Implied Question: Why did the Gemara not say 'Because Pesach is a passing Mitzvah'?

Answer: Since there are other Kodshim whose Mitzvah is also passing, such as the Todah, which can only be eaten for a day and a night.

Question: The Riva asks that nowhere do we find Tevilah in connection with a Yisrael who circumcised, even mi'de'Rabbanan?

Clarification: Rebbi Yochanan does not argue with the Beraisa ...

Reason: Seeing as he is not a Tana, as is evident in the first Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 8.), in the Sugya of 'Ein Aveilim min ha'Minyan', where the Gemara does not answer that Rebbi Yochanan is a Tana who argues', as it does with regard to Rav.

Conclusion: Only he is coming to explain it.

Proof: And so (his explanation) is evident, since in connection with a Yoledes the Torah writes in Vayikra (12) "And she shall not come!", implying that to the Machaneh Leviyah she may.

Clarification: This does not apply to the entire Machaneh Leviyah, only to the Ezras Nashim and inwards ...

Source: As we learned in Maseches Keilim (Perek 1, Mishnah 5) 'The Ezras Nashim is more Kadosh than it, inasmuch as a T'vul-Yom is not permitted to enter there'.

Clarification (cont.): But to the Har ha'Bayis, he was permitted to enter.

Clarification (cont.): And it refers to the Ezras Nashim as 'Chatzer' as we learned in the second Perek of Midos 'The Ezras Nashim a hundred and thirty-five Amos long, "And there were four rooms there on the four corners (each of which measured forty Amos, and they had no ceiling,

Clarification (cont.): And this is how they are going to be, as it is written "And He took me to the outer Courtyard ... ".

Question: From where does Rebbi Yochanan know that they decreed on a T'vul-Yom; Perhaps they decreed on a Temi Meis, who was permitted in the entire Machaneh Leviyah.

Answer: Because as far as a Tamei Meis is concerned, they decreed forbidding him to enter even on the Cheil, as we learned in the Mishnah in Maseches Keilim (Ibid.) 'The Cheil is more holy than it, since Nochrim and Teme'ei Meisim were not permitted to enter it.

Implied Question: And when the Tana mentions that 'he saw Keri on that day', and does not mention the T'vul-Yom of other Teme'im ...

Answer: He is merely stating a Chidush - inasmuch as it is not necessary to mention other Teme'im who are permitted min ha'Torah to enter, but even a Ba'al Keri, who is sent out of the two camps min ha'Torah, nevertheless the Rabanan did not decree on his T'vul-Tov

Question: In Perek Noteil (Sotah, Daf 20:) the Gemara asks on the case mentioned in the Beraisa there 'Take her out! Take her out! So that she should not render the Azarah Tamei!'

Question (cont.): But did we not learn that a Tamei Meis is permitted to enter the Machaneh Leviyah, and even a Meis itself ... ?' What is the Kashya, seeing as it is Asur to enter mi'de'Rabbanan?

Answer #1: The Gemara understands that it was mi'd'Oraysa, seeing as the Beraisa said 'Take her out! Take her out!'

Answer #2: Alternatively, they only decreed that a Tamei Meis should not enter to begin with, but if he became Tamei whilst he was already inside, they did not issue a decree that he must leave.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in 'ha'Nisrafin' (in Sanhedrin, Daf 81:) that 'If a Kohen who served be'Tum'ah, one takes him outside the Azarah and smashes in his brains!'?

Answer: It is not just 'outside the Azarah' that one takes him, but also outside the Cheil.

Question: It implies here that they only permitted Bedikah (of a Beis ha'Peras) for someone who is making his Pesach, because they did not establish their words in a case where there is Kareis.

Question (cont.): Whereas in 'ba'Kol Me'arvin' (Eruvin, Daf 26:) the Mishnah permits making an Eiruv for a Kohen in a Beis ha'Peras'. And the Gemara explains there because he is permitted to go there like Rav Yehudah?

Answer: The Ri explains that the reason that the Gemara ascribes the Heter here to where there is Kareis, is only because there is also Kareis with regard to someone who makes the Pesach be'Tum'ah.

Proof: And this is what the Gemara means at the end of Chagigah (Daf 25:) when it says that 'For those who make the Pesach they did not establish their words in place of Kareis; whereas for those who eat Terumah, they did ... '.

