Question: How do we infer from here that Shechitas Pesach overrides Tum'ah for his Mes? Here is different, for he is a Kohen Gadol and Nazir!

Suggestion: It is because if not that by itself, [Shechitas Pesach] overrides [Tum'ah for] his Mes, we would not need a verse for a Mes Mitzvah that it overrides all three (Pesach, Kohen Gadol and Nazir);

Since Kohen Gadol and Nazir are overridden for a Mes Mitzvah, because he is still going to slaughter his Pesach, he should not refrain (from the Mes Mitzvah).

Rebuttal: One cannot say so. We need a verse for a Kohen Hedyot and a Nazir, even though a Kohen Hedyot alone becomes Tamei for his Mes!

Answer #1: In some Perushim, the text was changed due to this question, that we do not discuss a Nazir, rather, [a Stam person] goes to slaughter his Pesach alone (i.e. without any other reason to refrain).

Rebuttal: This is not possible at all, for the Beraisa brought below discusses a Kohen Gadol and Nazir!

Answer #2: It seems that we infer because it taught here 'you said "Lo Yitamei"', and in all of them it did not teach so. This implies that [we already know that] "Lo Yetamei", due to Shechitas Pesach. The text does not say 'the Torah says "Lo Yetamei."'

Answer #3: If Shechitah of Pesach alone did not override Tum'ah for relatives, it should have taught [this] in the Reisha before Kohen Gadol, for initially it teaches what is more lenient, just like it taught Kohen Hedyot Nazir and afterwards Kohen Gadol Nazir.

Explanation (Rashi): Even if he died after midday, R. Akiva says that he becomes Tamei, because he holds that "Lah Yitamei" is a Mitzvah, and there is no Tashlumin (compensation if he neglects it);

Therefore, we are Metamei him, and automatically Kares goes away, for he is Tamei. Pesach has Tashlumin, [i.e. Pesach] Sheni.

Observation: This is unlike the Aseh of Hashlamah (the afternoon Tamid must be the last Korban of the day). The Aseh of Pesach overrides this, like it says in Pesachim (59a), even though Pesach has Tashlumin on [Pesach] Sheni.

Alternative text: In Nazir (48b) the text says oppositely, and that is primary. (Meleches Yom Tov - first it expounds the smaller Chidush, that he is not Mitamei for strangers, and then that he is not Mitamei for relatives.)

Remark: There it makes one Drashah from "l'Aviv ul'Imo."

Reference: R. Nasan and Rabanan argue about this in Pesachim (78b).

Inference: Since it was not taught "he holds like the opinion that it is Me'akev", this connotes that this is even according to the opinion that it is not Me'akev, for he agrees that we require a person who could eat, like is proven there;

If so, eating is important, and it is logical that it overrides Aninus mid'Rabanan.

Alternatively, since it says "Ish l'Fi Achlo" for a Mitzvah, the Mitzvah is on him more than for other [Kodshim. Chidushei ha'GRY"M Feinstein - there is a Mitzvah on the person to eat Pesach. Other Kodshim, it is a Mitzvah that they be eaten.] Therefore, it is logical that it overrides Aninus mid'Rabanan.

Explanation: This that it says that [eating] is Me'akev is not precise.

Observation: There was no need to say "close to." He could have said "this is before Shki'ah, and this is after Shki'ah."

Reference: This is a verse in the 12 minor prophets (Amos 8:10) - "v'Samtiha l'Evel Yachid va'Acharisah k'Yom Mar", unlike Rashi explained (that it compares the destiny of a Zonah to Aveilus).