Explanation: The reason here is like Rashi explained, because the verses were written Stam. When Aninus was permitted to a Kohen Gadol Stam, both a [Korban] Yachid and a [Korban] Tzibur were permitted. When it was forbidden to a Kohen Hedyot, both a [Korban] Yachid and a [Korban] Tzibur were forbidden;

When Tum'ah was permitted for a [Korban] Tzibur, it was permitted even for a Kohen Hedyot. When it was forbidden for a Korban Yachid, it was forbidden even for a Kohen Gadol;

If we will judge to distinguish based on a Kal v'Chomer what the verses did not distinguish, why is this way more obvious than this? We can expound oppositely, and switch all of them! Therefore, each keeps its own law.

Question: We should know this since it is written regarding a Tevul Yom "u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher", which implies that [until night] he is Tamei!

[The Gemara] expounds like this below (19b) regarding Mechusar Kipurim. Since it is written "v'Taherah", this implies that she is Temei'ah until now.

Answer (R. Chayim): Regarding a Tevul Yom we can expound "v'Taher" - the day was Tihar (completed; it does not refer to the person), like we expound in Brachos (2b), but we cannot expound v'Taherah like this.

Implied question: In Yevamos (74b), we expound Taharah for a Tevulas Yom Aruch (a Yoledes who immersed after her one or two weeks of Tum'ah. She has the law of a Tevul Yom all the days of Tohar!)

Answer: She is also Mechusar Kipurim. Via "this implies that she is Temei'ah" we cannot learn from there one who is only a Tevul Yom.

Question: There is another verse about Kodshim "Lo Yochal Ad Asher Yithar", which we establish in Yevamos (74b) to discuss a Zav who saw two emissions. He does not bring a Korban, and the verse discusses Terumah. We should say that this implies that he is Tamei!

Answer: R. Simai, who expounds here Tevul Yom from another verse, holds like the Tana who argues there with Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, and establishes [the verse] to discuss a Zav who saw three (he brings a Korban). "Ad Asher Yithar" means until he brings Kaparah (his Korban).

Question: Regarding Terumah touching a Kli, it is written "ba'Mayim Yuva v'Tamei Ad ha'Erev v'Taher", which implies that it is Tamei!

Answer: We must say that if not for R. Simai's verse, who expounds here a Tevul Yom from "v'Lo Yechalelu", we would not expound Mechusar Kipurim from "v'Taherah", which implies that she is Temei'ah, and not Tevul Yom from "v'Taher", which implies that he is Tamei, because their Tum'ah is light;

However, since we find a verse explicitly regarding Tevul Yom, even though his Tum'ah is light, afterwards we properly expound Mechusar Kipurim from "v'Taherah".

Question: "Ba'Mayim Yuva v'Tamei" - this is explicit that a Tevul Yom is called Tamei!

Answer: We need a verse about Avodah "v'Lo Yechalelu" of our Sugya, and regarding eating Terumah and Kodshim another verse in Yevamos (74b), for we do not learn them from each other;

However, "v'Taherah", which is written regarding a Yoledes, we expound from it Mechusar Kipurim, who is forbidden to Kodshim in Yevamos (74b), and regarding that he disqualifies Avodah, below (19b);

[We can learn about Avodah] because a woman is Kosher for Shechitas Kodshim, like the Mishnah (below, 31b). If so, Chilul Avodah applies to her.

Question #1: Regarding a Zav, Zavah, Ba'al Keri and Shichvas Zera, it is written several times "v'Rachatz ba'Mayim v'Tamei Ad ha'Erev." This shows that a Tevul Yom is called Tamei, both for Avodah and for Kodshim, for the verses are written Stam, and he is called Tamei for everything!

Question #2: In Nazir (45a) and in Makos (45a), we say that "Tamei Yihyeh" includes a Tevul Yom. "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes a Mechusar Kipurim regarding Bi'as Mikdash;

Why do we need a verse? He is called Tamei for Avodah and eating Kodshim!

Suggestion: It is so we will not learn Bi'as Mikdash from them.

Rejection: The verse "v'Rachatz ba'Mayim v'Tamei Ad ha'Erev" is written Stam, and he is called Tamei for everything, even for Bi'as Mikdash!

