1)

(a)We query Rav Sheishes (who holds that Kohen she'Shimesh be'Tum'ah is not Chayav Misah) from a Beraisa which lists many Avodos that are subject neither to Zarus nor to Tum'ah. The first six pertain to the Minchah: 'ha'Yotzek, ve'ha'Bolel, ve'ha'Poseis, ha'Mole'ach, ha'Meinif ha'Meigish'. 've'ha'Poseis' - which pertains to those Menachos that were pre-baked, means that it had to be broken into pieces.

(b)When the Kohen would perform 'Hagashah', he would take the Minchah to - the south-western corner of the Mizbe'ach.

(c)The remaining four Avodos incorporate 'ha'Mesader es ha'Shulchan, ha'Meitiv es ha'Neiros (preparing the Menorah to be lit), ha'Kometz (which also pertains to the Minchah) ve'ha'Mekabel Damim ba'Chutz'. What they all have in common is - the fact that they are not final Avodos ('Avodah Tamah'), and the Chiyuvim of Zarus and Tum'ah do therefore not pertain to them.

(d)The other two Chiyuvim to which they are not subject are - 'Mechusar Begadim' (lacking the four Bigdei Kehunah) and 'Eino Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim' (the Kohen not having washed his hands).

2)

(a)If the Kohen performs any of the above outside its allotted place - he is Patur from Kareis.

(b)The final Avodah that has still to follow ...

1. ... all the above-mentioned Avodos of the Minchah is - burning the Kometz on the Mizbe'ach.

2. ... arranging the Lechem ha'Panim on the table - is the removal of the bowls of frankincense and burning them.

3. ... preparing the Menorah during the day is - kindling the lights at night.

4. ... receiving the blood - is sprinkling it on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)With regard to Avodas Chutz, besides Shechitah (''Asher Yishchat ... '' [in Acharei-Mos]) the other two Avodos that are specifically mentioned are - 'Ha'ala'ah' (burning the Korban ["Asher Ya'aleh Olah O Zavach"]) and Zerikas ha'Dam (which is learned from "Dam Shafach").

3)

(a)We extrapolate from the Beraisa 'Ha Miktar, Chayav!' - and assume that 'Chayav' means Chayav Misah (a Kashya on Rav Sheishes.

(b)Zar (mentioned together with Tumah in the Beraisa) cannot possibly be only a La'v - because of the Pasuk in Korach "ve'ha'Zar ha'Kareiv Yumas".

(c)We counter the argument on the above suggestion, that seeing as Zar is Chayav Misah, so is Tum'ah - by applying the principle 'Ha ke'de'Isa, ve'Ha ke'de'Isa' (each one is independent of the other).

4)

(a)The problem with saying that Yotzek and Bolel and the other things in the above list do not even transgress a La'v is - the Beraisa which specifically learns an Azharah for Yotzek u'Bolel from the Pasuk in Emor "Kedoshim Yih'yu ... ve'Lo Yechalelu".

(b)Consequently, to accommodate Rav Sheishes - we consider the La'v referred to in the Beraisa as an Asmachta (meaning that the Pasuk is no more than a hint to what is really only forbidden mi'de'Rabbanan).

(c)We finally prove Rav Sheishes wrong - from a Beraisa which specifically lists Tamei she'Shimesh among the Chayvei Misah.

(d)We know that the Pasuk "Kedoshim Yih'yu ... ve'Lo Yechalelu" refers to Avodah she'Einah Tamah and not to Avodah Tamah - because we already have a Pasuk for Avodah Tamah (as we shall see shortly).

5)

(a)The Tana lists eleven cases of Chiyuv Misah (bi'Yedei Shamayim). Besides ...

1. ... someone who eats Tevel and a Kohen who eats Terumah - he also includes a Zar among those who are Chayav for eating Terumah.

