Question: Why is he not Chayav because of a Tamei who entered the Beis-ha'Mikdash, who is subject to Kareis?

Answer (Part 1): The Beraisa is speaking where he became Tamei inside and did not remain there for one moment ...

Precedent: ... like the Gemara in the second Perek of Shevu'os, 17a & 17b, which asks how we find a case of a Tamei person who served who is Chayav Misah; because if he waited there, he is Chayav Kareis, and if he did not, how could he possibly have performed the Avodah? And it answers that he took the shortest possible route and turned over a piece of meat (on the Mizbe'ach) with a fork on the way out.

Answer (Part 2): In our case too, it is possible that the Avodos listed by the Tana could have been performed without waiting. And even if some of them couldn't, he mentions them all because of Zarus, Mechusar Begadim, and performing them without having washed one's hands and feet.

Question: The question remains however, why the Beraisa inserts 'not because of Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim' with regard to arranging the Shulchan and preparing the Menorah (both of which are located in the Heichal)? Why is he not Chayav simply for entering the Heichal empty-handed, seeing as the Gemara later will learn 'seh'Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim from the Pasuk "be'Vo'am el Ohel Mo'ed", implying that someone who enters the Heichal empty-handed is Chayav?

Implied Answer: Even though the Pasuk does then state "or if he approaches the Mizbe'ach" (implying that one is Chayav only if one ascends the Mizbe'ach to perform the Avodah [Leshareis]) - but not for entering empty-handed ...

Refutation: That refers to the Azarah, but not to the Heichal, where one is Chayav even for entering empty-handed.

Answer: We must therefore say that one is not Chayav for entering even the Heichal empty-handed, since the word "Leshareis" refers to "be'Vo'am" as well.

Proof: And so it is evident in the second Perek of Zevachim, 19b, where it says that, had the Torah written "be'Vo'am" and not "be'Gishtam", we would have thought that one is even Chayav for entering empty-handed. On which the Gemara asks 'But does the Torah not write "Leshareis"?

Implied Question: When the Mishnah in Maseches Keilim, 1:9 states that the Heichal is holier than 'between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach'; and Rebbi Yossi disagrees and maintains that 'between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach' is equal to the Heichal ...

Answer: ... that is merely a Ma'aleh (a decree mi'de'Rabanan).

Question (Part 1): The Tosefta however, implies that one is Chayav Misah.

Tosefta (Part 1): ... A Beraisa in the Tosefta in Keilim, Perek 1 cites Rebbi Shimon ha'Tzanu'a who said before Rebbi Eliezer - 'I once entered the area of 'between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach' without having washed my hands and feet'. To which the latter replied 'I swear that even the Kohen Gadol would have had his brains smashed with clubs (by the young Kohanim), only (you are lucky that) the Ba'al ha'Pul (the officer in charge of the Har ha'Bayis and who keeps check) did not find you (like 'Ein Pulin' in Shabbos, 12a - One does not examine clothes for lice).

Tosefta (Part 2): And if one would not be Chayav Misah, the young Kohanim would not smash his brains, as we learned earlier 'Is there anything that the Torah exempts a person and we will kill him'!?

Answer: Perhaps that Tosefta argues with our Beraisa.

Implied Question: Even though the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yechal'lu" that is written with regard to Tevel also applies to Nosar ...

Proof (Part 1): ... as is implied in Zevachim, in Perek Beis Shamai (45b & 46a) where Levi quotes a Beraisa 'From where do we know that the Pasuk is also speaking about a P'sul concerning time? Therefore the Torah writes "ve'Lo Yechal'lu es Kodshei ... " - The Pasuk is speaking about two types of desecration: The P'sul of Nosar and the P'sul of Tum'ah'.

Answer: Nevertheless, if we were to learn Tevel from there, it would be a Hekesh, and not a Gezeirah-Shavah (see Maharsha).

Question: The Gemara laut later however, is difficult, in that it declines to learn a Tamei Kohen who served from Nosar, since Chilul de'Rabim (in the plural) is not written by it (Nosar).

Answer: We must therefore say that even though we establish it ("ve'Lo Yechal'lu es Kodshei ... ") with regard to Nosar, nevertheless the basic Pasuk is not referring to Nosar at all, and the Gemara only does so because we find the term "Chilul" by Nosar ("ki es Kodesh Hash-m Chileil" [see also Zevachim 15b, Tosfos DH 'Ela').

Question (Part 1): In Perek ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh (Zevachim, 106a) Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili and the Rabanan argue over a Tamei who ate Kodesh Tamei, whom Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili exempts, seeing as he has only eaten something that is Tamei; to which the Rabanan reply that also when a Tamei person eats something that is Tahor, the moment he touches it, he renders it Tamei.

Question (Part 2): In that case, why do they not ask the same Kashya on a Tahor person who eats Terumah Teme'ah (who is Chayav even though he becomes Tamei upon touching it).

