Explanation #2: It therefore appears that when the Tana says "Lo Yitama" he is referring even to someone who is merely briniging his Korban Pesach. (continued on following Daf)

Question: Why is it so obvious to the Tana that 'Lo Yitama'?

Answer: As Rashi explains - that an Asei that is not subject to Kareis (like that of being Metamei oneself for a deceased relative), cannot override an Asei that is (such as bringing the Korban Pesach. And Milah too, is subject to Kareis under certain circumstances)

Question: When the Gemara there (in Zevachim) asks on the story with Yosef ha'Kohen, how does it know that the Gemara here is speaking about someone who is bringing the Korban Pesach exclusively?

Answer: Since it does not mention the others together with the Korban Pesach like it does in the subsequent cases - 'Someone who is a Nazir and a Kohen Hedyot', implying that first, the Tana is speaking about a Nazir only, and then about a Nazir and a Kohen.

Question: From where does the Tana know that the Pasuk is referring to someone who is on his way to bring his Korban Pesach and to circumcise his son, seeing as the Pasuk is talking about a Nazir?

Answer: Since it is not necessary to teach us this with regard to Nazir ('Im Eino Inyan'), since there are other Pesukim which teach us that may render oneself Tamei for a Meis Mitzvah, we apply it to someone who is going to bring his Pesach ... .

Reinstating Explanation #1: The Count of Coucy resolves Rashi's explanation, by explaining that whereas on the one hand, the Gemara is talking about all the Kedushos (as Tosfos explained earlier) ... nevertheless, it asks there in Zevachim) from Yosef ha'Kohen ...

Proof: Since, in any event, one is forced to say that even someone who is merely bringing his Korban Pesach is not permitted to render himself Tamei for his relations ...

Proof (cont.): Because, had one thought that he could, and "ve'la'Achoso" is coming to teach us that he may render himself Tamei for a Meis Mitzvah, seeing as he is Metamei himself for his relatives.

Conclusion: It would then transpire that someone who is bringing his Pesach does not add any Chumra, and it would be obvious that one could be Metamei himself for a Meis Mitzvah (in which case we would not need an extra Pasuk for that)?

Implied Question: Perhaps we nevertheless require a Pasuk for a Meis Mitzvah, since we are talking where there are three Kedushos - Nazir, Kohen Gadol and Oseh Pesach. But Oseh Pesach alone will indeed be permitted to render himself Tamei for his relatives?

Answer: This is not correct, since we have already learned from "le'Aviv, le'Imo" and "le'Achiv" that a Nazir and a Kohen Gadol will not help against a Meis Mitzvah, the Pasuk of "ve'la'Achoso" must be coming to teach us the additional case of Oseh Pesach. And if we were to say that he can render himself Tamei for his relatives, then it would be obvious that he can do so for a Meis Mitzvah.

Implied Question: But do we not need the Pasuk of "le'Imo" to teach us that a Kohen Hedyot and a Nazir are permitted to render themselves Tamei for a Meis Mitzvah, even though the Torah permits him (a Kohen Hedyot) to be Metamei himself for his relatives ...

Implied Question (cont.): And we need the Pasuk to teach us the Heter by Meis Mitzvah where there are two Kedushos, despite the fact that we already learned from "le'Aviv" that the Kedushah of Nazir does not help in the case of a Meis Mitzvah from the Pasuk of "le'Aviv" ...

Answer #1: That applies specifically to a Kohen, whose Kedushah is permanent, which explains why, we might have thought, that when he has an additional Kedushah (thereby adding to his overall status), he is forbidden to render himself Tamei even for a Meis Mitzvah. And that is why we require a Pasuk ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas someone who is bringing his Pesach, whose 'Kedushah' is only temporary, if one permits him to be Metamei himself for his relatives, then how much more so for a Meis Mitzvah ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Because what do you see to extend his Kedushah with regard to a Meis Mitzvah more than to his relatives?

