Explanation: It bit him on his Ever.

Some say that this was Midah k'Neged Midah, for he was suspected of extramarital relations.

Explanation: A snake blocked the entrance [so they could not bury him there].

Explanation: This is why he was not accepted, even though he was a Talmid Chacham.

Alternative text: Some texts say that he did like R. Ila'i taught, and therefore he was accepted where judges are buried.

R. Chananel's opinion: Heaven forbid to say that he is permitted to do an Aveirah!

Rather, through this, his heart will be subdued [and he will cease to want to sin].

I explained this in Kidushin (40a DH v'Ya'aseh).

Implied question: We do excommunicate for monetary matters, like we said above (16a), "this is only for monetary matters" [that we warn before excommunicating]!

Answer #1: [Reish Lakish transgressed, for] he should have summonsed [the thief] to Beis Din first (before excommunicating him). Perhaps he would have paid.

Answer #2: Also Beis Din does not excommunicate until he was summonsed on Monday, Thursday and Monday, like I explained above (16a), and like Bava Kama 113a connotes.

Contrast: This is unlike Isurim, [for which we excommunicate] immediately, like it says about the man who was eating dates that fell from a tree on Shabbos;

We find similarly in Eruvin 63a. (Ravina saw a man tying his donkey to a tree on Shabbos, and excommunicated him.)

Answer #3 (R. Tam): In that region, people used to eat from trees and pay. They did not transgress theft.

Explanation #1: He excommunicated himself due to pain, that he needs to excommunicate a Chacham.

Explanation #2: He excommunicated himself, for then he will surely remember to permit [himself, and also the Chacham].

Implied question: Why didn't he permit the Chacham first?

Answer: This is like we say in Shevuos (14a), someone meritorious will atone for one who is liable. Therefore, it is good that he be permitted before he permits his colleague.

Implied question: It is not Me'akev for a Nazir to shave! (Why are we concerned lest he delay his Korbanos if he may not shave?)

Answer: In any case it is normal for him to shave, since it is a Mitzvah to shave and send his hair under the pot [in which they cook the Shelamim].

Explanation #1: E.g. he heard a report [of the death of a relative] on Shabbos. The burial was not on Shabbos.

Explanation #2 (Yerushalmi): A wild animal dragged the body away, and on Shabbos they despaired from seeking it. The days of Avelus begin from when they despaired.

Question: He should shave on Erev Shabbos, just like one whose seventh day falls on Erev Shabbos that is Erev ha'Regel;

Chachamim permitted him to shave, even though they do not hold that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo regarding Avelus!

Answer: There, the Avelus finishes before Yom Tov, even though he shaves before it finished, for Chachamim do not hold that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo in Avelus;

Here, they hold [that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo] due to honor of Yom Tov, for we find (Yoma 6b) regarding a Zav and Zavah that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo;

However, when there are still days of Avelus, we do not say so.

Question: Why do we forbid, from the fact that our Mishnah did not teach that an Avel or Kohen may shave, because he did not have time?

Above (14a), we asked about one who lost an Aveidah [on Erev ha'Regel, and did not resolve it from the fact that our Mishnah did not teach it, for we can say that the Tana omitted cases;

Likewise here, we can say that the Tana omitted cases!

Answer: Since we find that Aba Sha'ul and Rabanan argue about an Avel, we should say that the Tana of our Mishnah and the Beraisa argue about this;

Since they argue about an Avel, they argue also about a Kohen.

Question: This is obvious. Even other Melachos are forbidden!

Answer #1: It is because we taught below (21a) "these things are forbidden to an Avel", and it did not teach laundering.

Answer #2: He forbids laundering with water [alone, even without soap].

Question: In Eruvin (46a), Shmuel taught that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and he taught also that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri, and the Gemara asked why he needed to teach both of these...!

Answer: Here, it is needed to teach unlike Ula.

Question: Since Shmuel holds that when R. Yehudah and R. Yosi argue, the Halachah follows R. Yosi, like we say in Eruvin (46b), why did Shmuel need to teach here that the Halachah follows R. Yosi?

Answer: He needed to teach unlike Ula.

Implied question: The Gemara in Eruvin is difficult for Ula!

Answer: Where it was taught (that the Halachah follows Ploni, unlike the general rules of whom the Halachah follows) is different, like it says there.