Question (Ri of Orlins): We should say Dayo (a Kal va'Chomer cannot teach more than the law of the source)!

Execution overrides Avodah only through Shev v'Al Ta'aseh (passively). Also Shabbos it can override only passively!

Answer #1: This [Beraisa] is like R. Tarfon, who says (Bava Kama 25a) that we do not apply Dayo when it would negate the Kal va'Chomer.

Implied question: In Sanhedrin (35a), Reish Lakish asked R. Yochanan that Kevuras Mes Mitzvah should override Shabbos, due to a Kal va'Chomer. (It overrides Avodah, which overrides Shabbos only passively. He suggested that it overrides Shabbos actively. Does he hold like R. Tarfon?!)

Answer: He does not hold like R. Tarfon. He did not think to distinguish between actively and passively.

Support: The Gemara did not think to distinguish [like this] in Berachos 20a.

Implied question: Why didn't R. Yochanan answer Reish Lakish "Dayo" (Avodah overrides Shabbos only passively)?

Answer: He answered even better than this. Execution refutes the Kal va'Chomer. Even according to R. Tarfon, there is no Kal va'Chomer.

Answer #2: We reason as follows. Avodah is light, and it overrides Shabbos. Execution and Kevuras Mes Mitzvah are severe. All the more so they should be Docheh Shabbos! (Od Yosef Chai - since the leniency and stringency are hidden (not mentioned) in the Kal va'Chomer, Dayo does not apply.)

Rhetorical question: In what way are they more severe than Avodah? Avodah is pushed off due to them.

Implied question: In Bava Kama (25a), Rabanan said to R. Tarfon Dayo, and they do not say "Shen and Regel are light (they are exempt in Reshus ha'Rabim), and they are liable full damage in Reshus ha'Nizak (the victim's domain). All the more so Keren (goring, which is severe, for it is liable in Reshus ha'Rabim, should pay full damage in Reshus ha'Nizak!)"

Answer: This is because if we make such a Kal va'Chomer, we can challenge it from many [stringencies] of Shen and Regel not found in Keren, e.g. [in Shen] the damager benefits.

Explanation: This is even if there is no other Kohen qualified to do the Avodah, and the Avodah will be pushed off.

Question: Perhaps this is not because execution overrides Avodah, rather, because the Kohen is not Kosher for the Avodah!

We say (Berachos 32b) that if a Kohen murdered, he may not give Birkas Kohanim, for it says "Yedeichem Damim Male'u." All the more so he may not do Avodah!

Answer: You are forced to say that he is qualified, for he does not disqualify the Avodah, for me'Im Mizbechi (if a Kohen must be executed, even if he is next to the Mizbe'ach and about to do Avodah, we immediately take him for execution), but not me'Al Mizbechi. (If he is on the Mizbe'ach, he finishes the Avodah, and then we execute him.)

It is a mere stringency that he may not give Birkas Kohanim.

Also, he is disqualified specifically from lifting his hands [for Birkas Kohanim], since he killed with his hands, and the prosecutor (his hands) cannot become the advocate, like it says in that verse "uvParischem Kapeichem [...Yedeichem Damim Male'u]."

Question: In Sanhedrin (36a), why do we need '"Mizbechi" - the one special for Me' to teach that execution overrides even a Korban Tzibur?

We should know this from the need for Lo Seva'aru to uproot the Kal va'Chomer. This shows that execution overrides even a Korban Tzibur, which overrides Shabbos;

If it overrides only a Korban Yachid (which does not override Shabbos), there would be no Kal va'Chomer!

Answer #1: Had it not written "Mizbechi", from reasoning we would not establish the verse to discuss a Korban Tzibur, in order to expound Lo Seva'aru to uproot the Kal va'Chomer;

Rather, we would establish the verse to discuss a Korban Yachid. We would be forced to expound Lo Seva'aru for some other Drashah.

Answer #2: Now that it says Lo Seva'aru, we would establish the verse to discuss a Korban Yachid due to Abaye's Kal va'Chomer;

Citation (Sanhedrin 35b - Abaye): Now that we say that execution is not Docheh Shabbos, it should not be Docheh Avodah, due to a Kal va'Chomer;

Shabbos is overridden for Avodah, but execution is not Docheh it (Shabbos)...

