Conflicting Beraisos: The Toras Kohanim cites two (Stam) conflicting Beraisos (with regard to the death of Nadav and Avihu): The first one, citing the Pasuk in Shemini "And a fire went out ... and consumed them and they died" - states that two streaks of fire descended and burned their bodies, but their clothes remained intact; whereas according to the second Beraisa, their 'Neshamos were burned, whilst their bodies remained intact.

Question: The Gemara in Succah (Daf 25a & 25b), explains that the Teme'im who complained about not being able to bring the Korban Pesach were Misha'el and Eltzafan, who were subsequently ordered to bring the Pesach Sheini. But surely if the bodies of Nadav and Avihu were (completely) burned, then Misha'el and Eltzafan ought not to have become Tamei?

Answer: Their skeletons however, remained intact, and the Gemara in 'ha'Mapeles' (Nidah, 27a) rules that as long the skeleton remains intact, it renders Tamei whoever touches it.

Question: Bearing in mind the Pasuk in Vaykra, 10:5 "and they carried them out via their shirts, why do we need "osam" to teach us that their clothes were not burned?

Answer: Were it not for "osam", it would be possible to learn that Misha'el and Elazafan carried them out with their own shirts.

Potential Answer: The Gemara could have answered by quoting the Pasuk "ve'Ahavta le'Re'acha Kamoso" - 'Select a "pleasant" death' (as it will do shortly).

Question: Why does the Gemara not add 'Mechaper' (that they also atone, as it did in Perek Nigmar ha'Din, earlier on Daf 42a?

Explanation #1: That explains why the Gemara does not say here that it is preferable to learn Machshir from Machshir, as it does in Perek Nigmar ha'Din (ibid.).

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is because the Machshir there is stronger, since that is its regular Hechsher, whereas here, to the contrary, its Hechsher renders it Pasul.

Clarification: And R. Elazar b'R. Tzadok too, retracted (see Ya'avetz).

Potential Answer: The Gemara could just as well have answered that it is the location that causes it (when the Sanhedrin are sitting in the Lishkas ha'Gazis), like it does in Perek ha'Nechnakin, on 87a.

Clarification: R. Yehudah only calls it 'Nivul' because of the La'av of 'Chukas ha'Goy' ('not to follow the customs of the Nochrim'), as is implied by the Gemara.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara implies here that even though it is 'a Chok of the Goyim', since it is based in the Torah, it is permitted ...

Question (Part 2): Whereas in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 11a & 11b) the Gemara asks that if Sereifah is really a Chok, then we will apply the Pasuk "u've'Chukoseihem Lo Seleichu?

Question (Part 3): And the Gemara answers that it does not fall under the category of 'Chok' - implying that, if it did, then it would be forbidden (even though it is based in the Torah)?

Answer (Part 1): When the Gemara there says 'La'av Chukah hi', it means that it is not a Chok for Avodah-Zarah', since, if it would be, the fact that it is written in the Torah would not make any differrence (and it would be forbidden) ...

Answer (Part 2): ... whereas our Sugya is referring to a Chok of the Goyim which is not connected to Avodah-Zarah, such as killing by the sword, which is permitted since it is based on a Pasuk in the Torah.

Clarification: The woman however, is Chayav for being intimate with a nine-year old boy, as we have learned in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah, 45a), which the Gemara will quote later.

Implied Question: Seeing as the Kidushin of a Katan is not valid, why do we need a Pasuk to preclude the wife of a Katan from the Din of Eishes Ish?

Answer (Part 1): We need the Pasuk for a case a. where a man performed Yi'ud between his Amah Ivriyah and his son who is still a Katan, and b. where a nine-year old performed Yibum with his Yevamah, both of whose actions are valid.

Answer (Part 2): In the latter case we would have thought that since min ha'Torah, the Yevamah falls to him, she would have the Din of a regular Eishes Ish; therefore the Torah writes "Eishes Ish", to preclude her.

Proof: And this is how the Gemara establishes the case in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 19a & 19b).

Clarification (Part 1): This refers to a Kuti; and it comes to teach us that Kutim (Nochrim) are not subject to 'Ishus'.

Clarification (Part 2): Despite the fact that they are precluded from the Din of Misah and even from a La'av, nevertheless, they are forbidden ...

Source: ... because the Torah finds it necessary to permit a Y'fas To'ar, as the Gemara Darshens in the first Perek of Kidushin, 21b & 22a "Eishes" - 'even if she is married.