Inference: From here, R. Tam learned that what we say in Menachos (19a) that wherever it says "Torah" or "Chukah", it is Me'akev, they are not from one reason;

[We learn from] Chukah through a Gezeirah Shavah, but the connotation of "Torah" (is that it is Me'akev).

Reference: In Sanhedrin (84a) we say that an Onen has a Lav - "u'Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei v'Lo Yechalel." This implies that someone else (not a Kohen Gadol) who did not leave (and did Avodah), disqualified it;

We do not learn that he is Chayav Misah from a Gezeirah Shavah Chilul-Chilul from Terumah, because Chilul itself was not written about [Onen] itself, just it is inferred from a Kohen Gadol;

This is something inferred, and anything inferred, we do not learn from it through a Gezeirah Shavah.

Question #1: This is difficult from our Sugya. "When their Begadim are not on them, their Kehunah is not on them", is not written explicitly, and we learn "Chukah-Chukah" from Mechusar Begadim!

Question #2: Similarly for all those about which it is written "v'Lo Yechalelu", we infer (Sanhedrin 84a) that if he served, he disqualified, and we learn Misah through "Chilul-Chilul" from Terumah!

Implied question: If one separates bad [Peros to be Terumah] to exempt good, we do not learn that there is Misah through the Gezeirah Shavah "Chet-Chet"!

Answer (Ri of Orlins): This is because it is inferred.

Summation of questions: We must distinguish why [Onen] is [considered] something inferred more than these (Mechusar Begadim and those in Sanhedrin. Kodshei David answers that the verse of Onen does not discuss a Kohen Hedyot at all. Shalmei Todah says that Tosfos asks that the Ri of Orlins cannot distinguish like this. I.e. even though the verse discusses one who separates Terumah, it is called inferred; Kodshei David holds that since it does not discuss one who separates bad Peros, it is inferred - PF.)

Question: In Sanhedrin (83b) it asks "what is the source that there is Misah for one who [served after] he drank wine or did not wash his hands and feet?" It says that Misah is explicitly written regarding them;

Why did [the Torah] need to write Misah? We should learn from the Gezeirah Shavah Chukah-Chukah from Mechusar Begadim, like we learn Chilul for them from there!

Answer: However, below (24a) we say that there are Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad (three verses, all of which teach something that we could have learned from one of them); they do not teach to other places. They are Mechusar Begadim, one who drank wine, and one who did not wash his hands and feet.

Support: This answers the question of R. Yakov (17b DH Ein. In Sanhedrin, why do say that there is Misah for Avodas Mechusar Begadim, for he is like a Zar? Misah is written explicitly in Parshas Tetzaveh!)

Now, in all three of them Misah is written superfluously, to teach that only for these that are considered Zarim, through the Gezeirah Shavah "Chukah", there is Misah;

However, one who sits, even though he is called a Zar, there is no Misah.

However, other Pesulim such as Arel and Onen do not need a verse to exclude them from Misah, since they are not called Zarim. This is from R. Baruch.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes says that the rest of this Tosfos is a comment.

Retraction: I retract to say that R. Yakov's question persists, for according to the opinion that requires three Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, only two are extra, for one is needed for the law itself;

If so, why are there two verses of Mechusar Begadim, and in both of them it says Chukah?

Answer: However, "v'Chagarta", from which we expound "when their Begadim are not on them, their Kehunah is not on them", is needed for Chilul [of Avodah].

Implied question: We know [Chilul and] also Misah automatically, since he is called a Zar!

Answer: In any case, it is not written, and really, in the Parshah above, Misah applies to all the Begadim (i.e. serving missing any Beged. "V'Chagarta" is needed only for Chilul. This is like Answer #2 at the end of Tosfos 17b DH Ein.)

Question: R. Yosi said (Yoma 12b, that if a Kohen Gadol could not serve on Yom Kipur, so another substituted for him, afterwards) the latter is not proper to serve, not as Kohen Gadol and not as Kohen Hedyot;

He cannot serve as Kohen Gadol due to enmity (the first will resent this), and not as Kohen Hedyot, for we ascend in Kedushah, and we do not descend.

Inference: Since it says "due to enmity", this implies that according to letter of the law, he is a Kohen Gadol. If so, we already know [that he cannot serve as] Kohen Hedyot due to Mechusar Begadim!

Implied suggestion: Perhaps this discusses after the first will die. (In his lifetime, the latter is a Hedyot. After the first dies, mid'Oraisa the latter is a Kohen Gadol, and R. Yosi decrees teaches that he may not serve as Kohen Gadol due to enmity, e.g. lest in his lifetime, the first think that the latter wants him to die.)

Rejection: R. Yosi agrees that if the first dies, the latter returns to serve [as Kohen Gadol]!

Answer: The Kohen Gadol is verbally appointed and verbally deposed. The Yerushalmi expounds this from a verse.

Assertion: Presumably, it depends on the king and his fellow Kohanim, like we find in Yevamos (61a) regarding Yehoshua ben Gamla. Yanai ha'Melech appointed him.

Support: We say in the Yerushalmi and in the Tosefta (Yoma 1:4) about Yosef ben Elem of Tzipori. A Pesul occurred to the Kohen Gadol, and [Yosef] served in place of him. When he left [the Avodah], he said to the king "my master the king - the bull and goat that were offered today - from whom are they? From me, or from the Kohen Gadol?"

The king said to him "it suffices for you that you served once in front of the One who said, and the world came into existence..." and he knew that he was deposed from Kehunah. (It need not say "Kehunah Gedolah", for now he cannot serve even as a Hedyot.)

Implied question: A Beraisa in Pesachim (65b) says "Mido Bad" - like his Midah (measure, of the wearer)!

Answer: Rashi explained that this is a Mitzvah [l'Chatchilah], but it is not Me'akev.

Inference: Here it connotes that some include a Suma's (blind person's) garment, and do not include a five-cornered garment.

Question (R. Tam): In Menachos (43a), regarding the argument of R. Shimon, R. Shimon includes a Suma's garment from "Asher Techaseh", and a five-cornered garment from "Asher"!

Answer: This is not difficult. That Sugya is like the opinion here that includes a five-cornered garment.

Question: However, the Gemara in Menachos is difficult, for below (40a) we say that R. Shimon does not expound "Asher"!

Answer: It means that he does not expound "Asher" in such a case.

Support: We find like this in Bechoros (6b) that R. Shimon expounds "Es ha'Gamal", and in Menachos (11b) he does not expound "Es".

Question: In Yoma (12b) we expound "what do we learn from "Yilbash"? It includes worn out Begadim. [Since they are Kosher,] why do we need an inclusion?

Inference (R. Efrayim): "Kanvus" taught in the Mishnah in Kil'ayim (9:1), that it is permitted with wool, this is not what we call Kanva (hemp), since the Gemara did not ask "we should say that it is Kanvus, which grows Bad b'Vad (individually)!"

Pesak: [R. Efrayim] used to say that [Kanva, which we call] Kanvus is flax, and it is forbidden with wool due to Sha'atnez.

Rebuttal (R. Chaim Kohen): [The Gemara] did not ask "we should say that it is Kanvus" because Bigdei Kehunah can be only of wool or linen, for all garments said in the Torah Stam are wool or linen according to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael;

And also according to Rabanan of (who argue with) Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, this is not difficult at all according to what Rashi explained that Bad b'Vad is one stalk from one seed, and two stalks do not sprout from one seed. It is possible that Kanvus is not like this, rather, like wheat, that several ears sprout from one wheat [kernel].