Explanation: This is Ezras Nashim. Until there is Machaneh Levi, like it says in Pesachim (85b) that Sha'ar Nikanor was not given Kedushas Machaneh Shechinah. It has the law of Machaneh Levi;

You are forced to say that "u'Va Lifnei Hash-m" refers to Sha'ar Nikanor. You cannot say that it literally refers to the Azarah, for he is Mechusar Kaparah;

We say below that "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes a Mechusar Kipurim. He is Chayav Kares if he enters Machaneh Shechinah.

Explanation: Just like there (Nazir Tamei), you cannot infer that until day eight, he may not enter, for this is not true, like we proceed to explain...

Rather, surely the verse said "uva'Yom ha'Shmini Yavi" to inform us when he brings Korbanos. It does not come to forbid him to enter there beforehand;

Also regarding a Zav, what is the Tana's source to forbid entering?

Implied question: Why can't we say that "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" means Pesach ha'Heichal!

Source: We find regarding Shelamim "u'Shchato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", and we expound in Zevachim (55b) that the doors of the Heichal must be open [when it is slaughtered];

And really, I can say that surely, a Tevul Yom of Mes may not enter there, for it is Machaneh Shechinah!

Answer: We need not exclude this, for it says "Tamei Yihyeh", to include a Tevul Yom. We derive below that every Tevul Yom may not enter Machaneh Shechinah;

Rather, surely the verse comes to teach that the time to bring Korbanos is day eight, and not before, and not to forbid entering. Also here (regarding Zav) we can say so.

Explanation: I.e. [if Pesach Ohel Mo'ed refers to Machaneh Levi,] then (the Nazir Tamei, on day eight) may enter Machaneh Levi.

Citation of Gemara: Why is it called Ohel Mo'ed?

Explanation: The verse discusses Machaneh Levi! Rather, you are forced to say that it is Machaneh Shechinah, which he may not enter as long as he is Mechusar Kipurim;

Also, why is it called Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, which connotes in the Azarah, in front of the Heichal, just like "u'Shchato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" written regarding Shelamim, which is slaughtered in the Azarah?

Citation of Gemara: This teaches that just like a Mechusar Kipurim may not enter the Ohel Mo'ed...

Explanation: Also Machaneh Levi, a Mechusar Kipurim may not enter.

And what was the source that he may not enter the Ohel Mo'ed? (This was obvious to the Tana.) "Tamei Yihyeh" includes a Tevul Yom. "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes a Mechusar Kipurim. He may not enter Machaneh Shechinah. (Orach Mishur and Keren Orah say that the following is a comment added later to Tosfos; many words are missing.)

Comment - Question: This is astounding. Abaye returns and answers like the words of Rav Noson's colleagues, what they said from their own reasoning "this shows that Tevul Yom of Zav is like a Zav"; (This is like our text. In the text of most Rishonim, Abaye said that he is not like a Zav.)

[Abaye asked only] that Rav Noson's colleagues did not explain how the Tana proved that Tevul Yom of Zav is like a Zav.

[They hold that he proved it from "ba'Yom ha'Shemini"; which connotes that without ha'Arev Shemesh, a Tevul Yom of] Zav may not enter to Pesach Ohel Mo'ed. [If so, we should say the same about a Nazir. Why do we say that] a Nazir can enter Machaneh Shechinah? (Keren Orah - therefore, Abaye explained their words. It is a proper proof that a Zav is forbidden in Machaneh Levi, for the verse discusses Machaneh Levi, and it connotes that without ha'Arev Shemesh he may not enter. It is called Ohel Mo'ed to teach that he may not enter);

[However, regarding a Nazir, it discusses Machaneh Shechinah. Even though he must bring a Korban,] he is not Mechusar Kipurim. Mechusar Kipurim applies only to one from whose body Tum'ah comes out.

Explanation: [Even one who ascends the Mizbe'ach], he goes to do Avodah, and it is not in such a disgraceful way [if he would ascend steps].

Question: Why does he say "this is not needed" to expound from reasoning, rather, [we expound] from a Kal va'Chomer? (Reasoning is no worse than a Kal va'Chomer!)

Observation: In the Sifri, the text does not say "R. Yoshiyah says," Rather, all this is from the first Tana's words.

Citation (Sifri): Or perhaps literally [he shaves at] Pesach Ohel Mo'ed! If so, this is disgraceful.

Explanation: "Or perhaps literally" means that we should not explain the verse unlike its connotation due to [mere] reasoning!

Citation (cont.): It says "do not ascend [the Mizbe'ach on steps]." All the more so, a matter of disgrace is forbidden.

Note: According to the Sifri's text, Question (b) is not difficult. Without the Kal va'Chomer, the Tana himself was unsure whether he may rely on his reasoning.

Assertion: It seems that it is obvious to the Tana that the simple meaning of the verse helps. It connotes that he shaves in Yerushalayim, for if he shaved in the Gevulin (outside Yerushalayim), he would not send his hair under the pot;

It says in the verse "v'Gilach ha'Nazir Pesach Ohel Mo'ed v'Lakach Es Se'ar Rosh Nizro v'Nasan Al ha'Esh Asher Tachas Zevach ha'Shelamim", and there is a Tana who expounds in the Gemara "this excludes this one [who literally shaves in the Azarah], who needs to take, bring and put [his hair under where they cook the Shelamim]." (It is obvious to him that they do not cook it in the Azarah);

Also here, his hair must be brought from outside Yerushalayim to put it under the pot of the Shelamim in Yerushalayim!

Explanation: [All send the hair under the pot], whether a Nazir Tahor [even] in the Medinah (outside the Mikdash), or a Nazir Tamei in the Mikdash, except for a Tamei in the Medinah.

The Gemara explains that this is because the hair [of a Nazir Tamei who shaved in the Medinah] must be buried, and so it says in Temurah (34a).

Question: What is the Tana's source that it must be buried?