Question: According to what we initially think, that it was not by the Divine Word, we can ask from Rav later (in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh 95.) who maintains that any meat that has been 'hidden from the eye' is forbidden?

Answer: The Gemara knew in any case that he (Eliyahu) relied on the Divine Word, in that the meat did not come from Nochrim; It did not however think that Hash-m would have permitted the Isur of the Shechitah that was performed by Achav's Shochtim.

Implied Question: In the last Perek of Sotah (Daf 46b) we Darshen "Ne'arim", 'that they were empty of Mitzvos' (So why does the Gemara have a problem here)?

Answer: Because the D'rashah that the Gemara makes there is not appropriate here.

Clarificaion: This is a place-name, as we find in Divrei ha'Yamim (1, Chapter 7) "To the east, Ne'aran and to the west, Gezer").

Implied Question: Even though the Torah sometimes writes "Ivrim" and "Mitzrim" (and not 'Ivri'im' and 'Mitzri'im'?)

Answer: ... that is only because there, there is no room for error.

Question: We need it ("Mikem"), as we Darshen in 'Lulav ha'Gazul' (Succah 30.) 'If it is speaking before Yi'ush, the Torah writes "Adam ki Yakriv Mikem" - and this is not his!'

Answer #1 (Part 1): The Gemara there is not learning Gazul before Yi'ush, since that we already know from "Beiso", as the Gemara states in Merubeh (Bava Kama 67:) "Korbano", 'and not a stolen animal'. When are we speaking? If it is before Yi'ush, Why do we need a Pasuk for that? (meaning 'How is it possible to declare it Hekdesh') seeing as the Torah writes "Beiso" ...

Answer #1 (Part 2): ... and the reason that the Gemara there cites the Pasuk "Ki Yakriv ... " is because the Torah writes "Korban", and this is not a Korban, seeing as he does not have the right to declare it Hekdesh before Yi'ush.

Answer #2 (Part 1): We actually learn two things from "Mikem", and 'Gezeilah Mekudeshes' is needed to teach us that a stolen animal that one declared Hekdesh does not render the owner Yotzei ...

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... whereas from "Beiso" we only learn that one is forbidden to declare it Hekdesh (See Tif'eres Shmuel on the Maharsha).

Implied Question: The Tana is not Darshening the reason of the Pasuk (which only Rebbi Shimon holds of, but not the Chachamim) ...

Answer (Part 1): ... rather it is giving a reason as to why we include a Mumar for one thing and not a Mumar for the entire Torah ...

Answer (Part 2): ... because a Mumar for one thing will more easily do Teshuvah; so we accept his Korban ti encourage him to do so.

Question (Part 1): How can the Gemara ask 'Ha me'Hacha Nafka, me'Hasam Nafka?' On the contrary, that D'rashah contradicts the current one, since the Tana there maintains that one cannot accept a Korban even from a Mumar for one thing ...

Question (Part 2): ... seeing as we establish the Machlokes by someone who eats Cheilev and separates a Korban for having 'eaten' blood?

Rejected Answer: And to say that the Gemara is asking from Rebbi Shimon is a Dochek (a forced answer).

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that by Mumar Le'echol Cheilev the Tana means a Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah with the exception of blood ...

Precedent: Indeed, we find that the Gemara both in the first Perek of Menachos and in Perek Hayah Meivi (Sotah 15.) includes all the Chata'os in 'Chatas Cheilev', when it says that in reality, a Chatas Cheilev ought to require Nesachim'.

Conclusion (Part 1): ... and what the Gemara is therefore now saying is, that according to the Tana Kama, a Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah except for blood, does not bring a Korban for 'eating' blood; whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, he does, seeing as he knowledgeably retracts from blood.

Conclusion (Part 2): They unanimously agree however, that a Mumar for one thing only, does bring a Korban.

Answer #2: Alternatively, they argue by Cheilev and Dam, since they share the same punishment of Kareis, they both go up to Hash-m (in the form of a Korban), and they are both mentioned in one La'av "Kol Cheilev ve'Chol Dam Lo Socheilu" ...

Conclusionl (Part 1): Consequently, according to the Tana Kama, he is considered a Mumar for that thing (as if he was a Mumar for blood itself) and it is not on account of the Isur that he will desist, but rather because he abhors 'eating' blood. But when it comes to a Mumar for any other Isur (other than Cheilev), it is obvious that he brings a Korban for 'eating' blood ...

Conclusionl (Part 2): ... whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, even a Mumar for eating Cheilev brings a Korban for having 'eaten' blood.

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk to preclude 'Eino Shav mi'Yedi'aso' (who remains a Rasha by not bringing his Korban)? How can we even think that he can, bearing in mind the Pasuk in Mishlei "Zevach Resha'im To'evah (the Korban of a Rasha is an abomination)!"

Answer: We need the Pasuk for a case where he did Teshuvah afterwards, and at the time when the Korban was eaten he was not Shav mi'Yedi'aso.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to Raban Gamliel the son of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, the last of the Raban Gamliels.

Proof: And so it would seem from the Gemara shortly, which equates the opinion of Raban Gamliel with that of Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Chaishinan le'Mi'uta' (We take the minority into account), implying that we are speaking about the Raban Gamliel who lived after Rebbi Meir.

