Question: What do the Rabbanan do with the D'rashah "Osah", 've'Lo Osah ve'Chavertah'?

Refuted Answer: It cannot come to render Pasul there where one Shechted another animal together with it ...

Refutation: Because that would be Pasul anyway because of Melachah, like where one cut a pumpkin together with it?

Answer: They need it for a case where one Shechted two Paros, with te intention of Shechting them both. Which is not Pasul because of Melachah Acheres, seeing as he Shechted them both as Paros.

Question (Part 1): We have learned at the beginning of Zevachim (Daf 7.) 'Chatas she'Shachat al Mi she'Mechuyav Chatas, Pesulah; al Mi she'Mechuyav Olah, Kesheirah', as the Torah writes "ve'Chiper Alav", 've'Lo al Chavero' - his friend who is Chayav a Chatas like he is ... '.

Question (Part 2): Why do we not say here too "Osah", 've'Lo Osah va'Chavertah which is a Parah like it, but not if it is Chulin?

Answer: There it is from the words "Vechiper Alav" (and not just from "Alav") that we extrapolate that it only atones on the person who is bringing this Kaparah and not on somebody else who is obligated to bring the same Kaparah as them.

Ruling #1: Rabeinu Chananel rules like Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan, who give the Shi'ur Shehiyah for a bird the time it takes to Shecht an animal.

Ruling #2: But Rashi rules le'Chumra like Rav, who gives it as the time it takes to Shecht a bird ...

Source (Part 1): Because the Amora'im of Eretz Yisrael concur with him, when they say 'the Shi'ur of a small animal for a small animal, the Shi'ur of a large animal for a large animal' - and certainly the Shi'ur of a bird for a bird ...

Source (Part 2): Seeing as the difference between a bird and an animal is greater than the difference between a small animal and a large one.

The B'hag: Also the B'hag rules - 'the Shi'ur of a large animal for a large animal', the Shi'ur of a small animal for a small animal, and the Shi'ur of a bird for a bird.

Clarification: The knife must be large enough to extend a neck-length beyond the neck of the animal that he is Shechting.

Question: Even if it is a Neveilah, nevertheless he Isur T'reifos has not one away, and he will be Chayav for T'reifus too, as is implied by the Sugya of 'Mesukenes' (later on Daf 37.)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Zevachim 69:) states 'to preclude a Tamei bird by whose species there is no T'reifah ...

Answer to Second Question (Part 1): That is not because Shechitah does not apply there, in which case even if one Shechted it, it would be a Neveilah, and the Isur T'reifah would fall away ...

Answer (Part 2): But 'in whose species there is no T'reifah' rather means - that it is not T'reifah only, since even if it has been Shechted, one receives Malkos because of Neveilah too.

Answer to First Question: The Gemara's Kashya is - if the Shechitah was not effective, and it was Neveilah, then the Tana should have said, not ve'Eilu T'reifos', but 've'Eilu Neveilos', since that is the major Isur.

Question: Perhaps the Tana mentions T'reifah to teach us that if one cut a k'Zayis of flesh during the animal's lifetime, he will receive Malkos because of T'reifah.

Answer: The Mishnah in 'Eilu T'reifos' appears to the questioner to be speaking after the animal has been Shechted ...

Proof: Seeing as the Seifa states 'any animal that like it would not be able to live, and not 'wherever it will not live'.

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask why the Tana does not include the case of Ze'iri, who ruled earlier (on Daf 20:), Nishb'rah Mafrekes ve'Rov Basar Imah, Neveilah'?

Answer (Part 1): It is Neveilah only if the spinal cord snapped too, and we already learned that even if only the spinal cord snapped, it is already forbidden (see Maharam).

Answer #1 (Part 2): Whereas the Gemara's Kashya from Chizkiyah is justified, since we find Gist'ra which is Neveilah even if the spinal cord remains intact, such as where a rib has been torn out on either side, without interfering with the spinal cord, which Rav in 'Eilu T'reifos' (52.) calls 'Gist'ra'.