Question #3: Since we expound a Tevul Yom from "Tamei Yihyeh", why do we need further "Od Tum'aso" for a Mechusar Kipurim? We should learn from "v'Chiper Aleha ha'Kohen v'Taherah", like we expound below (19b), that this implies that she is Temei'ah for Avodah!

And in Yevamos (74b) regarding eating Kodshim, we should expound also about Bi'as Mikdash, for the verse discusses all matters, that she is Temei'ah before Kaparah!

Suggestion: If there were only one inclusion, we would establish it for Mechusar Kipurim, because he is lacking an action, and not regarding Tevul Yom, because night comes automatically.

Rejection: If so, it should have said oppositely - "Tamei Yihyeh" includes Mechusar Kipurim, and "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes a Tevul Yom!

Answer #1: Regarding Bi'as Mikdash, we would not expound Mechusar Kipurim from "v'Taherah", which implies that she is Temei'ah, because in the Kares of Tum'as Mikdash it is written "Ish Asher Yitma v'Lo Yischata", which discusses Tum'as Mes;

However, Mechusar Kipurim, which does not apply to Mes, would not have Kares.

We also need a verse to include Tevul Yom, for it connotes that if he did Chituy, i.e. received Haza'ah [of mcts] and repeated and immersed, that he is not Mechusar Ma'aseh, e.g. a Tevul Yom, he does not get Kares.

Support: For these reasons, it is fine that we cannot say "why do we need a verse? There is a Hekesh of Kodesh to the Mikdash!"

[We cannot ask so,] for the verse of Bi'as Mikdash discusses exemption, and we need the verse "u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher" because it is written regarding a Sheretz, which is more lenient than Nidah and Shichvas Zera.

Comment: According to what I explained, that from "v'Taherah", which implies that she is Temei'ah, we would not include Mechusar Kipurim had we not learned Tevul Yom from the verse of R. Simai.

Question: It says below that had the Torah written about Mechusar Kipurim, we would not learn Tevul Yom from it;

We would not know Mechusar Kipurim had we not found a verse of Tevul Yom!

Answer: He means to say "had the Torah written Mechusar Kipurim explicitly."

Support: We find like this in Yevamos (23a) regarding a Shifchah and a Nochris.

Question: If it comes for this, if so the Torah should write Tevul Yom and Mechusar Kipurim explicitly, and not write Tamei!

Answer: Since we do not find a Tzerichusa for these (a reason why both needed to be taught), he was not concerned to be precise.

Observation: He could have learned from one who sits or a Ba'al Mum, and one of the others.

Question (R. Chaim Kohen): Since we learn a Tevul Yom from Terumah, if so, a Tevul Yom who ate Terumah should be Chayav Misah. In Sanhedrin (83a), it does not count a Tevul Yom!

Answer #1: Perhaps the same applies (also a Tevul Yom is Chayav Misah).

Answer #2: Just like Rabanan exclude there a Ba'al Mum who served, since it says "Bo", and not a Ba'al Mum, the same applies to "u'Mesu Bo" written regarding Terumah, "Bo", and not a Tevul Yom.

Limitation: However, we do not exclude a Tamei who served from "Bo". For this, the Gezeirah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" helps.

Similarly, a Tevul Yom who served is Chayav Misah, like it says here and there. The reason is because he resembles a Tamei more than a Ba'al Mum.

Assertion: It seems that the same applies to Terumah. We do not exclude a Tevul Yom. Rashi explicitly explained so, that a Tevul Yom who ate Terumah is Chayav Misah.

Explanation: We can say that this was not listed there because we learn a Tamei and a Tevul Yom from one verse. It says there from "Bo". For this, the Gezeirah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" helps;

The verses say as follows in Parshas Emor. "U'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher v'Acher Yochal Min ha'Kodoshim", and it says "v'Lo Yis'u Alav Chet u'Mesu Bo Ki Yechaleluhu."

Question: How do we learn there in Sanhedrin that a Mechusar Kipurim who served is Chayav Misah because he is called Tamei, and we learn Tamei "Chilul-Chilul" from Terumah?

We should say that one who is Pasul to Terumah is Chayav Misah [for eating it], and one who is not Pasul to Terumah is not, like we say here that one who is Pasul to Terumah disqualifies Avodah...!

Answer: Since [Mechusar Kipurim] disqualifies Avodah, for we learn from "va'Yinazru v'Lo Yechalelu" - anyone who is called Tamei, it is reasonable that we learn from Terumah, that he is Chayav Misah, even though he is Tahor for Terumah.

