Text: We do not have the text, "v'Hatnan," as all of this is not found in the Mishnah.

Question: This is difficult. The Beraisa states in Toras Kohanim, and is quoted in Yevamos (72b), (regarding the Pasuk) "(on) the eighth day he will perform a Milah - One might think this can be done during the day or at night. This is why the Torah says, "on the day." This is only clear regarding a baby who has a Milah on the eighth day. What about someone who has a Milah on the ninth, tenth, or eleventh (etc.) days? How do we know he can only have a Milah during the day? This is why the Pasuk says, "And on the day."

Question (cont.): The Gemara in Megilah (20b) similarly says, "One cannot do Milah if it is not during the day, as the Pasuk says, "And on the eighth day." (How can our Gemara say this is derived from the Pasuk, "Ben Shemonas Yamim?")

Answer: It is possible to answer that these derivations are really relying on the Pasuk, "Ben Shemonas Yamim" as the real derivation, and they are merely saying a word that seemingly implies day and not night to show that it can only be done during the day (even though we do not derive this from the other times the Torah says "day" regarding Milah). (This is the simple explanation of Tosfos, see Maharam for an additional explanation.)

Explanation: The Gemara does not really mean a non-Kohen, as regarding all of these, including a Zav, Zavah, woman who gives birth, and a leper the Torah says, "Kohen."

Explanation: This is something that is an exception to the rule in order to discuss a new law. It includes the smaller (sliding scale) sacrifice, as it cannot be looked at as part of the regular sacrifices in order to say that it cannot be brought at night and that an Onen cannot bring it unless the Torah implies that these laws apply to it as well. The Torah therefore does so by virtue of this derivation.

Question: This is difficult. Why don't we say that the Pasuk did so by saying "Kohen" and not "non-Kohen?"

Answer: Perhaps that Pasuk is needed for a different derivation.

Implied Question: This is not unlike Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak who says that we derive "Os Bris Doros." (Why not?)

Answer: This is because he admits that we derive "ba'Yom" as derived by the Beraisa. "Os Bris Doros" teaches us regarding preparation pushing aside Shabbos, and "ba'Yom" teaches us regarding Milah itself.

Answer (cont.): He does not hold that the law that Milah on the eighth day pushes aside Shabbos is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, even though Rebbi Yochanan holds that it is according to Rebbi Eliezer (as Rashi explains in DH "ba'Yom"). (Rather, Rav Nachman holds that even Rebbi Eliezer can derive this from "ba'Yom.")

Answer (cont.): The Beraisa derives this (Milah pushing aside Shabbos) from "ba'Yom" as it follows the opinion of the Rabbanan that this Pasuk is needed to teach this law. This is why the Gemara only says that the Beraisa is unlike the opinion of Rav Acha, as the Beraisa clearly indicates that it does not derive this from "Shemini Yimol."

Question #1: This is difficult. Why don't we say a Kal v'Chomer in the opposite fashion, and therefore say that Avodah should push aside leprosy, meaning that a Kohen would be able to cut off leprosy in order to serve in the Beis Hamikdash?

Question #1 (cont.): We would say as follows: If Shabbos pushes aside Milah and Milah pushes aside leprosy, yet Avodah pushes aside Shabbos, certainly Avodah should push aside leprosy as Milah pushes aside leprosy!

Answer: We say in Pesachim (67a), "And they will send from the camp any leper and any Zav and anyone who is impure due to contact with the dead - If those who are impure due to contact with the dead are sent away, certainly Zavin and lepers are sent away! Rather, this teaches us that there are times that Zavin and lepers are sent but those who have come in contact with the dead are not sent. When is this? It is when the Pesach is brought when a majority of people are impure (from contact with the dead)." This implies that leprosy pushes aside Avodah!

Question: We can say that this Gemara is only when he has leprosy (that he is sent away). We should derive that the Kohen should cut off his leprosy in order that he can do the Avodah.

Question #2: There is an additional difficulty. Why don't we say that the death penalty administered by Beis Din should prove, since it pushes aside the Avodah but it does not push aside Shabbos? We should say that Milah should be included.

Question #2 (cont.): If you will say that Milah is better as it pushes aside leprosy which pushes aside Avodah, we should still say that we can prove from the burial of a Mes Mitzvah. It is better than Milah as it pushes aside Milah as derived from the Pasuk, "u'li'Achoso." Milah pushes aside leprosy that pushes aside Avodah that pushes aside Shabbos. Even so, the burial of a Mes Mitzvah does not push aside Shabbos!

