Question: "Ish l'Fi Achlo Tachoso Al ha'Seh" (we slaughter Pesach only for those who can eat it)!

Answer: That is only l'Chatchilah.

Question: It is Me'akev!

(Beraisa): "B'Michsas Nefashos" teaches that we slaughter Pesach only for those who can eat it;

Suggestion: One may not slaughter for people who do not own a share, but if one did, the Korban is Kosher.

Rejection: "Tachoso" is repeated to teach that it is Me'akev.

Summation of question: People who do not own a share are equated to people who cannot eat it, i.e. if it was slaughtered for them, it is Pasul!

Answer: Ziknei Darom do not equate people who do not own a share with people who cannot eat it.

Question: Even if they do not equate them, we have a question!

An owner who is Tamei Sheretz may send his Korban l'Chatchilah, but a Tamei Sheretz Kohen is Mechalel Avodah;

An owner who is Tamei Mes should not send his Korban (he should wait until Pesach Sheni). All the more so a Tamei Mes Kohen is Mechalel Avodah!

Question (against Ziknei Darom - Beraisa): The Tzitz is Meratzeh (makes acceptable) Korban Pesach or Korbanos of a Nazir if the blood became Tamei, but not if he (the owner) is Tamei.

Question: What is his Tum'ah?

Answer #1: He is Tamei Sheretz.

Rejection: Ziknei Darom hold that we offer the Korban (Pesach) of a Tamei Sheretz. (It is Kosher even without the Tzitz!)

Answer #2: He is Tamei Mes.

Summation of question: The Beraisa teaches that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh. This implies that a Tamei Mes may not send his Korban!

Answer: If the owner was Tamei Mes, indeed the Tzitz is Meratzeh. The Beraisa does not discuss this;

Rather, it says 'not if he was Tamei', i.e. the Kohen who offered it was Tamei Sheretz.

Question (Seifa of the Beraisa): If he became Tamei through Tum'as ha'Tehom (a Tum'ah that no one knew about), the Tzitz is Meratzeh.

R. Chiya taught, Tum'as ha'Tehom is Meratzeh only for Tum'as Mes!

Question: What does R. Chiya comes to exclude?

Suggestion: He excludes Tum'as Sheretz.

Answer: No, he excludes Tum'as Zivah.

Question: Rami bar Chama asked whether or not Tum'as ha'Tehom is permitted to a Kohen offering Korbanos;

If our Beraisa discusses Tum'as ha'Tehom of the Kohen, he should have been able to resolve his question!

Answer: Rami bar Chama argues with Ziknei Darom. (Rami holds that we do not offer the Korban of a Tamei Mes, for being able to eat is Me'akev Pesach. He establishes the Beraisa to teach about Tum'ah of the owner.)

Version #1 - Question (against Rami bar Chama - Beraisa): "V'Nasa Aharon Es Avon ha'Kodoshim";

Question: What sin does the (Tzitz on the) Kohen Gadol sustain?

It cannot be Pigul (here this refers a Korban offered with intent Chutz li'Mkomo, even though there is no Kares for eating it). We learn that from "Lo Yechashev" (Rashi - from "Lo Yeratzeh")!

It cannot be Nosar. (Note - really, Nosar is a Korban that was not eaten in the permitted time. Here, it refers to a Korban offered with intent to eat it when it is Nosar, i.e. Chutz li'Zmano, what the Torah calls Pigul.) We learn that from "Lo Yeratzeh" (Rashi - from "Lo Yechashev")!

Answer: It bears the sin of a Tum'ah permitted to the Tzibur.

Question: Which Tum'ah is this?

Suggestion: It is Tum'as Sheretz.

Rejection: That is never permitted to the Tzibur (since a Tamei Sheretz can send his Korban and eat it in Taharah at night; Tosfos - or, if Rami holds that a Tamei Sheretz may not send his Korban, the Tzitz is not Meratzeh)!

Answer #1: It bears Tum'as Mes.

Suggestion: The case is, the owners became Tamei.

Inference: A Tamei Mes may send his Korban (and the Tzitz is Meratzeh).

Question: To which Korban does this apply?

It cannot be a Nazir's Korban, for it says "v'Chi Yamus Mes Alav"! (He must repeat Nezirus before bringing his Korbanos. We cannot say that it applies to a Nazir Tamei, for this would not require the Tzitz to be Meratzeh. He need not be Tahor when his Korbanos are offered, just like Stam Olos or Shelamim which may be offered when the owner is Tamei!)

Answer: It applies to Korban Pesach.

Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 3): Really, he is Tamei Sheretz. The Beraisa means that it bears the sin of Tum'ah, (albeit not the same kind) which is permitted to the Tzibur.

Version #2 - Question (against Ziknei Darom): "V'Nasa Aharon Es Avon ha'Kodoshim" - he does not bear the sin of the Makdishim (not of the owner, who was Makdish the Korban, nor of the Kohanim who offered it).

Question: Which Tum'ah does it discuss?

Suggestion: It discusses Tum'as Sheretz.

Version #1 (Rashi) Rejection: That is never permitted to the Tzibur (i.e. the Kohanim. The owners do not need Ritzuy Tzitz, for a Tamei Sheretz may send his Korban and eat it at night b'Taharah!)

Version #2 (Tosfos) Rejection: That is never permitted to the owners (if a Tamei Sheretz may send his Korban, he must eat it at night b'Taharah. If he may not send his Korban, the Tzibur does not need the Tzitz to send Pesach Rishon (since they are not pushed off to Pesach Sheni), and the Tzitz does not permit an individual!)

Answer #1: It discusses Tum'as Mes.

Summation of question: It does not bear the sin of the Makdishim. I.e. a Tamei Mes owner may not send his Korban, and a Tamei Mes Kohen is Mechalel Avodah in an individual's Korban.

Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 1): Really, he is Tamei Sheretz. The Beraisa means that it bears the sin of Tum'ah, (albeit not the same kind) which is permitted to the Tzibur.

(Mishnah): One who sits (is Mechalel Avodah).

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Rava): "(Bo Bachar Hash-m) La'amod Leshares" - Kohanim were chosen to serve standing, not sitting.

(Beraisa): "La'amod Leshares" teaches that L'Chatchilah, Avodah must be standing;

"Ha'Omedim" - the repetition teaches that it is Me'akev.

Suggestion (Rava): One who sits is like a Zar, and he is Mechalel Avodah. We should say that just like a Zar is Chayav Misah for Avodah, also one who sits!

(Beraisa): An Arel, Onen or sitting Kohen is not Chayav Misah for Avodah, but he transgresses a Lav.

Answer (Rav Nachman): Separate verses teach that Mechusar Begadim and one who did not wash are Chayav Misah (for Avodah). One of these could have been learned from the other;

Whenever there are two verses, and one of them teaches something that could have been learned from the other, we do not learn from them to other cases. (Had the Torah wanted us to learn to other cases, it would have written only one verse!)

Question: According to the opinion that we do learn from two such verses, how can we answer?

Answer: There is a third such verse about Shtuyei Yayin. All agree that we do not learn from three such verses.