Implied suggestion: A Tamei regarding a Korban Tzibur, or a Kohen Gadol who is an Onen, should be Yochi'ach. They may not eat [Kodshim], yet they may serve!

Answer: One cannot learn from them, who are not warned [not to serve], to a Zar, who is warned!

Observation: One could not ask that the Torah made what is offered like those who offer (disqualifies what is Tamei), like Rashi explained. (A live animal cannot become Tamei.)

Explanation: Therefore, we need a Lav, lest we say that a Tamei regarding a Korban Tzibur, or a Kohen Gadol who is an Onen, be Yochi'ach (that his Avodah is Kosher), like I explained (above, DH Zar);

Also, for this reason we need a tradition [from Sinai] for an Arel, and we cannot learn from a Kal v'Chomer.

Question: We should say that he is warned due to "v'Hikrivu Bnei Aharon." We expound from it (below, 32a) that from Kabalah and onwards, it is a Mitzvah for Kohanim!

Answer: We answer better than this. There is an absolute Lav from "v'Chol Zar Lo Yikrav."

Implied question: Why isn't an Onen counted below (113a) among differences between a Bamah Gedolah (i.e. of the Tzibur) and a Bamah Ketanah, like it counts Kehunah and Bigdei Shares (Kehunah)?

Answer: Perhaps the Tana omitted [differences], for he omitted also sitting.

Example: [They may eat while sitting] parts taken from Kodshim [Kalim and given to Kohanim, e.g. Chazah v'Shok (the chest and foreleg of a Shelamim) and Bechor. (Shitah Mekubetzes - Kodshei Kodoshim may be eaten only in the Azarah, and one may not sit in the Azarah! Alternatively, we discuss even Kodshei Kodoshim. A need of the Korban is different (one may sit for this), for it says "l'Mashchah Nesativ Lecha", and we expound below (28a) the way that nobles eat.)

Pesak: One must be careful not to judge based on testimony given while sitting. Regarding a Get of divorce, one must be even more careful.

Disclaimer: Perhaps b'Di'eved there is no concern, for it says in the Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin regarding blasphemy "the judges stand on their feet. This shows that if judges accepted testimony while standing, they may judge based on it";

It connotes there that just like it is not Me'akev that the judges sit, even though mid'Oraisa they should sit, likewise it is not Me'akev that the witnesses stand, even though mid'Oraisa they should stand.

Question (R. Efrayim Kohen): A robber should be Pasul for Avodah from a Kal v'Chomer from a Ba'al Mum, who is Kosher for testimony, and if he served, he disqualified;

[Even though we could ask that bmu disqualifies Korbanos just like Kohanim,] we could bring from [a Tzad ha'Shavah of] a Ba'al Mum and one of the other (Pesulim)!

Answer: This is not difficult. Since a robber is not warned [against doing Avodah], we do not learn from them, like I explained above (DH Zar).

Consequence: We say in Shevuos (30b) that a Chacham should not go to testify in front of a smaller Chacham than himself. This is not because he must stand (and it is improper for him to stand in front of someone smaller than himself);

Rather, it is due to disgrace, for if he goes to testify, he testifies sitting (like it says here).

Support: Also, we say in Shevuos (30b) that this is only for monetary cases, but for Isur, he goes to testify - "Ein Chachmah v'Ein Tevunah l'Neged Hash-m" (honor of people does not override concern for Torah Isurim).

Question: In Sanhedrin (19a), they said to Yanai ha'Melech "stand on your feet, and they will testify about you";

A king is greater than a Chacham (regarding honor), for a king cannot pardon his honor, and a Chacham can pardon [his honor]!

Answer #1: These are different. The reason why a Chacham can pardon is because the Torah (the reason we honor him) is his;

However, a king, it is written that his fear must be upon you. It is not his [honor], rather, others', and he cannot pardon this.

Regarding Mitzvos, he can pardon, for if he pardons his honor due to [honor of] Hash-m, this will not cause that fear of him is not on you.

Answer #2: The episode with Yanai was a capital case, and in capital cases, even a Chacham stands.

Question: How can we learn from a sitting Chacham? A sitting Chacham is Pasul for Chalitzah, for Chalitzah requires standing, like it says in Yevamos (106a) "stand, my daughter!"