Question (Part 3): We must therefore say that it speaks where someone pushed it down his throat (without his touching it). Then why can they not say the same thing there (in Zevachim)?

Answer #1: The Rabanan knew that Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili was not talking about such a case, since it could well be talking about Terumah which is not yet Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah or that was kneaded with fruit-juice.

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, it can be speaking where the person became Tamei before the Terumah, as the Gemara says there and in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Chulin, 10a & 101b), regarding Hekdesh. And the Pasuk which exempts in the case of Terumah which is profaned, is speaking where it became Tamei first - from which we learn the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' (See Maharam Shif).

Answer #2 (Part 2): Whereas those who hold 'Isur Chal al Isur' will say that the Din there is different, since it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' ...

Precedent: ... as is implied in the Gemara in Perek Kol ha'Basar (ibid., 113b & 114a).

Question: Why can we not learn it from the fact that the Pasuk writes in connection with T'vul-Yom "u'Ba ha'Shemesh ve'Taher" - 'mi'Chelal she'Hu Tamei', in the same way as we will shortly learn Mechusar Kipurim from "ve'Taheirah" - 'mi'Chelal she'Hi Temei'ah'?

Answer: Rebbi Chayim answers that one can Darshen "ve'Taher" by T'vul-Yom to mean 'Taher Yoma', like we Darshen in the first Perek of B'rachos, 2aa, a D'rashah that is not possible to make on the ward "ve'Taheirah".

Implied Question: And even though in Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos, 74b & 75a) we Darshen "ve'Taheirah" - 'in connection with a T'vul-Yom' ...

Answer: ... that really pertains to a Mechuseres Kipurim, because through 'mi'Chelal she'Hi Teme'ah' we cannot learn a regular T'vul-Yom.

Question: There is however, another Pasuk "u've'Kodshim lo Yocheil ad ... ", which we establish in Perek ha'Areil (ibid.) by a Zav who had two sightings, who is not subject to a Korban, and with regard to Terumah. Why do we not say 'mi'Chelal she'Hu Tamei'?

Answer: Rebbi Sima'i, who Darshens here T'vul-Yom from another Pasuk, holds like the Tana there who disagrees with Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who establishes the Pasuk there by a Zav who had three sightings.

Question: With regard to touching, the Torah, in Vayikra, 11 writes "ve'Tamei sd ha'Erev, Vetaher"?

Answer: We must therefore say that, if not for the Pasuk of Rebbi Sima'i, who learns a T'vul-Yom from "ve'Lo Yechal'lu", we would not have Darshened Mechusar Kipurim from "ve'Taheirah" - impying that she was Tamei', nor a T'vul-Yom from "Vetaher" - impying that he was Tamei', seeing as the Tum'ah has been weakened. But now that we find an explicit Pasuk regarding T'vul-Yom, despite the fact that the Tum'ah has been weakened, we have no problem to then Darshen a Mechusar Kipurim.

Question: In Perek Sheloshah Minim (Nazir,45a & 45b) and in the second Perek of Makos, 8b, we Darshen "Tamei Yih'yeh" - 'Lerabos T'vul-Yom'; "Od Tum'aso bo" - Lerabos Mechusar Kipurim', in connection with someone who entered the Beis-Hamikdash. Why do we not know that from "ve'Taheirah" - impying that she was Tamei'?

Answer: As we just explained - due to the fact that Tum'ah has been weakened, we would not have considered him Tamei with regard to Mikdash from that D'rashah. And the fact that we do consider him Tamei with regard to eating Kodshim, that is only because we already find that a T'vul-Yom is Tamei with regard to performing the Avodah.

Question: Why we do we need two Pesukim "Tamei Yih'yeh" - to include T'vul-Yom and "Od Tum'aso bo" - 'to include a Mechusar-Kipurim'? Once we know T'vul-Yom from an extra Pasuk, why can we not automatically learn Mechusar Kipurim from "Vetaheirah" - implying that she was Tamei?

Pushed Answer: And it is a Dochek to attribute this to the fact that by 'Nichnas le'Mikdash', T'vul-Yom is only learned from a Ribuy (an inclusion) and is not written explicitly, and is therefore not comparable to Avodah, which is written explicitly.

Attempted Answer: Nor can we answer that if there was only one Ribuy, we would include a Mechusar Kipurim, since it is lacking an act, rather than a T'vul-Yom, where the sun sets automatically ...

Refutation: ... because if that was the case, the Torah ought to have inverted the D'rashah "Tamei Yih'yeh" - to include Mechusar Kipurim'; "Od Tum'aso bo" - to include a T'vul-Yom'.

Answer (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam explains that, regarding entering the Mikdash, we would not learn Mechusar Kipurim from "Vetaheirah" - impying that she is Tamei, seeing as by the Kareis of entering the Mikdash, in Bamidbar, 19, the Torah writes " ... a man who is Tamei and who does not purify himself", and this is written specifically in connection with a Tamei Meis (who does not require a Korban).

