DOUBLE LIABILITY FOR TUM'AH
Question: Even in the house, the moment his hand enters, he becomes Tamei. When his whole body (really, the majority) enters, he is already Tamei!
Answer #2 (R. Eliezer): If he sticks his hand in first, he is liable only for Tum'ah. If he keeps his hand by his body, he becomes Tamei when he enters, and he is also liable for entering.
Objection: His nose will enter first, and he will be Tamei before his body enters!
Answer #3 (Rava): If he sticks his hand in first, he is liable only for Tum'ah. If he enters his body first, he becomes Tamei like he enters.
Objection: Surely his toes will enter before (most of) his body!
Answer #4 (Rav Papa): The case is, he entered the Ohel in an enclosed box, and someone else removed the bottom of the box. Tum'ah and entering come at the same moment.
Answer #5 (Mar bar Rav Ashi): The case is, he entered an Ohel containing a Goses (a dying person), and the Goses died when he was there. Tum'ah and entering come together.
ENTERING AN OHEL IN WHICH THERE IS A GOSES
(Beraisa): "(A Kohen is forbidden Leheichalo (to profane himself)" - he is not profaned until the time of death (when there is a Chalal, corpse);
Rebbi says, "he (a Nazir) may not be Metamei for them (his relatives) in their deaths" - the Isur is not until they die.
Question: What is the difference between the opinions?
Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): They argue only about how the Halachah is derived.
Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): They argue about a Goses:
The first Tana learns from "Leheichalo". This includes a Goses, who will become a Chalal (Mes);
Rebbi learns from "in their death". It is forbidden until after death.
Question: What does the first Tana learn from "in their death"?
Answer: He expounds like Rebbi:
(Rebbi): "In their death" he may not become Tamei (Mes) through them, but he may become Tamei through their plagues or emissions.
Question: How can Rebbi expound this? He already expounded this verse regarding a Goses!
Answer: Had the Torah wanted to teach only that law, it would have said 'in his death' (of any relative). It says "in their deaths" to teach us both.
Question: What does Rebbi learn from "Leheichalo"?
Answer: This excludes one who is already profaned.
Question: Also Chachamim must learn this from "Leheichalo"! How can they use it to teach about a Goses?
Answer: Had the Torah wanted to teach only this, it would have said 'Leheichal'. It says "Leheichalo", so we learn two laws.
Question (Beraisa): A man is not Metamei until his soul leaves, even if he is cut up, even if he is Goses.
This opposes Chachamim, who say that he is forbidden to touch (or be in an Ohel with) a Goses!
Answer: Even though a Goses is not Metamei, a Kohen (or Nazir) transgresses for (touching or being in an Ohel with) him.
AN INCOMPLETE MES
(Rav Chisda): A Kohen may not be Metamei to bury his father if the head was cut off, because it says "for his father" - when his father is complete.
Question (Rav Hamnuna): Does this apply even if he was beheaded in a valley of bandits?
Answer (Rav Chisda): I did not discuss a Mes Mitzvah (a corpse that no one else can bury). A Kohen may be Metamei for a Mes Mitzvah even if it is not a relative, all the more so for his father!
Question: This is not a Mes Mitzvah!
(Beraisa): A Mes Mitzvah is one with no one (else) to bury it;
If he calls and people answer, it is not a Mes Mitzvah.
Since the son of the Mes is here, this is not a Mes Mitzvah (he must hire others to bury him)!
Answer: Since the Mes is in a valley (and others are not around), it is as if there is no one else to bury him.
Question (Beraisa): "For her (his sister), he (a Kohen) will be Metamei", but not for her limbs.
He may not be Metamei for a limb that separated from his father in his father's lifetime, but he may return for a bone the size of a barley seed.
Inference: The Mes was lacking (a bone), and he was permitted to be Metamei for it (and becomes Tamei again for the remaining bone)!
Answer: The Beraisa is like R. Yehudah (but Chachamim permit him to be Metamei only for a complete Mes).
(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "For her he will be Metamei" - for her, but not for her limbs
He may not be Metamei for a limb that separated from his father while alive, but he may be Metamei for a limb that separated from his father after death.
Question (Rav Kahana's Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): "For her he will be Metamei" - for her, but not for limbs. This excludes a k'Zayis of flesh of a Mes, a k'Zayis of Netzel (flesh of a corpse that dissolved and then coagulated), and a large spoonful of a decomposed corpse.
Suggestion: Perhaps he may not be Metamei for her spine, skull, or bones comprising the majority of the stature (i.e. three bones out of the shins and thighs) or of the number (of bones of the body, 248)!
Rejection: The repetition "say... and you will say" permits becoming Tamei for these.