Explanation #1: He holds like this also in Kerisus (10a). Rashi explained that regarding Kodshim, to which he was not permitted, it is as if he did not immerse;

If he ate them, he is Chayav Kares, or if he touched them, he was Metamei them to count Rishon and Sheni. (What he touched is a Rishon. What that touches is a Sheni.)

Question: If so, according to the opinion that he is not like a Zav, there is no Kares;

In Kelim (1:8), a Mishnah explicitly teaches that if a Mechusar Kipurim entered the Mikdash, he is liable, for the Mishnah says that Ezras Yisrael is more Kodesh than [Ezras Nashim], for a Mechusar Kipurim may not enter there, and he is Chayav Chatas!

And similarly, in Makos (8b) and Nazir (45a) "Tamei Yihyeh" includes a Tevul Yom. "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes Mechusar Kipurim;

In Menachos (27b), if a Mechusar Kipurim entered inside his Mechitzah (past where he is permitted) b'Shogeg, he is Chayav Chatas. If he was Mezid, he is Chayav Kares;

There is a Hekesh of Kodesh to the Mikdash in Yevamos (75a) and Makos (14a) and Shevu'os (7a).

Poor Answer #1: All these are according to the opinion that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is like a Zav.

Also, [this is difficult because] in that Sugya of Nazir, "Tamei Yihyeh" includes a Tevul Yom, all agree that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is not like a Zav, and even so it includes there Kares for the Mikdash for a Mechusar Kipurim.

Remark: However, Amora'im argue about this below (32b). Some say that the Hekesh of Kodesh to the Mikdash, this is even for Kares, for partial Bi'ah is considered Bi'ah, like touching [part is like touching the entire matter];

And some say that it was said only regarding lashes, and establish "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" to be a Lav for touching Kodesh, which has only a Lav, even though "v'El ha'Mikdash Lo Savo" has Kares.

Explanation #1: Rashi explained that [it is as if he did not immerse] regarding counting Rishon and Sheni for Kodesh.

Question: This is astounding, a Mechusar Kipurim does not count Rishon and Sheni l'Tum'ah, like a Mishnah in Me'ilah (8a) says that Chatas ha'Of... was Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim;

The Gemara infers that it becomes Pasul, but it cannot be Metamei [others]!

Answer (R. Tam): It mentioned Pasul regarding a Mechusar Kipurim only Agav (along with) Tevul Yom.

Question #1 (R. Chaim Kohen): In Sotah (29a) we say "what is the source that a Revi'i l'Kodesh is Pasul? A Mechusar Kipurim is permitted Terumah, but he is Pasul for Kodesh." This implies that it is Pasul, but not Tamei.

Question #2: If we count a Rishon and Sheni, it will make a Revi'i and Chamishi in Kodesh from a Kal v'Chomer!

Answer (to Question #2): We do not learn Chamishi, for letter of the law, it suffices [for Kodesh] to be like Terumah, if not that it uproots the Kal v'Chomer. It suffices to have one level above Terumah, that it makes a Revi'i.

Question #3: A Mishnah (Nidah 71b) says that one who is in the days of Dam Tahor (Tevulas Yom Aruch) may pour water for Pesach. They retracted to say that for Kodshim, she is like one who touched a Tamei Mes;

The Gemara establishes it like Aba Sha'ul, who says that a Tevul Yom is a Rishon for Kodesh. This implies that Rabanan do not say so.

Poor answer: All of them - in Me'ilah, Sotah and Rabanan of Aba Sha'ul - hold that the opinion that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is not like a Zav.

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): It is relevant to Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah. A Mishnah (Pesachim 95b) says that Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah, Zavim and Zavos may not eat from it;

According to the opinion that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is like a Zav, a Mechusar Kipurim may not eat from it;

This is because we permit b'Tzibur only Tum'as Mes, and the same applies to one who is Tamei [from a] Sheretz, for [his Tum'ah] does not emanate from his body, from a Kal v'Chomer from a Mes, like it says below

The one who says that [Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav] is not like a Zav, [holds that] he may eat from it. It is proven like this explicitly in Kerisus (10a).

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is relevant also to Tum'ah that is Nidcheh b'Tzibur (below, 32b. If we must offer a Korban Tzibur b'Tum'ah, we minimize the Tum'ah.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because Parah [Adumah] is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

Question: Even so, all the Pesulim of a Korban apply to it, e.g. Lo Lishmah!

