Source: It was difficult for [R. Tam], that there, we forbid a Tevul Yom to enter Ezras Nashim, because it is close to Machaneh Shechinah, and we say also in the Gemara that they made a new law, that a Tevul Yom may not enter Machaneh Levi;

Explanation: [They did not forbid] all of Machaneh Levi, for from the opening of Har ha'Bayis until Sha'ar Nikanor (which is between Ezras Nashim and the Azarah) is Machaneh Levi, like it says in a Beraisa in the Tosefta, Sifri and below (116b);

Implied question: In Kelim (1:8) it connotes that he is permitted in all [of Machaneh Levi] outside the Ezras Nashim, and even a Tevul Yom of a Zav or Zavah!

Answer: Rather, it says [that they forbade a Tevul Yom] in Machaneh Levi, e.g. in Ezras Nashim, which is close to Machaneh Shechinah.

Contradiction: In Tamid (1:1) it connotes that he is permitted in all of Machaneh Levi, regarding Beis ha'Mokad. The elders of the Beis Av slept there, and it teaches that if one of them had an emission, he immerses and returns to the other Kohanim until the gates are opened, and he leaves;

Nothing is closer to Machaneh Shechinah than Beis ha'Mokad, which was half in Kodesh (Kedushas Azarah) and half in Chol!

In Sotah (20b), regarding what was taught "they say 'take her out (a woman who drank the Sotah water), lest she be Metamei the Azarah (Ezras Nashim)'", [the Gemara] asks from what we expound that a Tamei Mes is permitted in Machaneh Levi, and even a Mes itself, like it is written "va'Yikach Moshe Es Atzmos Yosef Imo" - with him in his Mechitzah (Machaneh).

If mid'Rabanan it is forbidden, what was the question?

Answer #1: Based on this, R. Tam distinguishes, that they did not decree when one became Tamei in the Azarah (Ezras Nashim).

Answer #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): They were more stringent about Ezras Nashim than other places, even though they are truly close to Machaneh Shechinah;

Note: This is also Answer #2 to R. Efrayim's question (31b, h). A Tamei could slaughter from a chamber open to the Azarah.

This is because [Ezras Nashim] is more the place of entrance and exit of everyone, for through there they enter Ezras Yisrael through Sha'ar Nikanor, which is the gate of entrance, that serves for entrance and exit.

Implied question: Why does it ask in Sotah why they say to remove her? (We should remove her, for Chachamim were more stringent about the Ezras Nashim!)

Answer: Because it says "remove her" twice, this implies that they were frantic to remove her, and rushing greatly. If there were not an Isur mid'Oraisa, they would not be so pressed to rush.

Implied question: It says in Sanhedrin (81b) that a Kohen who served b'Tum'ah, his fellow Kohanim do not bring him to Beis Din. Rather, they remove him from the Azarah, and break his head with pieces of wood! (I.e. they may kill him in the Ezras Nashim!)

Answer: "From the Azarah" is not precise. Really, they remove him even from the Ezras Nashim and the Cheil.

Support: Also the case in Sotah is like this, for it teaches "lest she be Metamei the Azarah." They needed to remove her even from Har ha'Bayis, for it explains the reason there "lest she become Nidah." (One whose Tum'ah comes from his own body may not be in Har ha'Bayis.)

Question: Since a Tevul Yom is permitted in other sides of the Azarah, like I explained, why did a Metzora on Erev Pesach need to transgress an Aseh? He should go to [one of the] other chambers [around the Azarah] and stick in his hands for the Behonos!

Note: Really, he sticks in only the right hand! Perhaps this is like the opinion that one who has no right thumb sticks in his left thumb; "hands" means right or left hand - Tosfos Yeshanim Yoma 31a Sof DH Mahu).

Answer: This is not possible, for it says "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", i.e. Sha'ar Nikanor, which is opposite [the Ohel Mo'ed, the Heichal].

Implied question: A Tamei cannot slaughter Kodshei Kodoshim [from] sides of the Azarah, for they must be slaughtered in the north, and we do not find an opening to the north!

Source: This is proven in the Gemara (33a) according to the opinion that the north is far [from Sha'ar Nikanor], for it asks that we should make a small opening, and answers "ha'Kol bi'Chsav..." (the structure of the Mikdash was given through prophecy. We may not change it.)

Also according to R. Tam's Perush, that they did not decree about one who became Tamei in the Ezras Nashim, in any case according to the opinion that the [place that is considered] north is far (22 Amos from the eastern side of the Azarah0, he slaughters with a knife 22 Amos long. There is no concern for this (lest he touch the meat, for he is so far away)!

