Assertion: You must say that it includes a Kohen Hedyot, that he is Kosher for Kabalah and Haza'ah, but Hotza'ah and Shechitah required specifically Elazar.

Proof: In all versions, we say above that Osah (the Parah Adumah in the Midbar) was through Elazar.

Implied question: Above, R. Zeira said in the name of Rav that Shechitah Parah Adumah is Pasul through a Zar;

Inference: It is Kosher through a Kohen Hedyot!

Answer: That discusses all generations. He holds like the version (42b) that the Parah in the Midbar required Elazar, but for all generations a Kohen Hedyot is Kosher.

Rashi's opinion: Kidush refers to putting water on the ashes.

Observation: Several places in Maseches Parah connote that we put the ashes on the water!

Implied question: It says "v'Lakchu la'Tamei me'Afar Sereifas ha'Chatas v'Nasan Alav Mayim Chayim El Keli", which connotes that we put the water on the ashes!

Answer: We can explain "he puts Alav, i.e. for its (the ashes') sake, flowing water into a Kli."

Strengthening of answer: In fact, the verse connotes that the water touches the Kli, and [we must say that] he puts the ashes on the water!

Implied question: Why is [R. Yehudah] Machshir a minor more than a deaf-mute or lunatic?

Answer: It is because he will [mature, and] come to have understanding.

Implied question: The entire Torah is written in the masculine, and even so we exclude women only when it explicitly says "Ish"! :

Answer: Here is different, for the Torah changed its wording;

It says "v'Lakchu la'Tamei" in the plural, and then "v'Nasan" (singular). Therefore, we expound v'Nasan v'Lo Nasnah. (See also Tosfos Yevamos 72b DH v'Nasan.)

Explanation: The same one who takes, he mixes it in the water.

Question: These two Mishnayos "everyone is Kosher to be Mekadesh" and "[everyone is Kosher to] sprinkle" are taught in Maseches Parah (5:4, 12:10);

Regarding Kidush, why wasn't Tumtum taught along with a woman and Androginus, like he was taught regarding sprinkling?

Answer: Also the first Tana of R. Yehudah disqualifies a Tumtum because he is a Safek Arel (if he is a man, he is uncircumcised), like it says in Yevamos (72b);

Citation (72b) (Beraisa): If a Tumtum was Mekadesh, it is Pasul, for he is a Safek Arel, and Kidush of an Arel is Pasul.

Citation (cont.): If an Androginus was Mekadesh, it is Kosher, for he is a Safek woman. R. Yehudah disqualifies through a woman or Androginus;

The first Tana of R. Yehudah in the Mishnah is the first Tana of R. Yehudah in the Beraisa in Yevamos. He holds like R. Akiva, who includes an Arel [to be Pasul] like a Tamei;

Implied question: Why didn't the first Tana (in the Mishnah) say "except for a Tumtum"?

Answer: We do not learn from general rules (e.g. everyone is Kosher...), even when they say Chutz (except for...)

The Tana said "except for a Cheresh, lunatic or child", and left over Arel, Tamei and Tumtum.

Question: Why didn't he ask from the Mishnah against the opinion that Haza'ah of an Arel is Kosher, rather, he asked from the Beraisa?

Answer: It is explicit in the Beraisa that it is Pasul, therefore he preferred to ask from it.

Explanation: A Tosefta in the last Perek of Parah explains how she helps him. She holds the water, even at the time of sprinkling, and we need not teach at the time of immersing the hyssop [in the water].

Note: Mesores ha'Shas (in the margin) changes the text from "Tosefta" to "Seifa", and also below, for we have no such Tosefta. This Hagahah leads to four problems. 1. Our Mishnah does not say [here] "even at the time of sprinkling" (Maharsha). 2. Below, Tosfos cites "our Mishnah in the last Perek of Parah." Tosfos has been discussing it all along, except for a brief citation of a Hekesh in Megilah. Tosfos could have said "our Mishnah", or at the most "our Mishnah in Parah." There was no need to repeat that it is in the last Perek! (One cannot bring a proof from the fact that only now Tosfos specifies Mishnah 10, but not above. Perhaps a later editor inserted this.) 3. Below, the Ri says "the Seifa connotes that it is a bigger Chidush to be Machshir Haza'ah." He should have specified "the Reisha of the Seifa", for the very Seifa (end of the Mishnah) connotes oppositely! 4. The Ri asked "it should have been taught in our Mishnah regarding Pesul." Since Tosfos discusses only the Mishnah, the words "in our Mishnah" are totally unnecessary! Rather, our text of Tosfos is correct. It seems that Tosfos had a Tosefta that we do not have.

Haza'ah is a bigger Chidush than Tevilas ha'Ezov, because the verse from which we are Machshir a minor was written regarding Tevilah;

It says "v'Taval ba'Mayim Ish Tahor", and we expound from "Tahor" to be Machshir a minor;

We learn from Haza'ah from Tevilah, since a Hekesh equates them (Megilah 20a).