Question #1: If that is so however, the Gemara ought to have referred to him as Raban Gamliel, the son of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, like the Mishnah does in Pirkei Avos ('Raban Gamliel, the son of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi says "Torah-study is ideal when it is accompanied by Derech Eretz" ')?

Question #2: And furthermore, why did Rebbi Meir decree on S'tam Yeinam (which is de'Rabbanan) and not on Shechitah (which is d'Oraysa)?

Explanation #2: But if we were to assume that we are referring to Raban Gamliel of Yavneh, these questions would be answered.

Implied Question: Only why would the Gemara then say that he holds like Rebbi Meir (who lived after him)?

Answer: Because Rebbi Meir issued his ruling specifically holds like that.

Question (Part 1): If however, Raban Gamliel of Yavneh holds that the Kutim were true converts - based on his ruling that their Shechitah was permitted up until the decree forbidding it, then how come that at the beginning of Perek ha'Dar (Eruvin 61.) he forbids the Eruv of someone who lives with a Nochri or with a person who does not hold of the Dinim of Eruv ...

Question (Part 2): ... which refers to a Kuti, as the Gemara explains in 'ba'Kol Me'arvin' (Eruvin 31:), where Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov permits an Eruv 'until there are two Yisre'eilim forbidding each other'; whereas Raban Gamliel says that 'a Tzedoki is not like a Nochri' - from which Rashi extrapolates that a Kuti is, because he holds "Kutim Geirei Arayos Hein"?

Refutation: In any event, it is impossible to accommodate Rashi's explanation, since Raban Gamliel of Yavneh specifically holds in the first Perek of Gitin (10a) that the Kutim were genuine Geirim, seeing as he validates a Get whose witnesses are Kutim.

Suggested Alternative Interpretation: We could extrapolate (from the Gemara in 'ba'Kol Me'arvin') that a Kuti is like a Nochri - because he does not hold of the Eruv, which is also the reason that the Tana Kama (Rebbi Me'ir) who forbids it, as is evident there in the Gemara, and Rebbi Meir holds there in the first Perek (38:) that 'Kutim are genuine Geirim'.

Refutation: The problem with this however is that, since it is unanimously agreed upon that a Kuti forbids, despite the fact that they are genuine Geirim, what did Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi achieve when they declared them complete Nochrim with regard to negating their ownership and giving permission (concerning the Dinim of Eruv), seeing as, according to all opinions, this was already the case beforehand.

Alternative Interpretation (Part 1): We must therefore say that Raban Gamliel holds that a Kuti too, is not like a Nochri, and that when the Mishnah states 'Tzedoki Eino Eino ke'Akum', it means to include Kutim, whom he considered genuine Geirim.

Alternative Interpretation (Part 2): ... and that is how they were considered until Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi came and declared them total Nochrim.

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who in turn does not disagree with the Tana Kama who forbids the Eiruv of a Kuti.

Answer: ... in fact, he only rules like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov with regard to his ruling that requires two Yisre'eilim to forbid each other.

Question: How will we then justify the fact that in the first Perek of Makos (5b), Yehudah ben Tabai killed an Eid Zomem and in the first Perek of Shabbos (12b) Rebbi Yishmael was reading by the light of a lamp (on Shabbos) and turned up the wick?

Answer: The Ri explains that it is regarding sins to do with eating that Hash-m protects Tzadikim from a Takalah, since it is particularly shameful for a Tzadik to eat something that is forbidden.

Implied Question: In that case, why, according to one text, does the Gemara in the second Perek of Kesuvos (28b) cite this statement ('Hashta Behemtan shel Tzadikim ... ') in connection with a case where the Beis-Din raised an Eved to the level of a Kohen through the evidence of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi (What does this have to do with eating)?

Answer: Because it led to a forbidden Achilah, in that he fed the bas Yisrael who was ultimately married to him Terumah, when in fact, he was an Eved, rendering the Kidushin to her null and void.

Reservation: Most texts however, do not include the final section of the Gemara there ...

Reason: ... because one can only ask 'Hashta Behemtan shel Tzadikim ... ', there where the Tzadik himself ate the Isur.

Implied Question: How will we then explain the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (21.), where Levi stated 'How tasty is the Babylonian dish on the Yom Kipur of Eretz Yisrael!' and the Gemara in Arvei Pesachim (106b), where Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba arrived by Ra Asi, and forgot and ate before Havdalah (even though this is punishable by Askara (croup [Why did Hash-m not protect the Tzadikim from eating what is forbidden])?

Answer: There the food itself was permitted, and the Isur lay in the time that they ate it.

Implied Question: The text in the Bereishis Rabah reads that 'Rebbi Yirmiyah sent Rebbi Zeira a basket of fruit ... between the two of them, the fruit was eaten when it was still Tevel (Why did Hash-m not protect them there)?

Answer: That incident however, is cited in Maseches Shekalim (8a) and Rebbi Zeira himself comments there 'If the early generations were like angels, then we are like human-beings; whereas if they were like humans, then we are like donkeys - though not like the donkey of Rebbi Pinchas ben Ya'ir!' (meaning that if the earlier generation deserved Divine protection in these matters, we no longer do!)

References: See also Tosfos Shabbos (12b) DH 'Rebbi Nasan'; Tosfos Pesachim (106b) DH 'Ishtali'; Tosfos Yevamos (99b) DH 'Salka Da'atach' and Tosfos Gitin (7a) DH 'Hashta'.