Answer: [Our Mishnah] teaches that their Shechitah is Kosher b'Di'eved, and it mentioned "lest they touch the meat" due to Kodshim Kalim.

Answer #3 (to Question (h), 31b - R. Efrayim): We find that a Tamei could slaughter through roofs and Aliyos (above the Azarah), which were not made Kodesh, and via a long knife, according to the opinion that partial Bi'ah is Bi'ah, that he cannot enter his hand there.

Implied question: This is fine for Kodshim Kalim. He can suspend the animal [above the Azarah] and slaughter it. However, for Kodshei Kodoshim he cannot do so, for we require Shechitah "Al Yerech" (right near the Mizbe'ach, i.e. on the floor), like it says above (26a)!

Answer: We can say that he makes a long knife that extends from the roof or Aliyah to the floor.

Implied question: According to this Perush, we can ask that a Metzora (Tevul Yom of Keri) should enter his hands for the Behonos through roofs or Aliyos. Why does he need to override an Aseh?

Answer: How can he ascend to the roofs through Har ha'Bayis and the Cheil?! (Olas Shlomo - R. Efrayim holds like Rashi, that a Tevul Yom of Zav may not enter Har ha'Bayis. Gilyonos Kehilas Yakov - the only way to get to the roof is through the Azarah, and a Metzora may not go there. Regarding Shechitah, we can say that he ascended when he was Tahor, and became Tamei on the roof and slaughtered there. Ayeles ha'Shachar - Tosfos means that it will not help the Metzora to ascend to the roof, for we cannot put the blood on the Behonos there.)

Question: We should know this from a Hekesh of Semichah to Shechitah - just like Semichah can be through Zarim, also Shechitah can be through Zarim, like R. Shimon expounds in Menachos (19a)!

Answer: If not for the Drashah of here, we would exclude Shechitah, since it is written "Tishmeru Es Kehunaschem", which implies that even Shechitah is included.

Implied question: Above (13a), we needed v'Hikrivu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohanim for a Gezeirah Shavah, to teach that [Kabalah] requires a Kosher Kohen and with Klei Shares!

Answer: Still, he properly expounds that from Kabalah and onwards, it is a Mitzvah of Kohanim.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because it is written "v'Shachat Es Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m", and since we require Shechitah right after Semichah, one may not do Semichah outside and Shechitah inside. Rather, also Semichah is inside, and a Tamei may not enter the Azarah.

Question (and Explanation #2 - Ri of Orlins): Below (119b) it connotes that Lifnei Hash-m is written regarding Semichah itself, for it says that there is no Semichah on a Bamah, since it says Lifnei Hash-m;

If Lifnei Hash-m is written only in the verse of Shechitah, Shechitah itself applies on a Bamah (so there is no source to exclude Semichah)!

There, Rashi explained that [it refers to] the verse written about the bull of a Kohen Mashi'ach (that he brings for a Chatas) "Lifnei Hash-m v'Samach."

Counter-question: Below in our Sugya (33a), it connotes like Rashi explained here!

It asked against the opinion that Tekef l'Semichah Shechitah is not mid'Oraisa, from a Beraisa that teaches "v'Samach... v'Shachat" - just like Semichah is through Tehorim, also Shechitah is through Tehorim. If [Tekef l'Semichah Shechitah] is not mid'Oraisa, we find that also a Tamei [can do Semichah]!

Inference: This overtly implies that we know Semichah Lifnei Hash-m only because Tekef l'Semichah Shechitah!

Answer #1: We are forced below (119b, to explain like with Rashi's Perush here. Shinun ha'Shas - Korban Aharon (on Toras Kohanim) says that Lifnei Hash-m was put next to v'Samach, not to teach where to do Semichah. Rather, Semichah applies only to an Olah offered Lifnei Hash-m, but not on a Bamah. V'Zos l'Yitzchak - above (14b DH Hagahah), Tosfos brought from the Ri of Orlins that Shechitah applies to Kodshim because it applies also to Chulin. Therefore, we do not expound Lifnei Hash-m to exclude Shechitah on a Bamah. However, Semichah does not apply to Chulin, therefore Lifnei Hash-m excludes Semichah on a Bamah.)

