If he remained there [in the cemetery], R. Yochanan says, we warn him for every amount of time in which he could have separated [from the Tum'ah], and he is lashed [for each warning];

R. Lazar says, he does not receive [warning - PNEI MOSHE] until he leaves and returns.

(R. Ba): So R. Yochanan challenged R. Elazar - it says "[Al Nefesh Mes] Lo Yavo; ... Lo Yitama." (The latter is extra! Rather, it teaches that one is lashed for Tum'ah even if he does not come to Tum'ah, rather, for staying in a place of Tum'ah.)

Rebuttal (R. Lazar, to R. Yochanan): No - it teaches that if they [can] warn him for Lo Yavo (i.e. now he is in a Tahor place), he is lashed. [If they could warn him only for] Lo Yitama, he is not lashed.

(R. Heila): R. Yochanan learns from bowing;

(Mishnah): If one [was Tamei in the Mikdash, b'Shogeg, and he] bowed or delayed [there] long enough to bow (he is Chayav Korban).

(R. Masniyah): We used to think that [R. Yochanan and R. Lazar] argue about lashes, but not Korban (all exempt. However,) since R. Heila said that R. Yochanan learns from bowing, this teaches that [they argue about] lashes and bowing.

Question (against R. Yochanan - Mishnah): [If a Nazir] was drinking wine the entire day, he is liable only once. (The Seifa says, if they warned him 'do not drink, do not drink', and he [begins to] drink, he is liable for each warning. We assume that he drank normally, with breaks in the middle. R. Yochanan obligates for each warning even if he transgressed continuously!)

NOTE: Above, it seems that R. Lazar learned from "Al Nefesh Mes Lo Yavo..." R. Yochanan assumes that he learns a Nazir's Isur of wine from his Isur of Tum'ah.

Answer: [R. Yochanan] explains that [this is even if] his gullet was not empty (he was drinking continuously).

Question (against R. Yochanan - Mishnah): [If a Nazir] was being Mitamei (exposing himself to Tum'as) Mes the entire day, he is liable only once. (The Seifa says, if they warned him 'do not become Tamei, do not become Tamei', and he [does an action to] become Tamei, he is liable for each warning. R. Yochanan obligates for each warning even if he transgressed continuously!)

Answer: [R. Yochanan] explains that [this is even if] he [merely] delayed. He is lashed for every [amount of time that suffices to] separate [from the Tum'ah. We explained this like KEHILAS YAKOV Nazir 18/19.]

Question (against R. Yochanan - Beraisa) Suggestion: If a Kohen was standing in a cemetery and they extended another Mes to him (other than his close relative, for whom he was allowed to become Tamei), perhaps he may receive it!

Rejection: "Lo Yitama Ba'al b'Amav."

Suggestion: If he received it, perhaps he is liable!

Rejection: [The verse concludes] "Lehechalo" - one who becomes more profaned. This excludes this case, in which he does not become more profaned. (Likewise, a Nazir who does not become more profaned should not be liable!)

Answer (R. Ze'ira citing R. Yochanan): "Lo Yitama Ba'al b'Amav" - he should not say, since I became Tamei for my father, I will gather Ploni's bones with my hand;

"Lehechalo" - at the time of death. Rebbi says, we learn this from "b'Mosan". (Rebbi holds that Lehechalo is extra, to exclude one who does not become more profaned. R. Yochanan holds like the first Tana, who uses it only to teach at the time of death.)

(R. Yochanan): [The Tana'im] argue about how to expound. (They do not argue about the Halachah; both exclude Goses.)

(Reish Lakish): They argue [about the Halachah. The first Tana holds that Lehechalo does not exclude Goses, which is at the time of death; Rebbi excludes Goses from b'Mosan.]

R. Shimon bar Va holds like Reish Lakish;

When Shimon bar Va was dying (Goses), he said 'this [Kohen Ploni] should leave [the house]. This [Kohen Almoni] should leave.'

NOTE: We explained this like OHR ZARU'A (2:426). Why didn't he tell all the Kohanim to leave at once? He himself was a Kohen (Rashi Kesuvos 23a), so his father, brother and sons were permitted. (PF) How can PNEI MOSHE explain that he commanded to remove Kelim from the house? Once he became Goses, all of them already became Tamei! If he commanded lest they become Tamei when he will die, this does not show that he holds like Reish Lakish!

If [a Kohen was Metamei for a relative, and] left and entered (was Metamei to other Mesim), R. Tarfon exempts and R. Akiva obligates. (We explained this like SEFER NIR);

Question (R. Tarfon): How does he become more profaned?

Answer (R. Akiva): When he was there, he is Tamei (and Metamei one who touches him) Tum'as Shiv'ah (he requires Haza'as Mei Chatas on days three and seven). When he separated, he is Tamei (to be Metamei one who touches him) Tum'as Erev (he immerses, and at night he is totally Tahor). If he left and returned, he [returns to be] Tamei Tum'as Shiv'ah.

R. Tarfon: Akiva, one who separates from you is like one who separates from his life!