Answer #2: Alternatively, one can explain the Beraisa briefly in that since the Tana first deals with a Yisrael Nazir, then with a Nazir Kohen Hedyot and then with a Nazir Kohen Gadol, it is logical to say that he (the Oseh Pesach) cannot be Metamei himself for his relatives, just like all the previous cases. Work it out for yourself.

Question: Nazir and Kohen Gadol are in fact, 'Kum Asei', since it involves rendering oneself Tamei for the Meis?

Answer: Rashi answers that the Pasuk reveals to us that the La'av of "Lo Yitama" was not said with regard to a Meis Mitzvah.

Refutation #1: This is not correct however, because if so, whenever we say 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh, how can we refer to it as 'Docheh', why do we not say there too, that the La'av was simply not said in such a case?

Refutation #2: Furthermore, the fact that Milah, Tamid and Pesach are Docheh Shabbos, as we learn in Perek Eilu Devarim (Pesachim 69:), proves that it is indeed called 'D'chiyah'.

Explanation: It therefore seems that we cannot learn from Nazir, which is different because it is subject to She'eilah.

Explanation (cont.): Nor can we learn it from Kohen (Gadol) which is different, inasmuch as it is a La'av that does not apply to everybody.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that, since they were pickled in a pot, they lose their status of Yad to transmit Tum'ah.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because if that was so, why does the Tana add there 'because they were only pickled for appearance sake'. What sort of reason is that to explain why they Bateil from the Din of Yad?

Explanation #2: It is therefore correct to explain that they are Tahor because those leaves are not considered food, seeing as they are only fit to eat after being pickled in a pot.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And 'Because they were only pickled for appearance sake' means - that they only pickled the leaves together with them, in order to demonstrate that the olives are nice and fresh. That is why they are Tahor.

Explanation #2 (cont.): But if one pickled them in order to render them fit to eat, then they will become subject to Tum'ah from the moment they become ready to eat.

Clarification: Some commentaries explain - that we have thirteen Yeshivos who are experts.

Explanation: Thirteen however, is La'av Davka. It is merely the number that the Gemara often picks (to denote a lot) like we find in Chulin (Daf 44.) 'thirteen small coins'.

Another Explanation: Rashi however, learns differently.

Explanation #1: Rashi establishes it by a Katan she'Higi'a le'Chinuch.

Refutation: This is not right however - because in Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (Succah 42.) we say that 'When a Katan knows how to look after his Tefilin, his father is obligated to purchase Tefilin on his behalf'.

Refutation (cont.): So we see that once a Katan reaches the age of Chinuch with regard to Tefilin, he becomes Chayav Tefilin. And one can assume that this is even more the case with regard to K'ri'as Sh'ma, seeing as the Gemara says there that 'The moment a child knows how to speak, his teaches him Torah and the first Pasuk of the Sh'ma'.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu therefore establishes the Mishnah by a Katan who has not yet reached the age of Chinuch ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas the Seifa, which obligates a Katan to say the Amidah, the Ri wants to say, speaks by a Katan who has reached the age of Chinuch ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Otherwise, the Tana ought not to have been Mechayav him.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because if that is so, Ketanim will not be similar to Nashim and Avadim, whom the Mishnah exempts completely, whereas Ketanim are only Patur as long as they have not yet reached the age of Chinuch, and do not know how to look after Tefilin.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the entire Mishnah is speaking by a Katan who has not yet reached the age of Chinuch, and Chayavin in the Seifa refers to Nashim and Avadim exclusively.

Answer (cont.): Whereas Ketanim are Patur altogether, seeing as they have not yet reached the age of Chinuch.

Question: In that case, why does the Tana include Ketanim together with Nashim and Avadim, seeing as they are not the same (as we explained)?

Answer: Because it is the way of the Tana to mention 'Nashim, Avadim and Ketanim' (who have not reached the age of Chinuch), like we find with regard to Succah (Succah, Daf 28.) 'Nashim, Avadim and Ketanim P'turim mi'Succah'.