Answer #2: We can explain below (33a like the Ri of Orlins), for that Sugya holds like the opinion that partial Bi'ah is not Bi'ah. We could not exclude [a Tamei from Semichah] from "Lifnei Hash-m", for he could enter his hands and do Semichah;

However, if you will say that Tekef l'Semichah Shechitah, this is impossible, because the north is too far [from were the Tamei may stand], for "v'Samach... v'Shachat" is written regarding Olah, which requires [Shechitah in] the north;

About this, Toras Kohanim in Parshas Vayikra expounds just like Semichah is through Tehorim, also Shechitah is through Tehorim.

It explicitly expounds there the verse above, which wrote "Yakriv Oso li'Rtzono Lifnei Hash-m v'Samach", and not on a Bamah. Since it wrote v'Samach truly adjacent to Lifnei Hash-m, it expounds "Lifnei Hash-m v'Samach";

This is unlike Rashi explained below (119b), that he expounds from a different verse of Par Kohen Mashi'ach.

Support: From Par Kohen Mashi'ach, how could we learn Semichah of other Korbanos Lifnei Hash-m? Perhaps there is different, for the Kedushah of inner Chata'os is severe!

Explanation #1: He comes to explain the Beraisa, and not to argue, for R. Yochanan is an Amora, and not a Tana, like is proven in Kesuvos (8a) regarding "Chasanim count towards the number (required for Birkas Chasanim, i.e. 10)", for [the Gemara] answers that Rav is a Tana, and he argues. It does not answer so for R. Yochanan!

Support: [We cannot say that the Beraisa holds that it is mid'Oraisa, and R. Yochanan argues], for if it were mid'Oraisa, we should forbid from the opening of Har ha'Bayis, for all of this is Machaneh Levi, like it says below (116b);

A Mishnah in Kelim (1:8) explicitly teaches [unlike this,] that Ezras Nashim is more Kodesh than [the Cheil], for a Tevul Yom may not enter there, but he is permitted in Har ha'Bayis and the Cheil.

Also in Tamid (26a) it is taught [that after a Ba'al Keri immersed,] he sits with his fellow Kohanim [in Beis ha'Mokad, which is in Machaneh Levi].

Rebuttal #1 (of Support): However, from these questions (against the Havah Amina that it is mid'Oraisa), the first question is answered! Even though R. Yochanan is not a Tana, perhaps (our Beraisa holds that it is mid'Oraisa, and R. Yochanan argues, for) he holds like our Mishnah in Tamid and Kelim!

Rebuttal #2 (and Explanation #2): According to how Rashi explained the reason for the Beraisa, a Tevul Yom of Tum'as Keri may not enter Har ha'Bayis because he holds that a Tevul Yom of a Zav is like a Zav, and we say in Pesachim (67b) that [the Torah could have said] Zav. [Rather, it said] Kol Zav to include a Ba'al Keri...

And R. Yochanan said that there is not even an Aseh, for he holds that Tevul Yom of a Zav is not like a Zav...

It is fine [that R. Yochanan argues with the Beraisa], for Tana'im argue about this, and there is an opinion that Tevul Yom of a Zav is not like a Zav. (R. Yochanan holds like that opinion.)

Question #1: If this Tana holds that a Tevul Yom of a Zav is like a Zav, if so, there is [also] a Lav of "Lo Yetam'u Es Machaneihem", and an Aseh (Korban Pesach) does not override a Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh!

Question #2: We say in Nazir (45a) that "Tamei Yihyeh" includes a Tevul Yom. "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes a Mechusar Kipurim;

If a Tevul Yom is forbidden in Machaneh Levi, why do we need [that] verse to include Machaneh Shechinah?

Answer (to Question #2): We can say [that we need that verse] for Kares, which it discusses. There is Kares only for [entering] from the wall of the Azarah and inside.

Question #3: If R. Yochanan's reason is because he holds that Tevul Yom of a Zav is not like a Zav, [this is difficult, for] Rava holds like R. Yochanan in Pesachim (92a)...

And we know that Rava holds in Kerisus (10a) that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is like a Zav!

Answer: Rather, surely [Rava] taught that Tevul Yom of a Zav is like a Zav, not regarding Bi'as Mikdash, rather, regarding Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah, that Zavim and Zavos may not eat from it, like I explained above (17b Sof DH ka'Savar) in the name of R. Chaim.

Question: However, the Sugya in Nazir (45a) is difficult according to what I explained that a Tevul Yom is permitted in Machaneh Levi;

It connotes there that even if we will say that Tevul Yom of a Zav is not like a Zav, he may not enter Machaneh Levi, for it says there "just like a Mechusar Kipurim may not enter the Ohel Mo'ed, also there, in Machaneh Levi, a Mechusar Kipurim may not enter.

