Clarification: This means after his (the Talmid-Chacham's) death, when he is incapable of quarreling with whoever speaks ill about him.

Clarification (cont.): That is where the Gemara takes it from that it is speaking (even) after the Talmid-Chacham's death.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - because she was a convert like them, since they were converts.

Proof: And this is how the Yerushalmi seems to learn, when it says in Mo'ed Katan (Perek 3) 'What does 'Dugma' mean? - 'Like her!'

Explanation #2: the Aruch explains 'They gave her a Dugma ro drink' to mean that they gave her colored water, which wasn't really bitter, and they only erased the Torah on it, in order to frighten her' (presumably Tosfos means that they only pretended to do it).

Question on Explanation #1: A Kashya on Rashi (in Shabbos 152b), who explains that 'Golel' is the lid/cover of a coffin ...

Question (cont.): Since we learned in a Beraisa that "Kol asher Yiga al-P'nei ha'Sadeh" comes to include a Golel and a Dofek', in which case a Golel too, is Metamei be'Ohel. So how could they jump over the coffins?

Answer #1: This is not a Kashya however, since we learned in S'machos (Perek 4 Halachah 21) that 'Any Tum'ah which does not require a Nazir to shave his hair, is permitted to a Kohen' ...

Answer #1 (cont.): As we learned in Maseches Nazir, Perek Kohen Gadol (54.).

Refutation of Answer: Rabeinu Tam however, says that those principles are not Halachah, since the Gemara there says that a Nazir does not need to shave for a Revi'is (a quarter of a Log) of blood, only for half a Log, yet a Kohen is warned against becoming Tamei through it ...

Refutation of Answer (cont.): Like we say in Perek Beheimah ha'Mekasheh (Chulin 72.) that 'A Revi'is that comes from two Meisim is Tamei', and we learn it from the Pasuk "Al Kol Nafshos Meis Lo Yavo".

Answer #1: There at least, it (a Revi'is of blood) has the name of Tum'ah on which a Nazir shaves); whereas a Golel and a Dofek have no significance at all with regard to a Nazir. And that explains why a Kohen is not subject to its Tum'ah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Beraisa in 'Beheimah ha'Mekasheh' holds like the early Zekeinim, who say in Nazir (53.) that a Revi'is of blood requires a Nazir to shave.

Question: Why is the Meis not Metamei be'Ohel, seeing as the cover itself is subject to Tum'ah, and whatever is subject to Tum'ah, is not Chotzetz before Tum'ah?

Answer: It is only the outside (of the Golel) that is subject to Tum'ah, but not the inside ...

Answer (cont.): As we learned in the Mishnah in Ohalos (Perek 15, Mishnah 9) 'If someone touches a barrel that is full of Tahor liquid and is firmly sealed, and that one used as a Golel for a coffin, he becomes Tamei for seven days, and the barrel and the liquid remain Tahor, since the inside is completely Tahor.

Question: There remains however, a Kashya on Rashi, from the first Perek in Eruvin (Daf 15:), which forbids using animals as a Golel or a Dofek fof a coffin. Since when does one use an animal to cover a coffin?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu therefore explains that 'Golel' is a Matzeivah (a tomb-stone ...

Proof: And people do tend to place animals on a coffin as a marker, until such time as the tomb-stone is put in place.

Clarification: Clearly, the top of the coffin is open, because if it is closed, then on the contrary, if there would be an opening of a Tefach, even the part that is empty would be Metamei.

Proof: Like we say in Maseches Ohalos (Perek 7, Mishnah 1) ' "Someone who touches the side (i.e. the empty side) of a closed grave remains Tahor', since the Tum'ah rises straight upwards and straight downwards.

Proof (cont.): And if the location of the Tum'ah is a Tefach by a Tefach and a Tefach tall, then whoever touches it in any way is Tamei, because it is like a closed grave.

Conclusion: So we see that a closed grave is not Metamei all around it unless there is an (empty) Tefach on top, but if it is full to the top (Tum'ah Retzutzah), it is only Metamei above and below where the Tum'ah is but not by the empty section.

Reference: And Perek ha'Mocher Peiros (Bava Basra, 100:) is the place to elaborate.

Clarification: In connection with Nazir, the Torah writes "he shall not 'come to' a dead person", which is followed by "for his father and mother, his brother and sister, he shall not render himself Tamei.

Clarification (cont.): And all of these are superfluous, since "Nefesh Meis" incorporates them all.

Clarification (cont.): So we Darshen ... Why does the Pasuk mention "le'Aviv", since it is not needed for itself, since we learn it from "Nefdesh Meis"? It therefore comes to preclude a Meis Mitzvah, for whom he is permitted (obligated) to render himself Tamei.

Clarification (cont.): And why does the Torah mention "le'Imo"? ... To teach us that if he is a Nazir and a Kohen (who has two Kedushos), even then, the Torah only forbids him to be Metamei himself for his mother, but not for a Meis Mitzvah.

Clarification (cont.): And why does the Torah mention "le' Achiv" ... To teach us that even if he is a Nazir a Kohen Gadol and a Nazir, whose Kedushah is even more stringent, seeing as even he was not a Nazir he would be forbidden to render himself Tamei for his relatives, nevertheless, it is for his brother for whom he is forbidden to be Metamei himself, but not for a Meis Mizvah.

Clarification (cont.): Because if the Pasuk is needed neither for a Nazir on his own nor even for a Kohen Hedyot who is a also a Nazir, then we will establish it by a Kohen Gadol who is also a Nazir.

Explanation of Beraisa: 'And why does the Torah finally mention "ve'la'Achoso"'. Rashi explains in Sanhedrin (35b) that if he is a Kohen Gadol and a Nazir, and he also is going to slaughter his Korban Pesach and to circumcise his son, thus a number of Mitzvos are involved, it is to "his sister" that he is forbidden to be Metamei himself, but not for a Meis Mitzvah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Since the Beraisa is referring to a Nazir and a Kohen Gadol who is bringing his Korban Pesach (as explained at the end of the previous Tosfos, and not to an ordinary person bringing a Korban Pesach)...

Implication: This implies that if an ordinary person is bringing his Korban Pessach, he is permitted to render himself Tamei for his relatives.

Question: However, the Gemara in Zevachim (100.), in connection with the episode where Yosef ha'Kohen (Gadol)'s wife died on Erev Pesach, and his fellow Kohanim rendered him Tamei against his will ...

Question (cont.): And the Gemara there queries them from our Beraisa, which states "Lo Yitama".

Question (cont.): What exactly is the Gemara asking, since perhaps here is different, seeing as it is speaking where the Kohen Gadol has all the extra Kedushos, as Rashi explains. But someone who is merely bringing his Korban Pesach may well be permitted to be Metamei himself?

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that when the Tana says "Lo Yitama" he is referring even to someone who is merely briniging his Korban Pesach. (continued on following Daf)