Answer (Part 2): And that also explains why there is more need for a Pasuk to include a T'vul-Yom, since the Pasuk implies that if he would have purified himself and there would not be lacking an act, such as a T'vul-Yom, he would not be Chayav Kareis.

Question: And what we explained a little earlier that ' if not for the Pasuk of Rebbi Sima'i, who learns a T'vul-Yom from "ve'Lo Yechal'lu", we would not have Darshened Mechusar Kipurim from "ve'Taheirah" ' is a little difficult from the Gemara in the second Perek of Zevachim, 17a & 17b, which states that if the Torah had written Mechusar Kipurim, we would not learn T'vul-Yom from it; since (it is the other way round, and) we would not know Mechusar Kipurim if we did not have a Pasuk for T'vul-Yom?

Answer: The Gemara there means if the Torah had written Mechusar Kipurim explicitly.

Precedent: And that is how we will explain the Sugya in the second Perek of Yevamos, 23a & 23b with regard to 'Shifchah and Nochris'.

Question: What is difficult however, is - Since we already touch on this point, why does the Torah not write T'vul-Yom and Mechusar Kipurim explicitly, and it will not then need to insert Tamei?

Answer: Since the Gemara cannot find a Tzerichusa (to explain why we would not know one from the other), it does not take the trouble to go into that.

Alternative: The Gemara could have learned it from two of them, from Yosheiv and one of the others.

Question: ha'Rav Chayim asked that, seeing as we learn T'vul-Yom from Terumah, a T'vul-Yom who ate Terumah ought to be Chayav Misah - so why earlier with regard to 'Eilu ve'Eilu be'Misah', where the Tana lists 'Tamei she'Achal Terumah', does it omit 'T'vul-Yom she'Achal Terumah'?

Answer #1: Perhaps T'vul-Yom is included.

Answer #2: Alternatively, just as the Rabanan preclude a Ba'al-Mum she'Shimesh from the word "Bo" - ve'Lo Ba'al-Mum she'Shimesh, they will also preclude a T'vul-Yom from "Bo" - 've'Lo bi'Tevul -Yom'.

Reservation: We cannot however, preclude a Tamei who served from "Bo", because the Gezeirah-Shavah "Chilul" "Chilul" overrides that D'rashah` and the same will apply to a T'vul-Yom she'Shimesh.

Refutation of Answer #2: It is unacceptable however, that regarding Terumah we preclude a T'vul-Yom from Misah from the word "Bo", whereas wihen it comes to a Tamei who served, which we basically learn from Terumah, we do not preclude it!

Revert to Answer #1: We are therefore forced to conclude that a T'vul-Yom who ate Terumah, is Chayav Misah too.

Explanation: And the reason that the Tana omits T'vul-Yom from the list is because we learn Tamei and T'vul-Yom from the same Pasuk in Emor, which writes "u'Ba ha'Shemesh ve'Taher ... (T'vul-Yom)", and then "ve'Lo Yis'u alav Chet (Tamei), u'Meisu bo ki Yechaleluhu".

Question: The question arises however, how it is possible to learn that a Mechusar Kipurim who served is Chayav Misah, since he is called 'Tamei', whilst a Tamei himself, we only learn "Chilul" "Chilul" from Terumah? Why do we not say that whoever is Pasul by Terumah is Chayav Misah, whereas whoever is not Pasul by Terumah, is not Chayav Misah, like we Darshen in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 17a & 17b)?

Answer: Since he (a Mechusar Kipurim) invalidates the Avodah, as the Gemara in Zevachim learns from "ve'Yinazru" - 'whoever is called 'Tamei', it is logical that he is Chayav Misah, even though he is Tahor regarding Terumah.

Question: Rebbi Ya'akov from Orleans asks that Misah is mentioned specifically in Parshas Tetzaveh with regard to a Kohen Mechusar Begadim who serves.

Answer (Part 1): The Misah there pertains specifically to the pants, as implied in the Pasuk.

Answer (Part 2): Whereas the Pasuk "Vechagarta" from which we extrapolate 'Ein Bigdeihen Aleihen, Ein Kehunasan Aleihen', is needed for the other Bigdei Kehunah - from which we cannot learn the pants, since they are not mentioned there.

Question: The question remains however, why one opinion in the first Perek of Yoma, 5b & 6a needs to learn the pants from the extra 'Vav' in "ve'Zeh ha'Davar" - via 'Vav' Mosif al Inyan Rishon')?

Answer: Some commentaries explain that the Misah that is written by the pants is needed for the Ohel Mo'ed, where Mechusar Begadim and she'Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim are Chayav even for entering the Heichal empty-handed.

Refutation: It is impossible to say this however, as we explained above (on Amud 'Alef'), based on the Beraisa there.