It expounds a verse there. A Beraisa teaches "u'Va Lifnei Hash-m El Pesach Ohel Mo'Ed" - to Sha'ar Nikanor. When does he come? After he immersed and had Ha'arev Shemesh.

Limitation: It seems that this is only for a Tevul Yom of a Zav who saw three sightings, who is Tevul Yom and Mechusar Kipurim, that there are two [Rei'usos], he is forbidden in Machaneh Levi;

When it concludes there "rather, Abaye said that Tevul Yom of a Zav is not like a Zav, and even so, since he is Mechusar Kipurim, he may not enter";

I.e. there are two [Rei'usos]. He does not expound "u'Va", for if so, regarding Nazir, about which it says "Yavi Shtei Sorim", we should have expounded so, like it says there!

Distinction: However, a Tevul Yom of a Zav who saw two sightings, or a Ba'al Keri, is permitted [in Machaneh Levi], for he is not Mechusar Kipurim.

Implied question: Why does it say here "when he saw Keri the same day, immersed, and entered", even though he is Tevul Yom and also Mechusar Kipurim?

Answer: These are not two matters of one Tum'ah. Rather, Tevul Yom is due to Keri, and Mechusar Kipurim is due to his Tzara'as.

Support (for Explanation #2): According to Rashi, it is fine that the Beraisa mentioned "and he saw Keri", and not Tamei Sheretz or Neveilah, for a Tamei Sheretz and even a Tamei Mes may enter Har ha'Bayis;

This is like we expound in Pesachim (67a) and in Sotah (20b) "va'Yikach Moshe Es Atzmos Yosef Imo" - in his Mechitzah.

Question: However, according to what I explained (Explanation #1), that R. Yochanan does not argue with the Beraisa, and it is forbidden only mid'Rabanan, also all Temei'im are forbidden!

Source: A Mishnah in Kelim (1:8) says, that the Cheil is more Kadosh [than Har ha'Bayis], for Nochrim and Temei'ei Mesim may not enter there, and all the more so in Ezras Nashim, like it teaches there, that a Tevul Yom may not enter there!

It discusses every Tevul Yom, even of a Tamei Mes, Sheretz or Neveilah, for it was discussing [those Tum'os] above!

Answer: We can say that [the Beraisa] taught one who saw Keri for a bigger Chidush. Even though he is sent outside of two Machanos, [Chachamim] permitted him, due to Pesach.

Question: What is the source that they were Mechadesh about a Tevul Yom? Perhaps they were Mechadesh about a Mes itself, or a Tamei Mes!

Answer: We can say that it connotes that they were Mechadesh only about the Chatzer, and the Chatzer is Ezras Nashim, like is proven in Yechezkel, whereas we find that a Mes or a Tamei Mes is forbidden even in the Cheil.

Explanation: From your load, that you come to burden on me, I will burden on you. Just the contrary, that supports my words, that partial Bi'ah is not Bi'ah. Only because he was permitted for his Tzara'as, he is permitted for his Keri!

Question: What is his source to infer this?

Answer: Since it taught that he saw Keri that day, this implies that only on that day, because there was a time when his Tzara'as was permitted, and we can say that since he was permitted for his Tzara'as, he is permitted for his Keri, but not [if he saw] at night or the previous day;

If partial Bi'ah is not Bi'ah, also even if he saw the previous day [he is permitted]!

Support #1: Now it is fine that it says in Yevamos (8a) "doesn't Ula agree that if he saw Keri on the eighth night, he does not enter his hands, for there was no time when he was proper to bring a Korban." What is the source that Ula agrees?

Rather, since [R. Yochanan] mentioned that same day, Ula deduces that the reason is since he was permitted for his Tzara'as, he is permitted for his Keri.

Support #2: We can explain like this mi'Tunach in Chulin (132a). It says there that Ula gave Matanos (the foreleg, jaw and stomach from a slaughtered Chulin animal) to a Kohenes. This shows that Ula holds that [the Torah says] "Kohen", and even a Kohenes;

Citation - Question (Rabah, to Ula): The Minchah of a Kohenes is eaten, and it says "v'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tihyeh", and [Ula] responded "Rebbi, mi'Tunach! Aharon and his sons are written in the Parshah!"

Explanation: From there I burden you! It is a proof to my words.