2. ... Zar and Tamei she'Shimesh - a T'vul-Yom and a Mechusar Kipurim are also Chayav Misah for serving in the Beis-Hamikdash.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Emor ...

1. ... the Pasuk in Emor "vi'Yenazru mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael ve'Lo Yechalelu ... " - that Tamei she'Shimesh (by Avodah Tamah) is Chayav Misah.

2. ... the words "B'nei Yisrael" (mentioned there) - that the same applies to a Zar (even if he is Tahor).

(c)"B'nei Yisrael" cannot be coming to preclude the Kodshim of Nochrim and of women - because the Sugya in Zevachim specifically includes them in the prohibition.

(d)Included in the list are also Mechusar Begadim and she'Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim. The last two items on the list are - Shesuyei Yayin and Peru'ei Rosh (a Kohen who serves in the Beis-Hamikdash with long hair and Sheuyei Yayin.

(e)'Peru'ei Rosh' means - a growth of thirty-days.

6)

(a)We know that one is Chayav for ...

1. ... Mechusar Begadim - from the fact that the Pasuk refers to a Kohen who serves without his Bigdei Kehunah as a Zar.

2. ... she'Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim - from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chukah" "Chukah" from Mechusar Begadim (to invalidate such an Avodah, and according to this Tana, to render him Chayav Misah too).

(b)An Areil, an Onein and someone who serves sitting - all transgress a La'v, but are not Chayav Misah ...

(c)... in spite of which they invalidate the Avodah.

(d)According to Rebbi, a blemished Kohen who serves or someone who uses Hekdesh (Heizid bi'Me'ilah) is subject to Misah. According to the Rabbanan - he transgresses only a La'v.

7)

(a)Shmuel in the name of Rebbi Elazar extrapolates from the future tense of the word "Yarimu" (in the Pasuk in Emor "vi'Yechal'lu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael es Asher Yarimu la'Hashem") - that it is referring to Tevel (which has yet to be tithed) and not to Terumah.

(b)And we now learn the Chiyuv Misah by Tevel - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" ("ve'Lo Yechal'lu") "Chilul" from Terumah.

(c)We ask why we do not learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Nosar - in which case the Kohen would be Chayav Kareis (to die at fifty rather than at sixty according to some commentaries [or that he will die childless, according to others]).

(d)We prefer to learn Tevel from Terumah and not from Nosar, 'she'Kein Terumah, Chutz la'Aretz, Hutrah, be'Rabim, Peiros, Pigul ve'Nosar'. So both Terumah and Tevel have the same name and neither ever applied outside Eretz Yisrael. This implies that Nosar could occur in Chutz la'Aretz - a. in the desert and b. at the time when Bamos were permitted (between Yisrael's entry into Eretz Yisrael and Mishkan Shiloh) even in Chutz la'Aretz.

(e)They are both fruits of the grounds, which Nosar is not, neither do Pigul and Nosar pertain to them, since they are not Kodshim.

1. 'Hutrah' means - that, under the correct circumstances, they both become permitted to eat.

2. 'ba'Rabim' means - that the Torah uses a plural expression with regard to them ("ve'Lo Yechalelu"), whereas it uses a singular one with regard to Nosar "Kodesh Hash-m Chilel").

8)

(a)We counter that, to the contrary, it would be better to learn from Nosar than from Terumah, because to learn Tevel from Nosar than from Terumah, because ...

1. ... a, 'she'Kein P'sul Ochel - that in both cases, the items themselves are intrinsically Pasul, whereas with regard to the Isur of eating Terumah be'Tum'ah, it is the Kohen who is Tamei, and ...

2. ... b. ve'she'Ein Heter be'Mikvah' - whereas Tevel and Nosar are not subject to Tevilah, Terumah is.

(b)The obvious answer to the Kashya is that Tevel has more advantages over Nosar than vice-versa. Ravina however, answers (even assuming that it did not) - that the last advantage of Terumah and Tevel over Nosar ('de'Rabim') outweighs the two advantages of Nosar and Tevel over Terumah.

