Implied question: We could have counted that they sleep and excrete like people, like it says below regarding ways in which people resemble animals!

Answer: We can say that they are included in these (dying and eating);

Also below, we count it (excreting) only in order to find three ways in which they resemble animals! (Really, it is included in eating.)

Explanation #1: This connotes that he does totally what he wants. It is better that he do his desire in private, and not in public.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel, in Kidushin 40a): Heaven forbid, we do not permit him to do an Aveirah!

Rather, it says that he should wear black clothes and go elsewhere, for wearing black clothes and deportation break (humble) the heart, and he will not come to transgress;

Now he may do what his heart desires. Surely, his Yetzer will not overpower him!

Rebuttal: Our Sugya connotes unlike this, and also Mo'ed Katan 17a.

Explanation #1 (Rashi, in Megilah 24b): The Mishnah says that one with white patches on his hands may not give Birkas Kohanim. This is because people look at him, and it says in Chagigah that one who looks at the Kohanim at the time of Birkas Kohanim, his eyes weaken.

Rebuttal: We conclude that this (the eyes weaken) is only when the Mikdash stands. There, we discuss [even] outside the Mikdash;

Proof: We asked there from a Kohen in the neighborhood of Rav Huna who used to give Birkas Kohanim, and answered that perhaps he was known in his city.

Explanation #2: Even outside the Mikdash it is forbidden due to Hesech ha'Da'as (distraction).

Support - Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Yosi): This teaches that one may not look at the Kohanim at the time they bless the nation.

Citation (cont. - R. Chagai): It is forbidden only due to distraction. I can look, and I will not divert my mind!

Citation (Yerushalmi): At first, there was an argument only about Semichah. Hillel and Shamai arose, and made four [arguments].

Citation (cont.): After there were many Talmidim of Shamai and Hillel who did not serve [their Rebbeyim] enough, arguments increased in Yisrael, and they were divided into two schools.

Question: They argued already in the days of Sha'ul about one who is Mekadesh a woman with a loan and a Perutah [whether it is valid Kidushin, for she intends for the Perutah, or it is invalid, for she intends for the loan!]

Answer: Perhaps source Sha'ul and his Beis Din held that she intends for the loan, and the only one who argued was David, it is not called an argument.

Observation: The Yerushalmi says that Hillel and Shamai arose, and made four [arguments]. In [the Bavli, in] Shabbos (14b) we find only three things that they argued about. (Turei Even cites Shabbos 15a, which says that they argued about three new matters, and also about Semichah! Perhaps Tosfos understood the Yerushalmi to mean that they argued about four new matters - PF.)

Question: Why is Shamai mentioned before Hillel? All agree that Hillel was the Nasi!

Answer: Since three of the first Zugos (pairs of the Nasi and Av Beis Din) who said not to do Semichah were Nesi'im, and Shamai held like them, he was mentioned first;

Since he was mentioned first here, in every place he is mentioned before Hillel.

Here one cannot err, for he entered in place of Menachem, who was mentioned after Hillel. If so, he (Menachem) was Av Beis Din, and also Shamai was.

Explanation: This is an abbreviated expression of a Shevu'ah. He means that he will not be able to see the consolations of Tziyon if he did not do this.

Support #1: Similarly, we find that R. Tarfon said "I will bury my sons that this Halachah is distorted in Yisrael" (Shabbos 17a. He means that he will bury them if the Halachah is not distorted.)

Support #2: We find such an expression in a verse "v'Ulam Chai Ani v'Yimalei Chevod Hash-m... Im Yir'u..." (He swore that they will not see the land.)

Question: Why didn't the Gemara ask "Hash-m does not bring a pitfall even through the animal of Tzadikim, and all the more so through Tzadikim themselves!"?

The Gemara asks this in Gitin (7a) and Chulin (5b).

Answer: Here it is not proper to ask this. We ask only regarding eating [Isur], for it is disgraceful for a Tzadik to eat Isur.

Distinction: However, we do not ask about eating Heter when it is forbidden.

Support: This is why we did not ask in Rosh Hashanah (21a) "how nice smells the food in Bavel on the great fast in Eretz Yisrael!" (People in Bavel did not hear that Elul was made 30 days, and they ate on Yom Kipur, thinking that it was the 11th.)

[Also, we did not ask about R. Yirmeyah bar Aba, who forgot and tasted before Havdalah;

Even though one who does so [b'Mezid] will die through croup, it is not so disgraceful to eat Heter when it is forbidden.

Implied question: Why didn't he say "when I am not there, his voice is not heard"? (This would immediately prove that it was his voice!)

Answer: They would say that the Mes screams only when he (Yehudah ben Tabai) is there;

However, now that he said "after I die", and he will be by him, he should scream (if the voice was from the Mes).

Explanation: This refers to a ruling in judgment.

Citation (Yerushalmi): The one who says that Yehudah ben Tabai was the Nasi, the episode in Alexandria supports him;

Citation (cont.): Bnei Yerushalayim wanted to appoint him to be Nasi. He did not accept, and fled to Alexandria.

Citation (cont.): Bnei Yerushalayim wrote "from the great Yerushalayim to the small Alexandria, how long does my betrothed sit by you, and I sit sad due to him?!"

Citation (cont.): The one who says that Shimon ben Shetach was the Nasi, the episode in Ashkelon supports him;

It brings the entire episode in which he hung 80 female witches. Rashi brought it in his Perush on Sanhedrin (44b).

Explanation: He would not side with the Rabim to overturn Shimon ben Shetach's words.

Implied suggestion: We should exclude women from Shechitah for this reason, for it is closer to offering than Semichah! (Rashash - i.e. therefore we should expound "Bnei Yisrael" to exclude women from Shechitah, rather than from Semichah!)

Rejection: In Zevachim (32a) we include women for Shechitah. (Turei Even and R. Akiva Eiger say that we do not learn this there. Rashash answers that we say there that "Bnei Aharon" written regarding Kabalah excludes Benos Aharon. We infer there that Zarim may do Shechitah. We similarly infer that women may do Shechitah!)

Implied question: Why don't we learn that the owner must slaughter his own Korban, just like Semichah (which the owner must do? Turei Even questions why this is relevant here, and points out that Menachos 19a asked this! Sefas Emes suggests that the text of Tosfos should ask why we don't disqualify Shechitah of woman due to the Hekesh of Shechitah to Semichah.)

Answer: The Hekesh [of Shechitah to Semichah] is only mid'Rabanan.

Explanation: The case is, it was their Korban. Now, this is like Semichah, which the owner does.

Reference: In Kidushin (31a) and Rosh Hashanah (33a) I explained that our women, if they want to do a Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zeman Gerama and bless on it, we do not protest, even though they are exempt;

It is not called a Berachah l'Vatalah. Also here connotes like this. I explained and elaborated there in Rosh Hashanah. (Od Yosef Chai explains that either Tosfos holds that R. Yosi holds that women may do real Semichah, even though they are exempt, or that the Isur of Berachah l'Vatalah is only mid'Rabanan.)