Answer (cont.): This means that regarding Pesach they declared it Tahor, even though someone who eats the Pesach be'Tum'ah is Chayav Kareis; But regarding T'rumah, they did establish their words (and did not declare it Tahor) even though someone who eats it be'Tum'ah, is only Chayav Misah (bi'Yedei Shamayim).

Answer (concl.): But as far as Tum'as Kohen is concerned, which is only subject to a La'av, they allowed him to enter a Beis ha'Peras even if it is only for the sake of an Eiruv.

Conclusion: And there are cases, such as in order to learn Torah or to get married, where they permitted entry into a Beis ha'Peras even without blowing away the bones, as we have learned in 'Mi she'Hotzi'uhu' (Eruvin, Daf 47.) and in Avodah-Zarah (Daf 14.) ...

Reason: Because they are more important than other Mitzvos.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks what the Gemara's Question is - seeing as the examination is described explicitly at the end of Ohalos, in that Mishnah itself, as we learned there 'Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that one examines (a Beis ha'Peras) for those who make the Korban Pesach, but not for those who eat T'rumah. And concerning a Nazir, Beis Shamai says "Bodkin" Beis Hillel says "Ein Bodkin" .

Question (cont.): What does one do? One brings earth that one is able to move, and places it in a sieve with thin holes ... '?

Answer: The Ri explains that whereas the Bedikah in the Mishnah discusses the Bedikah that one makes after one has already passed through the field, whereas Rav Yehudah and Rebbi Chiya are discussing the Bedikah that one makes that enables one to pass through Lechatchilah.

Answer (conclk.): And the Gemara's question is therefore 'How does one examine if one wishes to pass through a Beis ha'Peras' (See Tosfos, echgoros 29. DH 'Heichi Azil' etc. and 'Tosfos Kesuvos 28: DH 'Menafe'ach').

Clarification: The Ri explains that the Mishnah holds 'Shochtin ve'Zorkin al Tamei Sheretz'.

Clarification (cont.): Consequently, it speaks by a Tamei meis on his sixth day, who is not fit to eat at night.

Clarification (cont.): Because if it would hold 'Ein Shochtin', then Tamei in our Mishnah would be speaking even by a Tamei Sheretz or a Tamei Meis on his seventh day.

Clarification (cont.): In that case, why is he Patur from Kareis, seeing as he is able to Tovel?

Proof: Since we learned in Perek Eilu Devarim (above, Daf 69:) 'We might have thought that only someone who is Tahor and not on a long journey is Chayav Kareis; From where do we know that even an Areil, a Tamei Sheretz and other Teme'im are Chayav too? Therefore the Torah writes "ve'ha'Ish".

Clarification (concl.): And it implies that nobody argues with this, seeing as the Gemara queries Rava from there, who holds that Rebbi Eliezer exempts him from Kareis.

Question: Why can we not now query Rav from there, who said earlier 'Ein Shochtin ve'Zorkin al Tamei Sheretz'?

Answer: We find many Tana'im who hold 'Ein Shochtin', like Rav.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara queries him earlier from the Mishnah of 'Zav she'Ra'ah Sh'tei Re'iyos' ...

Answer: Is because he is referring to that Mishnah.

Conclusion: And he establishes it where he Toveled.

Clarification: Rav Nachman can hold like Rav Yehudah, who later defines that Derech Rechokah as anyone who is unable to enter at the time of eating.

Clarification (cont.): Nevertheless, he is appeased, since even though is is unable to arrive by walking at a regular pace, seeing as he is able to arrive by riding on a horse or on a mule, he is considered a Bar Achilah, and cannot be compared to a Choleh, an Areil and a Tamei.

Question: What is the difference between 'Onein' and 'Meizid', because if he (the Onein) did it deliberately, that is 'Meizid'?

Answer: The Tana lists two kinds of Meizid; one where he left the Pesach for no reason, and an Onein, who was negligent due to his bitter frame of mind.

Clarification: And it speaks where the deceased died after Chatzos, because if he died before Chatzos, he is not subject to Kareis, as is evident at the end of the Perek.

Proof: And so it says explicitly in in Perek T'vul-Yom (Zevachim Daf 100.).

Conclusion: The Gemara earlier could have reckoned 'Onein' among those by whom, the Chachamim established their decree even in the fact of Kareis.