Answer: Indeed, we could have said the opposite type of Kal v'Chomer, and it could have been proved from the death penalty or the burial of a Mes Mitzvah.

Answer (cont.): Rather, it is better to say that leprosy should push aside Avodah, as we derive from the Pasuk, "ba'Yom" regarding Milah that Milah pushes aside Shabbos. The Gemara originally makes a Kal v'Chomer to establish what it is saying, and then contradicts it and proves it is not a Kal v'Chomer at all and asks questions from the Kal v'Chomer itself to show it is incorrect. (The Maharam explains this last sentence to mean that the Gemara tried to prove that the Pasuk, "ba'Yom" is not needed to teach that Milah pushes aside Shabbos, as it can be derived from a Kal v'Chomer. It then asks questions on this and shows it is not a Kal v'Chomer at all, and that the Pasuk is needed.)

Question #1: This is difficult. The Beraisa earlier has the opposite conclusion that it is not because leprosy is a stringent law, but rather it is because the person is not fit. Rava himself is quoted as holding this way later.

Question #2: Additionally, the Gemara now asks how we know leprosy pushes aside Avodah. Why don't we say that Avodah pushes aside leprosy using a Kal v'Chomer? Just as Shabbos is stringent, certainly leprosy is stringent (and it should also be pushed aside by Shabbos)!

Answer: The Ri says that according to this version of the Gemara we have to say that the text here should read "Rabah." Rabah does not hold of Rava's statement later that the reason is because the person is not fit. Rabah holds like Rav Safra who argues on Rava later.

Explanation #1: It is possible that it is obvious to Rabah and Rav Safra that leprosy pushes aside Avodah because they derive this from a Pasuk. However, Rava who holds that the person is not fit does not require a Pasuk.

Explanation #2: The Rashba understands that even if there is no Pasuk that leprosy pushes aside Avodah it is even understandable according to Rav Safra. This is because Rav Safra did not say that leprosy certainly pushes aside Avodah because of the stringency of leprosy, but rather that it is possible to say either way.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Accordingly, the Beraisa earlier contradicted the Kal v'Chomer by asking how we know that leprosy is stringent. Perhaps it is because the person is not fit. However, here and later regarding Rava's statement we push this aside in a different fashion. The Gemara asks, how do we know that Shabbos is stringent? Perhaps leprosy is more stringent because it pushes aside Avodah? Either side can have a question asked on it.

Explanation #2 (cont.): For this reason we cannot derive a Kal v'Chomer that Avodah should push aside leprosy by saying that Shabbos, which is stringent, is pushed aside by Avodah, so certainly leprosy should be pushed aside.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Perhaps the reasoning is not based on a stringent law, and it is solely because the person is not fit.

Explanation #1: The word "Hishamer" is a negative prohibition, and "La'asos" is a positive commandment, as explained by Rashi.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that in Menachos (36b) the Gemara says that when "Hishamer" is used in the context of a negative prohibition it is a negative prohibition, and when it is used with a positive commandment it is a positive commandment. (Doesn't the Pasuk where Hishamer is stated that says to guard leprosy indicate that it is a positive commandment?)

Answer: Even so, this is not a positive commandment, as the Torah is teaching us a negative prohibition to be careful not to cut off leprosy.

Question: This is difficult. How can we say that "La'asos" is a positive commandment? The Gemara later says that "La'asos" is needed to teach that you cannot do this, but you can put fibers over his foot (where the leprosy is, and we do not suspect that it will cut off the leprosy)?

Explanation #2: It is possible to explain that the positive commandment is indeed from the Pasuk, "Lishmor" (and not from La'asos).

Question: The Gemara later asks, where do we say that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition? It answer this is found by Milah pushing aside leprosy. This implies that there is only a negative commandment (and no positive commandment) regarding leprosy!

Answer: The Gemara's answer is only a sign that a positive commandment pushes aside a negative commandment (even though it happens not to be the case regarding Milah and leprosy, as it also pushes aside a positive commandment).

Question: We hold that a positive commandment does not push aside a negative and positive commandment. We should derive from the fact that Milah pushes aside leprosy that it does push them aside!

Answer: Milah is special (and we cannot learn from it), as thirteen covenants were made regarding Milah.

Explanation: Therefore, if the Pasuk "Basar" stated by Milah is not needed for a Milah done in the proper time, it should be used to teach regarding a Milah not done in the proper time.

Implied Question: The Beraisa states a possibility that it is even forbidden to cut off leprosy while doing Milah. (How can this be according to Rava that it clearly is not forbidden due to the Kal v'Chomer?)

Answer: Rava explains that this is according to the other version.