1) WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE THAT A "TEVUL YOM" IS "CHAYAV MISAH" FOR PERFORMING AVODAH?
QUESTION: The Mishnah earlier (15b) states that a Tevul Yom may not perform Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. If he does, the Avodah is Pasul. The Gemara teaches that a Tevul Yom who performs Avodah is Chayav Misah. The verse states, "v'Lo Yechalelu Shem Elokeihem" -- "and they may not defile the name of their G-d" (Vayikra 21:6). This verse cannot be referring to a person who is Tamei who performs Avodah, since another verse already teaches that prohibition. Rather, this verse must be prohibited a Tevul Yom from performing Avodah. What indication is there in the verse that he is Chayav Misah? The Gemara explains that there is a Gezeirah Shavah ("Chilul, Chilul") from Terumah to Tevul Yom. Just as one who eats Terumah is punished with Misah b'Yedei Shamayim, a Tevul Yom who performs Avodah is punished with Misah b'Yedei Shamayim. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 4:4) indeed rules that a Tevul Yom who performs Avodah is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim.
The RA'AVAD questions why this information is relevant. A Tevul Yom who even enters the Beis ha'Mikdash is Chayav Kares. Why is another punishment of Misah b'Yedei Shamayim necessary to deter a Tevul from performing Avodah?
(a) The RA'AVAD answers that it is possible that this prohibition is needed to prevent a Tevul Yom from performing Avodah at a Bamah, where there is no prohibition against entering the area of the Bamah.
(b) Alternatively, the Ra'avad suggests that the additional prohibition is needed in the case of Tevul Yom who uses a long handle on a vessel to turn over the limbs of the Korbanos on the Mizbe'ach from outside the Azarah.
(c) The KESEF MISHNEH does not understand the question of the Ra'avad on the Rambam. The Rambam says nothing more than the Gemara's statement that a Tevul Yom who performs Avodah is Chayav Misah. Why does the Ra'avad ask his question specifically on the Rambam? It is a question on the Gemara itself!
The Kesef Mishneh explains that the Ra'avad asks his question specifically on the Rambam because the Rambam writes that a Tevul Yom who immersed in a Mikvah is Chayav Misah for merely entering the Mikdash. The Mishnah in Parah (11:4) states merely that whether or not the Tevul Yom was Tovel, he is Chayav if he enters the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Kesef Mishneh explains that the Ra'avad understands that the Mishnah means that whether or not the Tevul Yom was Tovel, he is Chayav Malkus for entering the Beis ha'Mikdash, but he is not Chayav Kares if he was already Tovel. The Rambam (3:14) rules that a Tevul Yom who was Tovel before he entered the Beis ha'Mikdash is Chayav Kares. Had the Rambam not ruled that such a Tevul Yom is Chayav Kares, the Ra'avad would have had no question. After all, a Tevul Yom who enters the Beis ha'Mikdash is only Chayav Malkus, while one who performs Avodah there is Chayav Misah. However, since the Rambam rules that the Tevul Yom is Chayav Kares merely for entering, why should there be another Chiyuv Misah b'Yedei Shamayim for performing Avodah there?
The Kesef Mishneh suggests numerous answers, all of which focus on the differences between Kares and Misah b'Yedei Shamayim. For example, the Gemara in Moed Katan (28a) says that Kares means that someone will not reach the age of sixty, while Misah b'Yedei Shamayim has no set time. In addition, there are types of Kares whereby the perpetrator and his children are "cut off," while Misah b'Yedei Shamayim affects only the perpetrator himself. (Y. MONTROSE)
2) WHY IS A SPECIAL VERSE NEEDED TO TEACH THAT A KOHEN WHO IS "MECHUSAR BEGADIM" IS "CHAYAV MISAH"?
QUESTION: The Mishnah (16b) states that a Kohen who is not wearing the proper number of Bigdei Kehunah when he performs the Avodah invalidates the Korban. The Gemara derives this from the verse, "And you shall gird them with belts, Aharon and his sons, and put the turbans on them; and the office of Kehunah shall be theirs for an everlasting statute" (Shemos 29:9). Rebbi Avuha says that the context of the verse teaches that only when the Kohanim wear their Bigdei Kehunah is their Kehunah upon them, but when they are not wearing their Bigdei Kehunah they are not considered to have their Kehunah upon them. TOSFOS (DH Ein) quotes the Gemara in Sanhedrin (83b) which says that this verse teaches that a Kohen who is not wearing all of his Bigdei Kehunah is like a Zar, who is Chayav Misah if he performs Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
However, Tosfos quotes RABEINU YAKOV of Orleans who asks that this Limud seems unnecessary. The verse explicitly states, "And they (the Bigdei Kehunah) will be on Aharon and his sons... and they will not bear the sin of the Kodesh and die" (Shemos 29:43). Why is a Limud necessary when the verse explicitly says that a Kohen who performs the Avodah without the Bigdei Kehunah is Chayav Misah?
(a) RABEINU YAKOV of Orleans answers that this verse (Shemos 29:43) refers only to a Kohen who performs the Avodah while not wearing the Michnasayim (pants) of the Bigdei Kehunah, which are mentioned in the previous verse. A special Limud is needed to teach that if a Kohen is not wearing any of the other Bigdei Kehunah, he is Chayav Misah.
The OLAS SHLOMO asks an obvious question on this answer. If the Limud teaches that all Bigdei Kehunah are necessary, then why does the verse need to state explicitly that a Kohen is Chayav Misah if he performs the Avodah while not wearing the Michnasayim? The Olas Shlomo answers that had the verse not taught that a Kohen is Chayav Misah for performing the Avodah without the Michnasayim, the Gemara's Limud would have been different. Without the verse regarding the Michnasayim, the teaching of "when they do not wear their Bigdei Kehunah they do not have their Kehunah upon them" would teach only that their Avodah is not valid. No one would have compared such a Kohen to a Zar to make him Chayav Misah. The fact that the verse says that a Kohen who performs the Avodah without the Michnasayim is Chayav Misah shows that a Kohen should be treated exactly like a Zar when he performs the Avodah without his Begadim.
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos states that the verse is needed to teach that the Avodah is not valid, since the Kohen is considered like a Zar. (Y. MONTROSE)