Question: If it is a tradition from Sinai, why do we need a verse below?

Answer: If not for the verse, one might have thought that he immerses five times, even one after the other, all together;

Therefore, we need a verse to teach that he immerses when changing from Avodah to Avodah;

If not for the tradition, one might have thought that he changes from Avodah to Avodah only three times, which would be only three Tevilos.

Question: What is the source that this verse is out of order more than other verses?

Perhaps Ketores of Yom Kipur is out of order, and we find five Avodos - the morning Tamid in the g9g, the Ketores of Yom Kipur in the linen garments, his ram and the Tzibur's ram in the g9g, Avodas ha'Yom in the linen garments, and Musaf and the afternoon Tamid in the g9g!

Answer: If it is true that there was no interruption between removing the Kaf and Machtah and Avodas ha'Yom before it, why does it say "and Aharon will come"? He was standing there!

Rather, we must say that he interrupted with Avodah outside. Therefore, it says "he will come."

Question: If so, we should say that because it says "Aharon will come", this shows that it is out of order!

Why did Rav Chisda need to say that it is due to a tradition of five Tevilos!

Answer: One might have thought that it is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv to remove the Kaf and Machtah after finishing Avodas Panim, and then return inside, remove the linen garments and leave them there, and return outside to offer his ram, the Tzibur's ram, Musafim and the afternoon Tamid.

Question: Perhaps "u'Va Aharon" is not to remove the Kaf and Machtah, rather, to interrupt in Avodas Panim!

We should say that Aharon will enter to burn Ketores, or sprinkle [the blood of] the bull and goat!

Question: If so, there will not be five Tevilos!

Answer: We could say that he interrupts with hr7 between the Ketores and the sprinklings?

However, what is the source that removing the Kaf and Machtah is Avodah to obligate its own Tevilah?

Answer: In all the Avodos ha'Yom, it already says "u'Va" and "v'Hevi", but not regarding removing the Kaf and Machtah;

Therefore, we can say that [u'Va Aharon] discusses removing the Kaf and Machtah.

Question: A Tamei whether enters the Azarah should disprove this. He must immerse, but he does not need Kidush!

Answer: There is different, for he does not serve. We cannot learn to [the Kohen Gadol] on Yom Kipur, who wants to serve.

Question: Wearing itself we learned from a Kal va'Chomer;

Note: In Kodshim, something learned from a Hekesh cannot teach to elsewhere through a Hekesh. Some say that it depends on the Melamed (source, whether it is Kodshim or Chulin). The Gemara in Zevachim discusses whether we learn Lamed from Lamed through other means.

In Zevachim (50b) we asked [and never resolved] according to the opinion that it depends on the source, whether something learned from a Kal va'Chomer can teach through a Hekesh regarding Kodshim!

Answer: This refers only to kinds of Kodshim like actual Korbanos.

Question: Here, Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael himself learns (really, wanted to learn a Kal va'Chomer) from Bigdei Lavan from b3z, and below Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael learns oppositely!

Answer: Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael learns Tevilah from Bigdei Lavan to b3z like R. Yehudah, and from B3z to Bigdei Lavan like Rebbi.

He asks, why do we need two verses? The Torah could write one, and we would learn the other from it!

He asks, which should the Torah write? If it wrote regarding b3z, we would not learn Bigdei Lavan from a Kal va'Chomer, for one can challenge it, for b3z... The same applies oppositely (had it written Bigdei Lavan, we could not learn...)

Question: If so, why above did we need to say that R. Yishmael learns Tevilah for Bigdei Lavan like Rebbi?

He could learn from R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who equates Peshitah (taking off the garments) to wearing them;

He can say just like wearing b3z obligates Tevilah, like R. Yehudah learned from "vrc, also the garments he removed, i.e. the Bigdei Lavan, should mandate Tevilah when he wears them!

Answer: If we say such a Hekesh, we would not be able to learn from it Kidush for Peshitah

We would say what he wears, which is of gold, when he wears them, he needs Kidush, also the gold garments that he removes, when he wears them, he needs Kidush!

We would not need the Drashah for Kidush when wearing the Bigdei Lavan, since it comes from a Kal va'Chomer, just like Kidush for Bigdei Zahav;

If so, we would expound the Hekesh only for Tevilah for Bigdei Lavan, but we would not learn Kidush for Peshitah.

Conclusion: Therefore, we need a verse for Tevilah, and automatically we expound a Hekesh to Kidush, like we said above.

Observation: Alternatively, we could have asked "if so, the Shechitah was through two people, for if he was not Morek (finish it), it is Pasul;

If two slaughtered one Korban, even one after the other, it is Pasul (Chulin 29a).

Note: In Chulin (30a), some permit this l'Chatchilah, and Tosfos (29b DH Trei) says that [all agree that] it is Kosher. Acharonim left this difficult.

Question: What was the question from Avodah through someone else? Below (42a), one opinion is Machshir Shechitah even of his bull through a Zar!

Even the opinion that disqualifies, this is only for his bull, which is for Chovas ha'Yom, to which "Aharon" and "Chukah" apply;

However, the Tamid does not pertain to Chovas Yom Kipur. "Aharon" and "Chukah" do not apply to its Shechitah, since it is not an Avodah!

Answer #1: In any case, it is Pasul mid'Rabanan.

Answer #2: Some say that Merikah is needed for Kabalah. (Therefore it is like Kabalah, which is an Avodah.)

Rejection: The minority of the latter Siman (foodpipe or windpipe) is no more important than the majority of the first Siman (Shechitah itself, which is not Avodah)!

Answer #3: Some explain "Shechitah is not an Avodah" like R. Yakov of Orlins, because it applies even to Chulin;

Miruk is not Me'akev in Chulin. Therefore, it is an Avodah, so it is Kosher only through him (the Kohen Gadol, in the Hava Amina that it is Me'akev in Kodshim).