(c)From the Pasuk in Emor ...

1. ... "ve'Shamru es Mishmarti" ve'Lo Yis'u Alav Chet ... u'Meisu ... " Shmuel learns - that a Kohen Tamei who eats Terumah Tehorah is Chayav Misah.

2. ... "u'Meisu Bo Ki Yechaleluhu", Rebbi Elazar learns - that had the Terumah too, been Tamei, he would have been Patur ...

(d)... since the Terumah has already been desecrated.

9)

(a)When Rav ruled 'Zar she'Achal es ha'Terumah Lokeh', Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked him - why (seeing as, before "ve'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh, the Torah wrote "u'Meisu bo ... ") he did not ascribe to him Misah?

(b)To which Rav replied - that between "u'Meisu bo" and "ve'Chol Zar" the Pasuk interrupts with the words "Ani Hash-m Mekadishchem" (thereby precluding it from Misah).

(c)Rav is not perturbed by the Beraisa 've'Eilu hein she'be'Misah Zar ha'Ochel es ha'Terumah' - since he is considered a Tana who can argue with a Beraisa.

10)

(a)We know Zar she'Shimesh is Chayav Misah from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'ha'Zar ha'Kareiv Yumas". In reply to Rav Chiya bar Avin's request for the source of Tamei she'Shimesh, Rav Yosef learns it from the Pasuk there "Daber el Aharon ve'el Banav, vi'Yenazru mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael ve'Lo Yech'lalu es Sheim Kodshi" - by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul" from Terumah.

(b)Once again we ask why he does not rather learn "Chilul" "Chilul" from Nosar', and we answer 'Mistavra mi'Terumah she'Kein Guf, Tamei, Mikveh, Rabim.' In answer to the Kashya 'Adraba, mi'Nosar Havah leih le'Meilaf she'Kein Kodesh, P'nim, Pigul, Nosar' - with 'Chilul de'Rabim mi'Chilul de'Rabim Adif', like we answered earlier.

(c)'P'nim' means - that Nosar and Zar she'Shimesh only apply in the Azarah (because they belong to the category of Kodshei Mizbe'ach), whereas Terumah (which is Kodshei ha'Gevul) does not.

(d)Bearing in mind that we just learned Tamei she'Shimesh from "vi'Yenazru", Rebbi Sima'i in a Beraisa establishes the Pasuk (also in Emor) "Kedoshim Yih'yu ... ve'Lo Yechal'lu" with regard to - a T'vul-Yom (a Tamei who has been to Mikveh and who is waiting for nightfall in order to be able to eat Terumah).

11)

(a)Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan (possibly in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar) learns from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "ve'Chagarta Osam Avneit ve'Haysah Lahem Kehunah ... " - that when a Kohen does the Avodah without the Bigdei Kehunah, he has the Din of a Zar.

(b)From the Pasuk in Tazri'a (in connection with the Korban of a woman who gave birth) "ve'Chiper Alehah ha'Kohen ve'Taheirah" Rav Huna extrapolates that a Mechusar Kipurim who serves in the Beis-Hamkdash is Chayav Misah - because the Pasuk implies that until the Kaparah has been brought, he is still considered Tamei.

(c)And we know that the same applies to a Kohen who serves ...

1. ... without washing his hands and feet - from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Yirchatzu Mayim ve'Lo Yamusu".

2. ... after having drunk wine - from the Pasuk in Shemini "Yayin ve'Sheichar Al Tesht ... be'Vo'achem el Ohel Mo'ed ... ve'Lo Samusu".

(d)And we learn the same thing with regard to a Kohen serving with a growth of hair of thirty days, from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Rosham Lo Yegalechu ... ve'Yayin Lo Yishtu", since the Navi compares the Kohanim growing their hair long to drinking wine (which we just learned from the Pasuk in Shemini).