nosei, i.e. even Nosei, and the same applies to one who touches, for they are equally reasonable. There is no logic to exclude one more than the other. (Therefore, we learn both of them.)

Rejection #1: If so, what was the question "the Torah should have written Nosei!"?

The Gemara could [easily] answer that had it written Nosei, we would have thought that this refers only to carrying, but not to touching. Therefore, the Torah wrote Mazeh, to teach both of them!

Rejection #2: The words of the Gemara connote unlike this. It says "unless he carries a Shi'ur for Haza'ah", and not unless he touches a Shi'ur for Haza'ah" regarding immersing his clothes.

Answer #1: We do not establish it to discuss one who touches, regarding immersing his clothes, for this would connote that touching is relevant to his clothes, and one who carries is totally Tahor;

We never find a Tum'ah that is Metamei only through touching regarding immersing clothes, but it is Tahor through carrying.

Implied question: A Sheretz is Metamei through touching, but not through carrying!

Answer: A Sheretz does not obligate immersing clothes.

Conclusion: Therefore, we establish it to discuss carrying, for carrying obligates immersing his clothes, and touching does not obligate immersing his clothes.

Support: We find a Tum'ah like this, i.e. Nevelah. It is Metamei a person [through touching], but not immersing his clothes. One who carries it must immerse his clothes.

Answer #2: Mei ha'Nidah connotes either way, whether or not there is a Shi'ur;

Therefore, we could not establish it to discuss touching, for it says "veha'Noge'a b'Mei ha'Nidah Yitma." This connotes that even if there is a Shi'ur, he has light Tum'ah, without need to immerse his clothes.

Support: This explains why it says "unless he carries a Shi'ur for Haza'ah." Had it written "veha'Nosei Mei ha'Nidah Yechaves Begadav", I would have thought that this is whether or not it has a Shi'ur for Haza'ah!

Implied question: Why do we mention the one who merited Dishun of the inner [Mizbe'ach]? We needed to mention only the one who merited the Menorah and Ketoresl...

... Just like we do not bring here the one who merited taking ashes off the outer Mizbe'ach, and the one who merited the limbs, which were taught there;

Answer: Rather, we mentioned one before it, i.e. Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach, which was taught next to them, to teach that we discuss the one who merited the Menorah and Ketores in the morning;

Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach is only in the morning. Also our Mishnah here discusses the morning.

Explanation: Also here, we could have asked that our Mishnah mentions Zerikas Dam of the Tamid first, and the Mishnah in Tamid teaches first the one who merited Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach;

The Mishnah there later teaches the one who merited the Menorah, and then Shechitas ha'Tamid, Kabalah, Zerikah, and then bringing the limbs to the ramp, and then the Ketores, and then burning the limbs and bringing them from the ramp to the Mizbe'ach.

When we answer that it is R. Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpah, everything is answered. The question is from the Menorah, which was taught there first.

Rav Huna had a tradition that the Mishnah is R. Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpah, and Rabanan argue about the order of the Avodah. He did not know how he (R. Shimon) holds.

Inference: Since it does not say "Ela Amar Abaye", this shows that he did not retract from the answer we gave to the contradiction before our Mishnah and the Mishnah in Tamid.

Question: Why don't we also answer that our Mishnah discusses two Neros, and the Mishnah in Tamid discusses [the other] five Neros? (If so, we need not establish the Mishnah in Tamid to be R. Shimon!)

Answer: Even if we would say so, it would still argue with the Mishnah there, which puts [Zerikas] Dam of the Tamid after Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach and Menorah;

Here, it says that Zerikah was first. Therefore, we must say that different Tana'im taught them.

Implied question: Why didn't our also Mishnah teach fixing [five] Neros before the Ketores?

Answer: It discusses fixing only the [last] two Neros, which finish [its] Avodah;

The Kohen Gadol did not fix the five Neros, like we say below (15a), that [the first Perek] merely teaches [Avodos that the Kohen Gadol did in the week before Yom Kipur].

Implied question: Above, when we said "the Tana of Yoma is R. Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpah", we could have said that the Tana of Tamid is Aba Sha'ul, who argues with our Mishnah in Yoma, and the Mishnah in Yoma is the Rabanan who argue with him!

Answer #1: The Gemara preferred to mention the name of the Tana of our Mishnah, i.e. R. Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpah.

Answer #2: We explicitly find that he explicitly comes to argue with the Mishnah in Tamid. It says "R. Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpah changes regarding the Tamid."