Our Mishnah in the last Perek of Parah (12:10) concludes "if she held his hand, even at the time of Haza'ah, it is Pasul."

Question (Ri of Simpont): The Tosefta connotes that it is a bigger Chidush to be Machshir Haza'ah;

If so, in our Mishnah, it should have taught regarding Pesul "even at the time of Tevilah"!

Answer (Tosfos): We disqualify when she holds his hand, because it is as if she did it;

Surely, it is more obvious to disqualify a woman for Tevilah than Haza'ah, since the verse from which we exclude a woman discusses Tevilah;

Regarding the Hechsher of a minor, it is a bigger Chidush regarding Haza'ah, since the verse from which we are Machshir a minor discusses Tevilah.

Question: The Tosefta in Parah explicitly says that R. Yehudah disqualifies a minor!

Note: The Makshan wanted to prove from the Mishnah that R. Yehudah is Machshir a minor, like the first Tana. Had the Makshan known the Tosefta, he would not have asked. Abaye proved that R. Yehudah argues even without citing the Tosefta, since Mashma Motzi mi'Yad Mashma, i.e. Haza'ah is unlike Kidush. Our text of Tosfos and the Tosefta is difficult, for the Gemara concludes like Abaye, and does not even ask that this is unlike the Tosefta! We must say that also Abaye and the Gemara did not know the Tosefta. (This is why Hagahos ha'Gra cites Tosfos, who says that [only!] the Makshan did not hear the Beraisa.)

Answer: Perhaps the Makshan had not heard the Beraisa (i.e. Tosefta).

Question: Why do we need a verse? What would be the source to disqualify a Tevul Yom without a verse?

Suggestion: It is because the Torah calls Parah Adumah Chatas. (A Tevul Yom is Pasul for Kodshim.)

Rejection: Haza'ah is not Avodah, for a Zar is Kosher for it.

Suggestion: It says "Tahor" many times in the Parshah, e.g. "v'Asaf Ish Tahor" "v'Taval ba'Mayim Ish Tahor."

Rejection: We needed to expound all of them in our Sugya!

Answer - Suggestion: Since it says "v'Hini'ach... b'Makom Tahor", we require also a man who is totally Tahor!

Rejection: "Tahor" teaches that this is not so.

Question: How can we learn that [a Tevul Yom is Kosher for] other Avodos of Parah, which are Pasul through a Zar, from Haza'ah?

We can challenge this. We cannot learn from Haza'ah, which is Kosher through a Zar!

Answer: Even so, since the primary Taharah is through Haza'ah, and the Torah was Machshir a Tevul Yom for this, all the more so he is Kosher for other Avodos.

Question: Perhaps ["Tahor"] includes (is Machshir) a Mechusar Kipurim, but not a Tevul Yom!

Answer: We establish the verse to discuss a Tum'ah of the Parshah, e.g. Tum'as Mes, to which Kaparah (the need to bring a Korban) does not apply.

Support: We say in Zevachim (17b) according to the opinion that Mechusar Kipurim is Kosher [for Parah], holds that ["Tahor" excludes Tevul Yom of] every Tum'ah in the Torah;

Since we are Machshir a [Tevul Yom of] Tamei Mes, with the Parshah discusses, the same applies to every Tevul Yom, even one who is Mechusar Kipurim;

The one who disqualifies Mechusar Kipurim holds that [we are Machshir] Tum'ah of this Parshah, i.e. Tevul Yom of Mes, who is not Mechusar Kipurim,

He is not [Machshir a Tevul Yom] of a Zav or Metzora, even if he already had ha'Arev Shemesh, since he is Mechusar Kipurim.

Implied question: Below we say that [everyone else] separates from between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach! (If so, this answer is invalid.)

Answer: We conclude below that this is [only] at the time of Haktarah in the Heichal and Matanos Dam in the Heichal, but not at the time of Haktarah Lifnai v'Lifnim (in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim);

Here we discuss Haktaras Ketores Lifnai v'Lifnim. Immediately after this, he took the blood from the one who was stirring it;

Below, when we want to prove that they separate from between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach even at the time of Haktarah Lifnai v'Lifnim, from the Beraisa of R. Yosi, we could have proven from our Mishnah that they do not;

Implied question: [R. Elazar] should have said "rather than challenging me from the Beraisa of R. Yosi, bring a proof for me from our Mishnah!

Answer: We could not bring a proof from our Mishnah, for one could say that since separation from between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach is only mid'Rabanan, for mid'Oraisa, they separate only from the Ohel Mo'ed...

Therefore, we decreed only on people standing there without a need.

Question: If so, why didn't we say that this is another difference between the Heichal, and between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach?

We separate from the Heichal even if one was there for a need, but we separate from between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach only if one was there for no need!

Answer: The one who asked below holds that even from the Heichal, they do not separate if they were there for a need of the Avodah.

He did not change the text of the Mishnah at all. Rather, he taught "in the Heichal." Since it is a need of the Avodah, it is permitted even in the Heichal,