The reason is because it is written "v'Amad v'Amar."

Answer: Perhaps the reason why Chalitzah must be standing is not due to "v'Amad v'Amar", for it is not written "he will stand and say", like we infer in Mo'ed Katan (21a) regarding Kri'ah (tearing when a relative dies);

Rather, the reason is because it is like judgment (litigants must stand), and a Chacham may sit, and b'Di'eved, if she did Chalitzah [when they were] sitting, it is Kosher. (The Yavam and Yevamah are the litigants, so both must stand. If we learned from "v'Amad v'Amar", which discusses the Yavam, we would require also her to stand only if we equate her to the Yavam. R. Meir equates them (Yevamos 105b) and requires also the Yevamah to be an adult, but R. Yosi does not.)

Proof: A Beraisa (Yevamos 103a) teaches "if she did Chalitzah, whether standing, sitting or leaning, it is Kosher";

If the verse "v'Amad v'Amar" taught that we require standing, it would be Me'akev, due to "Kachach" (which is written there)! Rather, it is due to judgment, like I explained.

In the Sifri, it expounds the verse "v'Amad v'Amar." This is an Asmachta.

Question: How can we learn from sitting? It is forbidden in the Azarah, like it says "only kings from Beis David may sit in the Azarah"!

Answer: Perhaps this law is not mid'Oraisa.

Proof: If it were mid'Oraisa, why would we need a verse below (23b) [to forbid Avodah while] sitting? Even without Avodah, one may not sit!

Rebuttal (of proof): However, we need a verse for one who served while bowing.

Observation: [The first opinion] could have said like below (16b) according to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, who holds that it was burned due to Aninus, and "Hen Hikrivu" comes for a Lav. (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

Moshe said to [Aharon, Elazar and Itamar] "perhaps you transgressed the Isur of offering amidst Aninus, and you erred due to this to burn it!" However, this does not disqualify [the Avodah], like Rashi explained below.

Observation: This Sugya is not like one of the Tana'im below (101a).

Remark: This is not astounding, for the Tana'im there expound the verses there according to the truth, that we learn that an Onen disqualifies Avodah from another verse;

However, if we did not learn from another verse, from this verse we would not learn, for we would expound the verse like here, like Rashi explained.

Explanation: There was no one to eat it the entire day and night afterwards, and the next day it will be burned that day. Therefore, it is burned [immediately] without ibz, for [Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] holds that also Aninus Laylah is forbidden, even if the Mes was buried;

When Aharon told him that it was burned due to Aninus, Moshe erred. He did not understand that "due to Aninus" that Aharon said was that they were not proper to eat it due to their Aninus;

Rather, he thought that [Aharon's sons] offered it amidst Aninus, and Moshe said to them "perhaps you offered it amidst Aninus?"

Observation: However, R. Yishmael does not learn Chilul from this. If not for another verse, one might have thought that also when he said to them "[perhaps] you offered it amidst Aninus", this does not mean that had they done so, they properly burned it;

Rather, when they told him that it was burned due to Aninus, [Moshe] said to them "perhaps you transgressed the Lav, and offered it while Onenim", and Aharon said "did they offer?!" So Rashi explained.

Remark: We must add to his Perush, that when [Moshe] said to them "perhaps you transgressed the Lav, and offered it while Onenim", i.e. and you erred to burn it due to this. If not, what is the connection of this to burning?

To this, Aharon answered "did they offer? I offered! 'Due to Aninus' that I said is not due to their offering it amidst Aninus, rather, because we could not eat it due to Aninus."

Question: In Pesachim (82a) and below (83a) we expound that if a Chatas' blood entered [the Heichal], it is Pasul, from "its blood was not brought." This connotes that if its blood was brought, it is Pasul;

How can we expound this? Perhaps [Moshe] said to him "perhaps you erred to burn it because the blood entered inside!"

Note: The verse says that Moshe spoke to Aharon's sons. Tosfos connotes that Moshe spoke to Aharon. Perhaps he holds like Rashi, that he was criticizing Aharon, and due to Aharon's honor he faced Aharon's sons.

Answer #1: There is different. Why did Moshe mention these Pesulim of Yotzei and the blood entering [the Heichal]?

