Question: This does not go well; How can we possibly establish it by the Isur of eating when the words in the Pasuk are "ba'Eish Tisaref".

Question: R. Eliezer from Metz asks that, in 'Eilu hein ha'Lokin' (Makos 13.) the Gemara states that the La'avin of Nosar and Pigul are subject to Malkos.

Question (cont.): Why is that, seeing as they are both La'avin she'bi'Kelalos.

Answer: And he answers that, as far as Nosar is concerned, since it is written explicitly, in the Pasuk "Vesarafta es ha'Nosar ba'Eish, Lo Ye'achel ki Kodesh hu", it is not considered a La'v she'bi'Chelalus.

Answer (cont.): Neither can Pigul, which we learn "Avon" "Avon" from Nosar.

Question: In the lastPerekof Makos (Daf 17: & 18.) where, in connection with the ruling that a Zar who ate from an Olah before the blood has been sprinkled receives five sets of Malkos, the Gemara asks 'Let him also receive Malkos because of Rebbi Elazar, who rules that 'Whatever becomes Pasul once it is already Kodesh transgresses a La'v if he eats it'.

Question (cont.): What is the Gemara's Kashya, seeing as it is a La'v she'bi'Kelalos?

Question: But we need it to teach us a Revi'i ba'Kodesh, as we learned in the first Perek (Daf 19.)

Answer: The Pasuk would then not have needed to insert "Lo Ye'achel". It would have sufficed to write "Yisaref".

Question: Why does it call it a Hekesh, seeing as Kodesh is explicitly written in the Pasuk, when it writes "and the firstborn of your cattle and your sheep?

Question (cont.): And Ma'aser too, we learn from this Pasuk?

Answer: We nevertheless need the Hekesh on account of the Isur Hana'ah, so that we should not establish the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar" with regard to an Isur Hana'ah - to turn it into a La'v ...

Answer (cont.): Because in the second Perek of Shabbos (Daf 25.) we only learn the Isur Hana'ah by the holy oil that became Tamei from Ma'aser.

Clarification: This is not considered a 'La'v she'bi'Kelalus'

Reason: Because, seeing as the Torah did not write "Ma'aser Degancha u'Vechoros Bekarcha Lo Suchal le'Ochleim" ...

Reason: (concl.): We see that it wants to specify an independent La'v for each one.

Implied Question: Rashi explains that the reason the Torah writes in Kedoshim "Al Teshaktzu es Nafshoseichem ba'Beheimah u'va'Of", and it does not include "u've'Chol asher Tirmos ba'Adamah" is ...

Answer: Because it is talking about large animals, by which the term "Sheretz" is not used. In fact, the word "Sheretz" is something that moves along the ground and cannot be seen, due its small size, only when it crawls.

Question: In perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin 59.) the Gemara Darshens that "ve'Chol Chayah ha'Romeses" refers to the snake. This implies that the term 'Remisah' applies also to something (bigger) that moves along, like a snake, that moves on its belly?

Answer: The Ri from Orleans answers that the Pasuk there is talking about the eight rodents ...

Source: As the Gemara states in Me'ilah in Perek Kodshei Mizbe'ach (Daf 16:), where it explains that the Pasuk is speaking about creatures that separated from you, since the Pasuk concludes "from which I separated you to be Tamei".

Explanation #1: Because we would otherwise have thought that they are not subject to Tum'ah, since they are not permitted ...

Source: As we Darshen in Menachos, in Perek ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah (Daf 25:) 'Whatever is permitted to Tahor people is subject to Tum'ah.

Source (cont.): Hence it is necessary to include them.

Question: In Me'ilah, Perek Chatas ha'Of (Daf 10:) the Gemara Darshens from "asher Yikrav" - that the Pasuk is speaking about all Kodshim, incorporating the Emurim and other things that are not permitted to Tahor people?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Shimshon (therefore) explains that the Gemara needs to include them (the Emurim) because we would otherwise have thought that the Isur Tum'ah cannot take effect on the Isur Cheilev.

Implied Question: And the reason the Gemara in 'Gid ha'Nasheh' (Chulin 102:) says that 'Someone who eats a live Tahor bird is Chayav on a Kolsh'hu; a dead one, on a K'zayis?

