Question: In Pesachim (24b), the Gemara extrapolates from this Mishnah that one only receives lashes due to transgressing Torah prohibitions if he benefited from them in a normal fashion. Yet our Gemara derives this from Bikurim!

Answer: Our Gemara's inclusion is required in order that one should not say that this is considered mere "sweat" (instead of being like the fruit itself).

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Chananel explains this is referring to flesh of a dead person, as does Rabeinu Tam.

Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi who explains this refers to the sinews of the neck.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Zevachim (35a) that says that if a person had a thought of Pigul regarding the Alal of a bird sacrifice, its gizzard also becomes Pigul. If he had a thought of Pigul regarding a gizzard, the Alal does not become Pigul. A bird does not have hard sinews in its neck, and a gizzard is only in a bird. (In the Tosfos ha'Rosh from Mossad ha'Rav Kook note 158 they explain the proof of Tosfos. If an Alal is a Martika and Martika is hard sinews, there must not be a Martika in a bird as there are no hard sinews in a bird. Accordingly, it is nonsensical to say that the statement, "An Alal does not cause Pigul and does not become Pigul" (see Zevachim 35b) is specifically regarding an animal and not a bird, as a bird does not even have an Alal! It therefore must be that Rashi's explanation is incorrect.)

Implied Question: There is no difficulty from the Gemara in Zevachim (ibid.) on the opinion who says that this refers to meat that was taken off with the skin during the skinning. (The Gemara there does not seem to be discussing such meat!)

Answer: This is as we say later that everyone agrees that Martika can also be the Alal.

Implied Question: Rebbi Yehudah did not say that it is impure with the impurity of Neveilos. (Why not?)

Answer: This is in order that one should not think he is saying this according to Rabbinic law. This is why he said, "one is liable for it."

Question: This is difficult. How does a thought cause prohibition? Regarding impurity it is possible to say that if he nullifies it, it is considered like wood. However, nullifying it will not cause it to be permitted for consumption!

Answer: It therefore appears that when the Mishnah (117b) says that he is liable for it, it is not regarding eating it which would not require him to gather it together. Rather, it is regarding if he enters the Mikdash after becoming impure from it, as Rashi explains in his alternative text.

Implied Question: The Mishnah does not state "he is impure." (Why doesn't the Mishnah say this if this is the main point of the statement?)

Answer: This is in order that one should not think he is impure according to Rabbinic law, as I explained.

Proof: This appears correct, as if it is referring to eating, once he eats it there is no greater gathering than this! (Accordingly, the Mishnah should not have to specify "gathering" if it is discussing eating, and must only be referring to impurity.)

Explanation: This does not mean that it is a Shomer.

Proof: If it did, what would be the reasoning of Reish Lakish? Skin and bone combines to be a Shomer, and the fact that things combine to become a Shomer is derived from the Pasuk as stated earlier (18a)!

Explanation: Rather, the case is where there is a Kzayis of meat at the head of it. Even though it is not a Shomer it combines, as it is fitting to be eaten together with the meat. Reish Lakish understands that it does not combine with the meat, as it itself is not fit to be eaten as it is like wood.

Text: We do not have the text, "horns" (in the Mishnah in Taharos).

Implied Question: Rav Papa explains the word "horns" later. (Isn't this referring to the Mishnah in Taharos?)

Answer: He is referring to our Mishnah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he can cut it into little pieces that are less than a Kzayis when it is in its death throes.

Implied Question: He did not have to say this.

Explanation #2: Rather, he can even cut it into big pieces, as long as they should not be whole limbs. This is because meat from a live animal does not become impure, as stated later (128b). Chizkiyah is only stating regarding Neveilah that the piece has to be less than a Kzayis.

Question: This is something that can end up having a stringent form of impurity, as if it would combine with another half Kzayis it would be impure, as stated in Kerisus (21a)!

Answer: The Gemara in Kerisus (ibid.) is referring to a dead Neveilah, and in such a case combining would work. However, in our case we do not say that it will eventually be able to have a stringent form of impurity just because it can do so by combining with another half a Kzayis after it dies.

Explanation: The Gemara would rather ask that Chizkiyah is contradicting himself than ask a question on his position that the animal is considered dead from the Mishnah that says, "However, not impurity of Neveilos."

Explanation: This means that it does not even become impure as does food, just like the previous case where he slaughtered one Siman.

Explanation (cont.): It only used this terminology, "that he tore it apart" because he did not do an action of slaughtering. In such a case it is obvious that it does not have any impurity, since he did not do anything is a manner of slaughtering.

Explanation: This is including that even for a Jew, where these Halachos depend on slaughtering animals, a limb that leaves the animal is like a limb that comes off of a live animal.

Explanation #1: The reason is that it is generally considered alive, and therefore one who has relations with it is liable. However, it receives the impurity of food because it can be eaten.

Explanation #2: Rashi says Abaye is merely being stringent in each question.

Question: This is difficult, as if the Halachah is unclear, how can he say that someone who has relations with it is liable?