Erasure of Text: Rashi erases this text ...

Reason: Since Tefilah is de'Rabbanan, in which case the term 'Mitzvas Asei' is not applicable to it.

Resolving the Problem: Hallel too is de'Rabbanan, yet women are exempt from reciting it, for the same reason (because it is a Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman G'rama').

Proof: As we say in Succah (38.) 'Someone who is having Hallel read to him by an Eved, a woman or a Katan should answer after him whatever he says, because the listener cannot be Yotzei through their reading, since they themselves are Patur.

Explanation: And answers that 'Since the Torah writes "When Hash-m gives you meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to be satisfied", it is considered a 'Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman G'rama'.

Explanation (cont.): Therefore our Mishnah teaches us that this is not the case.

Explanation #1: We would have thought, Rashi explains, that they are not Chayav min ha'Torah, since the Torah writes " ... on the good land" - and women did not receive a portion in the land.

Implied Question: Even though the daughters of Tz'lafchad did receive a portion?

Answer: It was their father's portion that they received (and not their own).

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara not ask the same She'eilah regarding the Kohanim and the Levi'im, who did also not receive a portion in the land, in which case they too, ought to be able to render others Yotzei Birchas ha'Mazon?

Answer, Explanation #2: The reason must therefore be because we thank Hash-m for 'the B'ris which he stamped on our flesh and the Torah which he taught us', and women are included neither in the Mitzvah of B'ris Milah nor in that of Torah-study.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Indeed, we say later (on Daf 49.) that 'Whoever fails to insert B'ris and Torah in Birchas ha'Mazon has not fulfilled his obligation'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Now the Gemara asks whether, seeing as they cannot say 'B'ris' and 'Torah', Birchas ha'Mazon will only be de'Rabbanan, or whether, since it is simply not applicable to them, it is d'Oraysa after all.

Explanation #2 (conclusion): And as for the Gemara later (on Daf 49.), that is speaking (exclusively) with reference to men, to whom B'ris and Torah do apply.

Clarification: This means even with Hirhur, as is implied in the Gemara (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara permits it by K'ri'as Sh'ma more than by the B'rachos ...

Answer: Is because K'ri'as Sh'ma is d'Oraysa and the B'rachos, mi'de'Rabbanan.

Implied Question: And even those who hold that K'ri'as Sh'ma is also only mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Answer: That is only where one already mentioned 'Yetzi'as Mitzrayim', but our Mishnah, which speaks where he did not (since they did not permit him to say 'Emes ve'Yatziv'), K'ri'as Sh'ma is d'Oraysa ...

Answer (cont.): Whilst 'Emes ve'Yatziv' is de'Rabbanan, seeing as he already mentioned 'Yetzi'as Mitzrayimm' in K'ri'as Sh'ma.

Implied Question: Nor can one ask why Chazal did not institute that one says 'Emes ve'Yatziv' and not K'ri'as Sh'ma ...

Answer: Since it is preferable to say the Sh'ma, which also contains 'Malchus Shamayim'.

Clarification: Since, despite the fact that is considered like speech, you allow him to think, with regard to being Yotzei K'ri'as Sh'ma, so too, should it be considered speech with regard to the fact that it is called studying Torah.

Clarification (conclusion): And since you allow him to think, even though he is a Ba'al-Keri, allow him also to speak?

Clarification: Even if thought is like speech with regard to being Yotzei, nevertheless, it is not like speech to forbid a Ba'al Keri to think.

Proof: Just as we find at Sinai, where Hash-m spoke, and they needed to Tovel, in spite of the fact that they remained silent, because of the principle 'Shome'a k'Oneh' (Succah 36.).

Halachah: Rabeinu Chananel rules like Rav Chisda ...

Source: Because the fact that Rav Ada and Rebbi Elazar explain his words proves that the Halachah is like him ... in which case one cannot be Yotzei K'ri'as Sh'ma with thinking alone.