Question: According to the Havah Amina that this is without Kode'ach, this is astounding, that it is worse (more lenient) than Netilas Yadayim! (Below (DH Kode'ach), Tosfos says that Kode'ach is to scoop water from the Kiyor. Sefas Emes asks that if so, even in the conclusion, Kidush is more lenient! He concludes that Tosfos asks according to Rashi, that Kode'ach is carving out in the Kiyor.)

Answer: Also Netilas Yadayim, when there is a Revi'is, we wash even for two people. Here, there was a Revi'is at the beginning.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He challenges our Mishnah, which says that all Klei Shares are proper for Kidush.

Objection: He should challenge our Mishnah in Yoma (43b), which teaches that the Kohen Gadol is Mekadesh with a gold flask!

Explanation #2: He challenges the answer "he is Kode'ach (scoops) from it." The Torah said "from it." One may not be Mekadesh even if he is Kode'ach, unless [from what he is Mekadesh] is like it (the Kiyor), that it has a Shi'ur.

Explanation #1: He takes from its water in a small Kli, and it is Kosher for Kidush, since it comes from a big Kli.

Support: We find like this below. If he took in [a Kli] a Revi'is [from a Mikveh], one may immerse in it needles and small forks, for it comes from the Hechsher of a Mikveh.

Explanation #2: Rashi did not explain like this. (Rather, Kode'ach is carving out in the wall, and puts a small Kli there. It is partially outside the Kiyor.)

Explanation #1: This connotes that [the base] has an interior, and it is made like a box open on top, and the Kiyor rests on it.

Explanation #2: Rashi explained that it is Kosher a pot inverted on its opening, and its bottom is open.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It cannot complete the Shi'ur of a Revi'is for Netilas Yadayim.

Question (and Explanation #2): This is somewhat astounding! It seems that a Revi'is is to immerse needles and small forks, for we discuss this at the end of our Sugya.

Retraction: It seems that Rashi is correct, for in the days of Reish Lakish, they were already Mevatel a Revi'is from being a Mikveh, like is proven in Nazir (38a).

Explanation #1: Even though it completes the Shi'ur [of 40 Sa'im] of water for a Mikveh, one may not immerse [Kelim] in it, like it says in Sukah (19a) regarding "air joins [to the Shi'ur of a Sukah], but one may not sleep under it";

[The Gemara] asks "do we find such a matter, that it is not proper, and it joins?", and it answers that loose mud is Yochi'ach.

Explanation #2 (Rashi in Sukah): Even though it completes, like a Mishnah in Mikva'os (7:1) teaches "the following complete [the Shi'ur of a Mikveh], and do not disqualify - snow, hail, loose mud..."

Even so, if he made an entire Mikveh of loose mud, Tevilah in it is invalid.

Rebuttal: According to this, [loose mud] is not Yochi'ach, for when it completes the Shi'ur, it is proper to immerse in it. It is unlike air, which one may not sleep under it, even when it completes [the Shi'ur of a Sukah]!

Therefore it seems that also loose mud, even when it joins, one may not immerse in it.

Support: A Mishnah in Mikva'os (2:10) says that if a Mikveh has 40 Sa'im [of water] and mud, R. Eliezer says that one may immerse in the water, but not in the mud. R. Yehoshua says, one may immerse in the mud and in the water;

Which mud does this discuss? It is mud that water floats on top of it. If the water was on one side, R. Yehoshua agrees that one immerses in the water, but not in the mud.

Which mud does this discuss? R. Meir says, it is mud into which a stick descends by itself. R. Yehudah says, it is a place where a measuring stick cannot stand;

Aba Eliezer ben Dilai says, it is a place where a plumb line descends by itself. R. Eliezer says, it is what descends in the [narrow] opening of a barrel (it is too loose to seal it);

R. Shimon, it is what enters the opening of a flask (a circle of diameter two fingers. This is bigger than the barrel that R. Eliezer discusses.) R. Eliezer b'R. Tzadok says, it is what is measured in a Log.

Remark: This is the loose dirt of Sukah, which it says is Yochi'ach, that when the mud is on one side, all agree that it joins, but one may not immerse in it.