Answer: A bird is different, because it is tender, and can be eaten raw, and eating it in that way is therefore considered 'the way it is eaten'.

Explanation: When the Gemara rules in 'ha'Kometz Rabah' (Menachos, 21.) that one does not transgress when one eats cooked blood.

Explanation (cont.): And queries this from the Beraisa which declares a person Chayav for eating congealed blood and for drinking melted Cheilev?

Explanation (cont.): And it answers that one speaks when one congealed it with fire, whereas the other speaks when he congealed it in the sun.

Conclusion: According to our Sugya, we will have to explain the Beraisa in two ways - where he congealed the blood in the sun, but the Cheilev, in fire - because in the sun, it is considered raw, and he would be Patur (as the Gemara explains).

Question: The Ri asks that in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Chulin 121.) and 121:) the Gemara learns from a Pasuk that one is only Chayav on the juice that comes from olives and grapes, since it learns Orlah Orlah "P'ri" from "P'ri" from Bikurim, and Bikurim from T'rumah, where the Torah writes "eine and oil" ...

Question (cont.): That being the case, why does the Gemara find it necessary to say here that 'it (juice from other fruit) is mere juice'?

Answer: The reason that the Gemara there needs to learn "P'ri" from "P'ri" from Bikurim is not because to preclude the juice of other fruit, but because, strictly speaking, even wine and oil ought not to be considered 'fruit', since it is 'mere juice', as the Gemara says here ...

Answer (cont.): So it finds it necessary to learn that wine and oil is to be considered like the fruit.

Clarification: Therefore what our Gemara says that 'it is mere juice' makes good sense - that juice is not considered fruit.

Question: The question remains however, why it is mere juice, in view of the principle that 'Taste is like the food itself?'

Question: How can a Kal va'Chomer override the Gezeirah-Shavah from Neveilah that it is not Asur be'Hana'ah?

Question (cont.): Moreover, in Perek Kol ha'Basar (Chulin 116.) there is a Tana who learns like this, who holds that Basar be'Chalav is not Asur be'Hana'ah?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that in the very same Pasuk of "Anshe Kodesh" it inserts Isurei Hana'ah - because from "Basar ba"sadeh" we Darshen the Din of Kodshim that left its boundary...

Answer (concl): And the Kal va'Chomer now indicates to learn from Kodshim and not from T'reifah.

Question: Even without a Kal va'Chomer we have a principle to compare le'Chumra?

Answer: Without the Kal va'Chomer we would have Darshened le'Kula, seeing as the Heter Hana'ah is mentioned explicitly in the Pasuk, when it states "Throw it to the dogs!"

Question: The Ri from Orleans asks why we do not learn the Isur Achilah from Nosar and the Isur Hana'ah from "Kodesh""Kodesh"?

Question (cont.): Like we find in the Gemara in Lulav va'Aravah (Succah 40.) and in Perek Kol ha'Zevachim (Zevachim 28:), which Darshens a Gezeirah-Shavah from the "Kodesh" of Nosar?

Answer #1: Here we Darshen "AmKodesh" from "Anshe Kodesh, since they refer to the same context.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we learn Chulin from Chulin rather than Chulin from Kodshim.

Implied Question: The reason that the Gemara did not say that 'Everyone agrees regarding Chulin that are Shechted in the Azarah' ...

Answer #1: Is because the Torah writes there 'Achilah', since we learn it from the Pasuk "Vezavachta Ve'achalta".

Answer #2: Moreover, there are some who hold that 'Chulin that are Shechted in the Azarah' is not Asur mi'd'Oraysa.

Implied Question: Nor did it say that 'Everyone agrees regarding Basar be'Chalav' ...

Answer: Perhaps this is because of the principle 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din'.

Clarification: We cannot learn the Isur Achilah via a Kal va'Chomer from Orlah.

Source: As the Gemara explains in Kol ha'Basar (Chulin 115:) because we can learn the opposite ('Yochi'ach') from someone who plows with an ox and a donkey, and from someone who Muzzles the mouth of a cow, with which a sin has been performed yet they may be eaten.

Conclusion: But now that we have learned the prohibition of eating, we can no longer use the argument of 'Yochi'ach', since they may be eaten.