Assertion: Chatas Metzora requires Nesachim, but other Chata'os do not require Nesachim. This is not called a Davar Chadash;

Davar Chadash is only when it contradicts its general rule, like here. For other Ashamos, all the blood must be put on the Mizbe'ach, but some blood of Asham Metzora is put on the Behonos (ear, thumb and toe).

Also Eshes Ach is a Davar Chadash. All the Arayos are forbidden, and this one was permitted. This contradicts its general rule.

However, this that Chatas Metzora requires Nesachim does not contradict its general rule.

Question: According to the opinion in Zevachim (49b) that we learn its category from it, all Ashamos should require putting blood on the Behonos!

Likewise, we should learn all of the Arayos from Eshes Ach [to permit Yibum]!

Answer: That opinion learns [from the Chidush] only a matter that is not a Chidush, e.g. that Shechitah in the north is Me'akev. We do not learn a Chidush from it, like Rashi explained there.

If we would, something that left its general rule for a new law, would be the same as something that left [its Klal] to teach about the entire Klal, and this is not a Chidush. (It is clear from R. Yishmael' list of 13 Midos that these are two different Midos - PF.)

Observation: Now we do not need the verse "v'Shachat Es ha'Keves", for we learn the entire matter from the Hekesh.

In Zevachim (49a), we establish that verse to teach that this (Shechitah in the north) is Me'akev.

Explanation: This refers to Matan (putting blood on the) Behonos and Shechitah in the north, which are explicitly written;

What was not taught differently, e.g. Matan Dam and Eimurim [on the Mizbe'ach], it does not get the law, and we would not do Matan Dam and Eimurim unless the Torah explicitly says so.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We discuss Keri and not Tamei [from a] Sheretz or Nevelah, because one who is Tamei Sheretz or even Tamei Mes may enter Machaneh Levi;

This is like it says in Pesachim (67a) that even a Mes itself may enter, for it says "va'Yikach Moshe Es Atzmos Yosef Imo" - with him in his domain.

Objection (Ri): We said that [what is needed to enable Korban Pesach] will override an Aseh without Kares, i.e. an Aseh mid'Rabanan (like R. Yochanan explained, that mid'Rabanan, a Tamei Mes may not enter also the Cheil).

Citation (Kelim 1:8 - Mishnah): The Cheil is more Kodesh than [Har ha'Bayis]. A Nochri or Tamei Mes may not enter there;

Citation (cont.): The Ezras Nashim is more Kodesh than [the Cheil] for a Tevul Yom may not enter there. It refers to of all types of Tevul Yom whether that of a Ba'al Keri, a Tamei Meis, Sheretz or Neveilah that are mentioned there earlier;

Answer (Ri): The Gemara mentioned a Ba'al Keri for a Chidush. Even though he is sent outside of two Machanos, Chachamim permitted him to enter. In a situation where there is Kares [for one who intentionally does not bring Korban Pesach], they did not enforce their enactment.

Question: In Sotah (20b), it says that [after a Sotah drank], they would say "take her out [of the Ezras Nashim], take her out, lest she be Metamei the Azarah.

The Gemara asks from this law, that even a Mes itself may enter.

What was the Gemara's question? Mid'Rabanan it is forbidden!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): They decreed only not to enter a Tamei Mes. If he is already there, they did not decree that he must leave, since mid'Oraisa he may enter.

Source: He learned from Sanhedrin 81b, which says that if a Kohen served b'Tum'ah, his fellow Kohanim take him out from the Azarah and break his head with pieces of wood.

Inference: They take him out only from the Azarah, which is Machaneh Shechinah, and kill him there in the Ezras Nashim, since he is already there.

Answer #2 (Ri): In Sotah we infer from the fact that it was taught "take her out, take her out" twice. If there were not an Isur Torah, they would not rush so much. It is not proper to elaborate about this here.

Explanation: He needed to come to Har ha'Bayis to stand in Sha'ar Nikanor and enter his hand in the Azarah and put blood on the Behonos;

Sha'arei Nikanor were not made Kodesh, like it says in Pesachim (85b) that all of the gates were made Kodesh, except for Sha'arei Nikanor, for the Metzora stands there and enters his hands for the Behonos.