Granted, regarding Aninus, he thought that perhaps [Aharon] erred, since Aharon told him that it was burned due to Aninus.

Answer #2 (R. Chayim): Moshe did not say to [Aharon] explicitly [that it was due to] Aninus. Rather, [it is inferred] from Aharon's answer;

However, Moshe explicitly said "its blood was not brought [inside]." This explicitly connotes that if the blood was brought, it was properly burned.

Explanation (Rashi): A Zar is permitted on a Bamah. This is not "Hutru mi'Chlalo" (permitted from its general Isur), for it was never forbidden.

Question (R. Chayim): In Menachos (25a), Yotzei is called Hutar mi'Chlalo because it is permitted on a Bamah!

Answer #1 (R. Chayim): The Tzitz is different, for it says "l'Ratzon Lahem" - anywhere it is Meratzeh. (L'Shem Zevach - we require only a Pesul that is accepted elsewhere. Chidushei Basra - the Tzitz was Meratzeh even in the Mishkan, where Yotzei was forbidden. Therefore, it is properly called Hutru mi'Chlalan.)

Answer #2: Even if [Zarus] is called "Hutar mi'Chlalo", still it is a proper question here, for they (Zarus and a Ba'al Mum) were not Hutru mi'Chlalan in the place they were forbidden.

Question: You cannot learn from a Zar, a Ba'al Mum and a Tamei, for there is Misah for them. Will you say that an Onen [disqualifies Avodah like them]?!

Answer: [Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] holds like Rabanan, who say (Sanhedrin 83a) that a Ba'al Mum who served transgressed a Lav, unlike Rebbi, who says that there is Misah.

Question: You cannot learn from a Zar, a Ba'al Mum and a Tamei, for they are Pasul for Parah Adumah. Will you say that an Onen [disqualifies Avodah like them]?!

Answer: A Tevul Yom is Yochi'ach. (He is Kosher for Parah, yet he disqualifies Avodah.)

Question: We cannot learn from one who sits, for this was not Hutar mi'Chlalo!

Question: The Chatas of Aharon (i.e. that he offered amidst Aninus; it was not part of the Milu'im) was the goat of Rosh Chodesh. We hold (below, 101a) and in our Sugya, that had [his sons] offered in amidst Aninus, it would be Pasul!

Answer #1: Since we learn only from Tum'ah, its law is like Tum'ah, which is Meratzeh only for the Eimurim (to permit Haktarah), but the Korban may not be eaten.

Answer #2: Even without this, [Rava bar Ahilai] properly rejected the Kal v'Chomer.

Question: If Aninus Laylah is mid'Oraisa, we can ask that you cannot learn from Tum'ah, for it is permitted in Pesach brought in Tum'ah (when most of Yisrael are Temei'im). You cannot learn to Aninus, which is not permitted!

Question: We cannot learn from a Tamei, for he is Metamei!

Answer: This is not a full Kal v'Chomer. It merely refutes [the Kal v'Chomer that Rava wanted to make].

Question: This requires investigation. In Chulin (22b) regarding the Kal v'Chomer of "[the age] that is Kosher for Turim (turtledoves) is Pasul for doves", and "what is Kosher for Parah Adumah is Pasul for Eglah Arufah" (23b), and "all Kelim should be Mekabel Tum'ah from their airspace, from a Kal v'Chomer" (25a), and in Menachos (75a) regarding Chalos and Rekikim (thin cakes), and Shalmei Yachid require Semichah (62b), and in Bava Metzi'a (88b) regarding oxen [while working, are entitled] to eat from what is attached, and in Bava Kama (25b) "Shen should be obligated in Reshus ha'Rabim from a Kal v'Chomer", and in Kidushin (14a) "a Yevamah should leave [Zikas Yibum] through a Get from a Kal v'Chomer" and in Nazir (44a) regarding "what is Metamei is like what becomes Tamei", and in Yevamos (87b) "the dead should be considered like alive, from a Kal v'Chomer"...

Why don't we say that [since we cannot make Kal v'Chomerim in opposite directions], each should keep its own law?

Answer: Perhaps here is different, because these Kal v'Chomerim contradict each other, unlike in these cases [listed above].