Answer #1 (Part 2): Alternatively, we can establish it there where he made it a Gist'ra below the point of 'Bein ha'Parshos' (where the ribs branch off from the spinal cord), from where the animal does not become forbidden via the spinal cord snapping.

Question: Why does the Gemara ask that the Tana should reckon the case of Chizkiyah and that of Rebbi Elazar, bearing in mind the Gemara later, which explains why he does not mention 'Basgar' and 'Shev Sh'ma'atsa', since they are included in 'Zeh ha'Kelal - Kol she'Ein Kamohah Chayah T'reifah' (and 'T'reifah' really means 'Asur', like 'Eilu T'reifos', which, as the Gemara explains, means 'Eilu Asuros').

Answer: The Makshan (questioner) does not think that 'Zeh ha'Kelal' includes Neveilah, because the Lashon 'Kol she'Ein Kamohah Chayah' suggest the animal is alive, only it cannot survive due to its state of T'reifus.

Question: Why does the Gemara ask to include the case of Rebbi Elazar, seeing as an animal with its legs cut-off from knees and upwards is included in 'Zeh ha'Kelal' (since it is one of the cases of 'Basgar'), in which case we already know that 'Nital ha'Yerech ve'Chalal she'lah' is Asur; So why ought the Tana to repeat it?

Answer: Perhaps 'from the knee and above refers exclusively to a location that is close to the nerve-junction, but above that point, even slightly, it is permitted.

Precedent: In similar vein, when the Gemara says in Perek Beheimah ha'Makshah (Daf 76:) that if the bone is fractured, the animal is T'reifah if there is no skin and flesh that covers the majority of the fracture, that speaks by the second bone, but by the third bone that is joined to the body of the animal, no breakage of the bone alone will render the animal a T'reifah.

Second Opinion: Rashi in the first Perek however (Daf 21.) explains that there where the thighbone has been removed, and flesh and skin cover up to half the thigh or a third of it, it is T'reifah (see Maharam).

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that Rebbi Zeira retracts from his Kashya 'Mah li be'Rei'ah, Mah li be'Me'ayim?' But the reason is 'because it is as if the lungs are lying in the basket'.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): And he explains further that the She'eilah regarding the intestines which became punctured between one Siman and the other is confined to where he Shechted the Kaneh (the wind-pipe) before the Veshet (the esophagus), since, if he Shechted the esophagus first, it would be considered as if the intestines were lying in a basket.

Clarification: And it seems that, in Rashi's opinion, Rebbi Zeira does not necessarily argue with Resh Lakish.

Question #1: The Lashon 'Nikvu B'nei Me'ayim bein Siman le'Siman' implies even between the Veshet and the Kaneh?

Question #2: Furthermore, when the Gemara then says that 'what Rebbi Zeira says goes according to Rava', it ought rather to have said 'what Rebbi Zeira asks ... '?

Question #3 (Part 1): Moreover, when the Gemara says that 'Rebbi Zeira retracted since he requires the intestines to be holed', all it needed to say (according to Rashi) was that 'Rebbi Zeira retracted, since he asked the She'eilah ... '.

Question #3 (Part 2): Now that the Gemara adds 'since he requires the intestines to be holed', it implies that he retracted from the She'eilah.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): And what the Gemara means to ask is - that since Rebbi Zeira asked on Rava 'What difference does it make whether it is the lungs or the intestines'?

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And what it answers is that he did not retract from the She'eilah, which is according to Rava, who permitted the lungs, inasmuch as, since he declares the animal Kasher where the lungs became holed after the Shechitah of the Kaneh, this can only be due to the fact that there is no T'reifus by half the life, in which case, one should also permit the animal even if it was the Veshet that was holed.

Clarification: The reason that the Gemara saw fit to bring support from Ilfa, is because Rebbi Zeira failed to explain himself and asked only whether the first Si'man combines with the second one or not, whilst it is the Gemara that adds 'to render it Tahor from Neveilah'.

Clarification: Therefore the Gemara suggests that since Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah is equivalent to Ilfa's ruling, it must concern rendering it Tahor from Neveilus.