Question: Why was this a reason not to be Mekadesh them? [They could have been Mekadesh them to be like the Azarah, and] he would stand in Ezras Nashim and enter his hands to Sha'ar Nikanor!

Answer #1 (Rivan): This is not "Lifnei Hash-m", for it is not in the air[space] of the Azarah.

Objection: This is unreasonable. If it was Kodesh like the Azarah, it would be considered "Lifnei Hash-m"!

Answer #2 (R. Tam): This was done to help the Metzora'im, so they can stand there (while waiting for Matan Behonos), and the gate will shield them from the sun in summer, and from rain in winter.

Observation: This is not a clearcut matter. There are places where they enforced their enactment in a situation of Kares, like it says in Pesachim (92a)!

Rather, here Chachamim did not deem it proper to be stringent.

Explanation: R. Yochanan does not come to argue with the Beraisa, for he is not a Tana.

Source: In Kesuvos (8a), we answer for Rav "Rav is a Tana, and he argues." We do not try to answer this for R. Yochanan.

Question: This is not a proof. We can say that R. Yochanan [argues with the Beraisa, for he] holds like the Mishnah in Kelim (1:8), which says 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.

This is mid'Rabanan. If Mid'Oraisa he were forbidden to enter Machaneh Levi, he would be forbidden also in Har ha'Bayis, for from the opening of Har ha'Bayis until Sha'ar Nikanor is Machaneh Levi, like it says in the Tosefta and Sifri.

Answer: It does not seem that the Beraisa here argues with the Mishnah in Kelim;

Rather, R. Yochanan comes to explain the Beraisa. The "Aseh" it mentions is not precise.

Assertion: This is not because R. Yochanan holds that a Tevul Yom of a Zav is unlike a Zav.

Proof: Rava holds like R. Yochanan (Pesachim 92a), and Rava holds (Kerisus 10a) that Mechusar Kipurim (which is more lenient than Tevul Yom) of a Zav is like a Zav.

Rather, only regarding Pesach brought in Tum'ah, from which a Zav, Zavah, Nidah and Yoledes may not eat, he says that he (a Tevul Yom of a Zav) is like a Zav. It is brought for this in Kerisus.

However, regarding Bi'as Mikdash, he is not like a Zav.

Support: In Zevachim (17b), we conclude that all agree that Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is like a Zav;

Contradiction: In Nazir (45a), we conclude that even a Tevul Yom of a Zav is not like a Zav!

Resolution: In Zevachim we discuss Pesach brought in Tum'ah. In Nazir we discuss Bi'as Mikdash.

Implied question: The Sugya in Nazir there connotes that even if we say that Tevul Yom of a Zav is not like a Zav, he may not enter Machaneh Levi. It expounds a verse!

Answer (Ri): There it discusses a Zav who had three emissions. He is both a Tevul Yom and Mechusar Kipurim;

Implied question: Also in our Sugya, if one saw Keri on the [eighth] day, he is a Tevul Yom and Mechusar Kipurim, and mid'Oraisa he is permitted!

Answer: This is because they are not for one Tum'ah. Rather, he is Tevul Yom for Keri, and Mechusar Kipurim due to Tzara'as.

Question: What is the source that the new law was about a Tevul Yom? Perhaps the new law was about a Tamei Mes himself!

Answer: He infers that the new law was only about the Chatzer. "Chatzer" refers to the Ezras Nashim. This is clear from Yechezkeil (44);

A Tamei Mes is forbidden even in the Cheil.

Explanation: Since Bi'ah b'Miktzas is Bi'ah, why did Chachamim permit him to enter his hands for the Behonos?

Suggestion: Since it is considered Bi'ah, and even so he may enter partially, for it is impossible in any other way, if so the entire body should be permitted!

Answer #1: It is not comfortable to say that total entrance be Docheh, for it says explicitly "v'El ha'Mikdash Lo Savo." Partial Bi'ah is not written explicitly. Rather, Ula learns it from a Hekesh there;

Just like partial touching is considered touching, also partial entrance...

Answer #2: Since it is possible through partial Bi'ah, if he enters totally, he is liable;

This is like (a Tamei in the Mikdash) who had a short path to leave and, he left on a long path. (He is liable.)