Reference for Zevachim 33:10

אלא לא לכתוב רחמנא בטבול יום ותיתי מהנך דמאי פרכת מה להנך שכן מחוסרים מעשה סוף סוף קלישא לה טומאתן

- In which should the Divine Law not write [this ruling]? Should it not write [it] with respect to one who lacks atonement, so that it might be inferred from the others, [it might be argued]: as for the others, [their peculiar feature is] that the are disqualified [to partake of] terumah. Rather, let not the Divine Law write it of a tebul yom, which could be inferred from the others. For how will you refute [the analogy]: as for these others, [the reason is that] they are wanting in a [positive] act?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The unclean priest must take a ritual bath.');">¹³</span> [This would be no refutation] for after all, its<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reading as Rashi, which is preferable to cur. edd. 'their'.');">¹⁴</span> uncleanness is but slight!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncleanness of one who lacks atonement is slighter than that of a tebul yom, since the latter must still wait for sunset, but not the former. Hence the question remains, why must Scripture indicate the law for all three?');">¹⁵</span>

Jastrow