It says in Menachos (27b) that if the seven Haza'os of Parah were done Lo Lishmah, they are Pasul. We derive this in the Sifri, from this that the Torah called it "Chatas".

Support: This is why we say in Chulin (11a) that if it is Tereifah, it is Pasul.

Explanation #2: Here, the reason is because a Tevul Yom is Kosher for Parah, and we learn Onen and Mechusar Kipurim from a Kal v'Chomer from Tevul Yom, who is forbidden to touch Terumah, and is permitted [to engage in] Parah.

According to the opinion that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is like a Zav, we cannot learn from a Kal v'Chomer. You cannot learn from Tevul Yom of Mes, who may eat Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah, unlike Mechusar Kipurim!

Remark: A Tevul Yom is permitted mid'Oraisa. Perhaps mid'Rabanan he is Pasul, for we say that even garments of people who eat Kodesh are Midras (Metamei like an Av ha'Tum'ah) regarding Parah, and all the more so a Tevul Yom!

Implied question: We say in Parah (3:8) that they used to be Metamei the Kohen who burns the Parah to refute the Tzedukim, who said that it was done [only] through people who had Ha'arev Shemesh (but a Tevul Yom is forbidden)!

Answer #1: That was not a real Tevul Yom. Rather, his fellow Kohanim put their hands on his head, and due to that touching he was a Tevul Yom, like a Tosefta teaches, and there is a Heker for (refuting) Tzedukim.

Answer #2: A real Tevul Yom was Kosher for [Parah]. Garments of people who eat Kodesh are Midras for Parah due to Hesech Da'as (he was not mindful to guard himself) from other Tum'os.

Implied question: Haza'ah of Mei Chatas is Kosher through a Zar, and burning it [through a Zar] is Pasul!

Answer: Even so, [regarding Tum'ah] we learn burning from Haza'ah.

Question #1: You cannot learn from a Tevul Yom, for he is permitted to [eat] Ma'aser [Sheni]. This does not apply to an Onen!

Answer: We learn from touching, like it says in Yevamos (72b) that if an Arel did Haza'ah, it is Kosher, just like we find regarding a Tevul Yom. Even though he is forbidden to Terumah, he is Kosher for Parah;

The Gemara asks that you cannot learn from a Tevul Yom, for he is permitted to Ma'aser, and answers that we do not discuss eating. We discuss touching;

A Tevul Yom is forbidden to touch Terumah, but he is permitted to Parah. An Arel is permitted to touch Terumah. All the more so he should be permitted to Parah! We similarly learn Onen.

Question: A Mechusar Kipurim and Ba'al Mum are Yochi'ach! They are permitted to Terumah, and forbidden to Parah. I can say the same about Arel and Onen!

Answer - part 1: This is not difficult regarding Onen. You cannot learn from the others, for they were not Hutru mi'Chlaln, to an Onen, which is Hutar mi'Chlalo regarding a Kohen Gadol!

However, it is difficult regarding an Arel!

Answer - part 2: You cannot be Mochi'ach from Mechusar Kipurim, who is forbidden to touch Kodshim, but an Arel and Onen are permitted.

Question: However, it is difficult from a Ba'al Mum (it should be Mochi'ach. How can we learn Arel?) This is from R. Baruch.

Question #2: You cannot learn from a Tevul Yom, for he is not Mechusar Ma'aseh, to an Arel, who is Mechusar Ma'aseh (he must circumcise)!

Reference: From here we learn Misah in Sanhedrin (83b). It says when their Bigdei [Kehunah] are not on them, they are Zarim, and it was taught that a Zar who served is Chayav Misah.

Question (Ri of Orlins): Misah is written explicitly in Parshas Tetzaveh!

Answer #1: Even though all of the garments are written there, in any case Misah is written specifically about the Michnesayim (underpants), like the simple meaning of the verse connotes;

The verse of "v'Chagarta" written in the Parshah afterwards, which we expound from it when their Begadim are not on them, their Kehunah is not on them, is needed for other garments;

We would not learn Michnesayim from it, for Michnesayim are not written there.

Answer #2: The verse of "v'Chagarta" is needed for Chilul Avodah, that [without Bigdei Kehunah] he is called a Zar. This is from R. Baruch.