1)

(a)We already learned from the juxtaposition of "ve'Samach" to "ve'Shachat" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra) that the Shechitah must be performed immediately after the Semichah. The Beraisa cites as the only exception to this rule - an Asham Metzora, which has to be standing in the actual entrance to the Azarah (not the Azarah itself), since the Metzora is not yet permitted to enter it.

(b)The Metzora stands inside Sha'ar Nikanor - the eastern entrance to the Azarah, which the Chachamim sanctified with the lesser Kedushah of the Har ha'Bayis (to enable the Metzora to stand there for his purification ceremony).

(c)The Metzora is permitted to enter the Azarah - as soon as the blood of his Asham and Chatas have been sprinkled.

2)

(a)We try to prove from this Beraisa that Bi'ah be'Miktzas Sh'mah Bi'ah (like Ula Amar Resh Lakish) - because otherwise, why can the Metzora not place his hand inside the Azarah and perform Semichah, rendering it possible to Shecht the animal immediately.

(b)The proof assumes the author of the Beraisa to be Rebbi - who considers the entire Tzafon of the Azarah Kasher for Shechting Kodshei Kodshim, even east of the Mizbe'ach (the twenty-two Amos incorporating the eleven Amos where only Kohanim are permitted to walk and the eleven where even Yisre'elim may enter.

(c)Rav Yosef rejects the proof, by establishing the author as Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - who restricts Tzafon to due north of the Mizbe'ach ...

(d)... in which case, the Asham cannot be Shechted next to Sha'ar Nikanor anyway (even if Bi'ah be'Miktzas is not considered Bi'ah).

3)

(a)A Pishpesh is - a small opening in the wall of the Azarah (which has the status of an entrance).

(b)When we therefore ask why they could not make a Pishpesh, we mean in the north wall of the Azarah directly opposite the Mizbe'ach, to enable the Metzora to stand there and stretch his hands inside the Azarah to perform Semichah ...

(c)... a proof that - Bi'ah be'Miktzas Sh'mah Bi'ah (since presumably that explains why they did not make one).

(d)And we answer with a Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim - which explains that the shape of the Beis-Hamikdash, including the number of entrances, big and small - were handed to David, and that no changes could be made (even to build a small Pishpesh in the wall).

4)

(a)According to others, to refute the proof that Bi'ah be'Miktzas Sh'mah Bi'ah, Rav Yosef did not change the author from Rebbi to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah. In fact, he disagrees with our previous definition of Semichah, requiring the head and majority of the Somech to be in the Azarah - because in his opinion, Semichah must be performed with all one's strength.

(b)Assuming that the Semichah of an Asham Metzora is d'Oraysa, and Teikef li'Semichah Shechitah, we ask - why the Metzora cannot enter the Azarah and perform Semichah (since that is what the Torah has prescribed).

(c)According to the first Lashon - Rav Ada bar Masna answers that - min ha'Torah, it is indeed permitted, and it is the Chachamim who forbade him to enter, in case he takes just one step more than necessary, in which case he will be Chayav Kareis.

5)

(a)According to the second Lashon, even though Rav Ada bar Masna concedes that Semichas Asham Metzora is d'Oraysa (like by other Ashamos), he holds Teikef li'Semichah, Shechitah is only de'Rabbanan. We learn that Ashamos require Semichah - from a Hekesh to Chatas ("ka'Chatas Ka'Asham", in Parshas Tzav).

(b)We query this however, from the Beraisa which states "Vesamach Veshachat", 'Mah Semichah bi'Tehorin, Af Shechitah bi'Tehorin' - which clearly holds Teikef li'Semichah Shechitah is d'Oraysa (so how can Rav bar Masna say that it is only de'Rabbanan?).

(c)We therefore amend his second answer to read that - although the Tana holds Teikef li'Semichah, Shechitah, he holds that the Semichah of an Asham Metzora is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(d)The basis for the distinction between other Ashamos and an Asham Metzora in this regard - is the fact that whereas the former come to atone, the latter comes only to permit the Metzora to eat Kodshim and enter the Beis-Hamikdash.

6)

(a)When Ravina says le'Inyan Malkos Itmar, he means that Ula only said Bi'ah be'Miktzas Sh'mah Bi'ah with regard to Malkos (indeed, he specifically said Lokeh), but not with regard to Kareis.

(b)He says that - in order to circumvent Rav Hoshaya's Kashya from a Metzora who became a Ba'al Keri (see Tosfos DH 'le'Inyan').

(c)Ravin Amar Rebbi Avuhu answers the Kashya differently. When he says le'Inyan Tamei she'Naga ba'Kodesh Itmar, he means that - Ula is only talking about a Tamei who touches Kodesh, but not one who enters the Mikdash, where he will agree with Rav Yosef (who requires Rosho ve'Rubo).

7)

(a)Resh Lakish (whom Ula initially quoted) specifically states that Tamei she'Naga ba'Kodesh, Lokeh - which he learns from the Pasuk in Tazri'a (in connection with a Yoledes [a woman who has given birth]) "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga".

(b)Rebbi Yochanan disagrees because - the Pasuk is referring to Terumah and not Kodesh.

(c)We know that the Pasuk is speaking about eating Terumah - because the Pasuk concludes "ad M'los Yemei Taharah", which cannot be speaking about Kodesh, because the Yoledes is still a Mechusar Kipurim, to whom Kodshim is forbidden.

(d)Nor can we then learn Kodshim from Terumah - because of the principle Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din (one cannot learn a warning [with Malkos] from a Kal-va'Chomer).

8)

(a)In another Machlokes, Rebbi Yochanan quoting a Beraisa learned by Bard'la, learns the Azharah for a Tamei who eats Kodesh from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Tum'aso" (in Tzav) "Tum'aso" (in Chukas - in connection with Tum'as Bi'as Mikdash).

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Lo Yetam'u es Machaneihem" - the La'av of entering the Mikdash be'Tum'as ha'Guf.

(c)Resh Lakish learns the Azharah for a Tamei who eats Kodesh - from the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga".

(d)And he learns the Azharah for touching Kodesh - from the fact that the Pasuk uses a Lashon Negi'ah ("Lo Siga" instead of "Lo Sochal").

9)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Hekesh of Kodesh to Mikdash that - the Pasuk is referring primarily to someone who eats Kodesh (and not who just touches it).

(b)This is - because Kodesh, like Mikdash, is basically talking about a case of Kareis (and there is no Kareis for touching Kodesh be'Tum'ah).

(c)This Beraisa supports the opinion of - Resh Lakish.

10)

(a)In a third Machlokes, Rebbi Yochanan, based once again on the Beraisa of Bard'la, says that someone who eats Kodesh before the blood has been sprinkled, is Patur from Malkos. And he extrapolate this from the Pasuk in Tzav "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar ... ve'ha'Nefesh asher Tochal Basar ve'Tum'aso alav, Ve'nichresah" - indicating that it is only Basar which has become permitted to Tehorim (after the Zerikah) for which a Tamei is Chayav Kareis.

(b)Resh Lakish extrapolates from "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" that - one is Chayav, irrespective of whether it is before, or after, the Zerikas Dam.

(c)In spite of having already learned from this Pasuk two things (an Azharah for a Tamei eating and touching Kodesh), he now learns a third thing - from the word "be'Chol".