Explanation #1 (Rashi, here): We say in Chulin (106a) that water that was spoiled too much for an animal to drink it, whether in Kelim or in the ground, it is Pasul [for Tevilah]. This implies that if it was not sullied, it is Kosher [even in Kelim]!

Rebuttal (and Explanation #2): This is wrong. There, a Beraisa explicitly teaches "it is Kosher in the ground." They argue there when a narrow ditch interrupts, but in its place all agree that it is Kosher, for it is a Mikveh.

Implied question: It says here that if a cow would not bend and drink from it, it does not even complete a Mikveh!

Answer: This is not difficult at all. There it discusses clear water without mud, but it is spoiled too much for an animal to drink it;

Here it discusses thick water that was spoiled through mud mixed with it.

Question: What is his source for this Shi'ur? All these Tana'im in Mikva'os (2:10) do not discuss what a cow drinks!

Explanation: We discuss fruit juice, like I explained in Yevamos (82b).

Distinction: However, Mayim She'uvim (it was in a Kli), even if he adds and removes the entire day, it is Kosher, for every amount is Batel when it falls in.

Question: Regarding [rinsing] the innards and legs, we expound "ba'Mayim", and not in mixed [wine], and here regarding the Kiyor it is written "ba'Mayim", and we are Machshir mixed [wine]!

Remark: Rashi said that he does not know where this was taught.

Reference: In Toras Kohanim, a Beraisa teaches similar to this. Perhaps I include even Mei Tutin (strawberry juice)? It says "Mayim" - water without an accompanying name. This excludes Mei Tutin, which has an accompanying name.

Implied question: It says in Sukah (13a) and Chulin (62b) that anything whose name changed before Matan Torah, and the Torah was adamant about the name, this is Shem Levai!

Answer: This is not difficult at all. It was called Mei Kiyor at the time of Matan Torah.

Explanation #1: Everywhere, Rashi explains that his brothers died due to Milah. (Therefore, he is exempt from Milah, for it is dangerous for him.)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): He flagrantly transgresses [remaining] uncircumcised. He is called "his heart is to Shamayim" because he does so only due to fear of the pain of Milah. I explained this in Yevamos (70a. In Chagigah 4b, Tosfos said that according to Rashi, such an Arel is not like a Tamei, for this is Ones.)

Explanation: Even if he repented at the time of Avodah, we say in Menachos (109a) that his Korban is not a pleasant smell;

Even though now his heart is to Shamayim, initially his heart was not to Shamayim.

Explanation: [A Tamei Mes Kohen] before the seventh day is Meratzeh even for a Korban Yachid through the Tzitz, because he is Meratzeh [for a Korban] Tzibur without the Tzitz.

Implied question: It says (23b) "Avon of the Kodshim, and not Avon of those who are Makdish [or of the Kohanim]"!

Answer: We establish this to discuss Tum'as Sheretz (which has no Heter b'Tzibur).

Explanation (cont.): Similarly, every Tum'as Mes of our Sugya is before his seventh day (for it has a Heter b'Tzibur);

However, on his seventh day, he is like a [person] Tamei [due to also Sheretz. [The Tzitz] is not Meratzeh for [a Korban of] Yachid, since they slaughter and do Zerikah for him (there is no need, and therefore no Heter, to override Tum'ah);

Also, there is no Ritzuy for Avodas Tzibur of a Tamei Mes on his seventh day, because they can do through Tahor Sheluchim, and at night they can eat Pesach b'Taharah. This is from R. Baruch.

Alternative text: Rashi's text does not say "if so."

Comment - Explanation: Even if we do not hold that Mitoch (since) it is Meratzeh, we can ask this question that a Tamei Sheretz should be Meratzeh b'Tzibur from a Kal v'Chomer from a Tamei Mes.

Defense #1 (of our text): If it is like you said, Mitoch he is Meratzeh... and you learn an individual b'Di'eved from a Tzibur l'Chatchilah, if so also a Tamei Sheretz should be Meratzeh b'Tzibur from a Kal v'Chomer of a Tamei Mes;

However, if not for Mitoch, it would not be difficult at all. I would say that our Mishnah, which disqualifies a Tamei, discusses both a Tamei Mes and a Tamei Sheretz.

Defense #2: Even if we say Mitoch, you should have established our Mishnah to discuss a Zav or Metzora - one whose Tum'ah leaves his body, but not a Tamei Mes or Sheretz. For them there is Ritzuy for an individual b'Di'eved, since they are Meratzeh b'Tzibur l'Chatchilah, and we learn Sheretz from a Kal v'Chomer;

[The Gemara] answers that a Tamei Sheretz is not Meratzeh b'Tzibur l'Chatchilah, for Mechaprin (Kohanim, who atone) are like Miskaprin (owners of the Korban, who are Yotzei), and regarding Miskaprin, a Tamei Sheretz does not do Pesach b'Tum'ah, for we slaughter and do Zerikah for a Tamei Sheretz;

Any case in which an individual is not Nidcheh, a Tzibur does not offer b'Tum'ah. Rather, they send Tahor Sheluchim, and they offer their Pesachim for them;

If so, we can ask that you cannot learn from a Tamei Mes, for he is Meratzeh b'Tzibur, unlike a Tamei Sheretz. Until here is a comment.

Defense #3: R. Tam's text says "if so." He explains that '"b'Mo'ado", even b'Tum'ah', is both regarding Mes and Sheretz, both regarding Pesach and Tamid.

Implied question: Why did Chachamim of the south say "this is only for a Tamei Sheretz, but a Tamei Mes, since he is Meratzeh b'Tzibur..."?

Answer: It discusses Ritzuy of eating b'Tum'ah. I.e. since it is Meratzeh greatly, that the owner may eat it when he is Tamei, it is Meratzeh also for an individual who served b'Tum'as Mes;

However, a Tamei Sheretz - granted, he has Ritzuy b'Tzibur, e.g. when the Kohanim or knives became Tamei through a Sheretz. They offer b'Tum'ah, for it says "b'Mo'ado", and even b'Tum'ah, and whenever an individual is Nidcheh, a Tzibur offers b'Tum'ah...

In any case, he does not have great Ritzuy like Mes, whereas if the Tzibur became Tamei through a Sheretz, they may not eat b'Tum'ah, like it says at the end (23b).

Defense #3 (cont.): [The Gemara] asks "if so, also a Tamei Sheretz - since you said that Tum'as Mes is Meratzeh for an individual, since they are Meratzeh b'Tzibur, that they eat b'Tum'as Mes...

If so, also a Tamei Sheretz for an Korban Yachid should be Meratzeh from a Kal v'Chomer from a Tamei Mes of a Yachid!

[The Gemara] answers that Chachamim of the south hold that Mechaprin, i.e. an individual, is like Miskaprin - (there is Ritzuy for) Tamei Mes, but not Tamei Sheretz.

Question: What is the source that "b'Mo'ado" discusses even Tum'as Sheretz? If it is from the connotation of "Mo'ado", if so, even a Zav or Metzora [should be included]!

Suggestion: It is a Kal v'Chomer from Mes, who requires [Haza'ah] on days three and seven.

Rejection: You cannot learn from Tum'as Mes, for there is a Heter for the owners to eat b'Tum'ah. You cannot learn to a Sheretz, for if the owners became Tamei through a Sheretz, they do not eat!

Answer: This that [the owners] do not eat is not due to the stringency of a Sheretz, rather, because we slaughter and do Zerikah for him, and he is not exempted from Pesach;

In such a case of a Mes on his seventh day, if most of the Tzibur were Tamei on the seventh day, that they can become Tahor at night, they would not eat b'Tum'ah.

Question #1: According to R. Tam's Perush, just like [Chachamim of the south] say that Mechaprin are is like Miskaprin (to exclude Tum'as Sheretz, which is not Meratzeh for an individual, we should say so also for a Tzibur, also only Tamei Mes, but not Tamei Sheretz!

Suggestion: The Kal v'Chomer overrides the Hekesh! (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)