Implied Question: Why does the Tana not mention the first Hadachah?

Answer #1: Because he is speaking where the butcher already washed it, as we will learn in 'Kol ha'Basar' (on Daf 113a).

Answer #2: Alternatively, because it is talking about the flesh of the Beis ha'Shechitah, which obviously needs washing, as it is talking about meat for the pot.

Answer #3: Alternatively, it is talking about meat for roasting (which does not require the first Hadachah) ...

Implied Question: Even though flesh for roasting does not require salting either ...

Answer: ... here is different, since it was cut off from the neck before the soul had left it, since it is worse than the case of 'flesh which turned red', in Perek Keitzad Tzolin (Pesachim 74b)

Inference: It implies that the reason for this is due to the principle 'There is nothing that is permitted to a Yisrael that is forbidden to a Nochri'.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara in Arba Miysos (Sanhedrin 59a) queries this from the case of a 'Y'fas To'ar', and answers that Nochrim are different inasmuch as they are not subject to the Din of 'Kibush' (conquering [with which the Torah links the Din of Y'fas To'ar]) ...

Question (Part 2): Then why does the Torah not answer here too that 'Nochrim are different, since they are not subject to the Din of Shechitah?

Refuted Question: One cannot however, ask from the ruling cited in 'Arba Miysos' (Ibid. 58b) which declares Chayav a Nochri who desists from work on Shabbos or who studies Torah ...

Refutation: ... because, the statement 'Is there anything that is permitted to a Yisrael' does not apply to something that is a Mitzvah for a Yisrael to do.

Objection of Refutation: ... and even though the Gemara declares him Chayav even if he stops working on Monday (which seems to render the sin of the Nochri unconnected to Yisrael's Mitzvah) ...

Objection Overruled: ... it is nevertheless not comparable (to the principle) seeing as there is a Mitzvah for Yisrael to rest on Shabbos.

Implied Question: Why is there not a Kashya on the principle from the fact that a Nochri is Chayav for killing a fetus, whereas a Yisrael is not?

Answer: Because even though a Yisrael is not Chayav Misah for killing a fetus, he is nevertheless not allowed to do so.

Question (Part 1): In Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Daf 102a), the Gemara confines the Machlokes as to whether Eiver min ha'Chai by a non-Kasher animal applies to a Yisrael, but as for a ben No'ach, they agree, is warned against eating it.

Reservation: According to the Rabbanan, there is no problem, seeing as even though a Yisrael is not warned (with a La'av) against eating Eiver min ha'Chai of a non-Kasher animal, he is nevertheless prohibited from eating it because it is not Kasher. Consequently, it does not fall under the category of something that is permitted to a Yisrael, but forbidden to a Nochri.

Question (Part 2): According to Rebbi Meir however, who confines the prohibition (on a Yisrael) to Kasher animals, we now have a case where Eiver min ha'Chai of Chayos and Kasher birds is permitted to a Yisrael, but forbidden to Nochrim?

Suggested Answer: And if one tries to answer that this does not bother us, seeing as the concept of Eiver min ha'Chai does apply to a Yisrael ...

Refutation: ... then how can the Gemara (there on Daf 59a) ask from a case of someone who steals something that is worth less than a Shaveh P'rutah (for which a Nochri is Chayav even though a Yisrael if Patur - seeing as the prohibition applies to a Yisrael by an article that is worth a P'rutah?

Answer: In fact, Eiver min ha'Chai does apply to a Yisrael, even vis-a-vis non-Kasher animals, in that they require Shechitah.

Implied Question: And even though a Nochri is forbidden to eat a Mashehu of meat, nerves and bones, whereas a Yisrael is only forbidden to eat a k'Zayis ...

Answer #1: ... Rebbi Yochanan has already taught us that Chatzi Shi'ur is Asur min ha'Torah to a Yisrael - even though it is not subject to Malkos).

Answer #2: And as for Resh Lakish, who holds that Chatzi Shi'ur is permitted min ha'Torah, perhaps he does not hold of the principle, but rather like the opinion that forbids here inviting a Nochri to partake of the intestines.

Inference: This implies that the blood of a Chayah and a bird are Machshir.

Question (Part 1): Rebbi Ya'akov from Orleans queries this however, from the Gemara which Darshens that the blood of Kodshim is not Machshir, since the Pasuk writes "al ha'Aretz Tishp'chenu ka'Mayim", implying that 'blood that is spilt like water (exclusively) is Machshir ...

Question (Part 2): And in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (later on Daf 84a) the Gemara states that Beheimah cannot be included in Chayah as regards Kisuy, since the Torah writes "al ha'Aretz Tishp'chenu ka'Mayim" - 'just as water does not require Kisuy, neither does the blood of Shechitah' ...

Question (Part 3): ... from we see that the blood of a Chayah and a bird, by which the Torah writes Kisuy, is not included in "Tishp'chenu ka'Mayim"?

Answer (Part 1): All blood that is poured on the ground, that has not been received in a receptacle, such as the blood of a Chayah and a bird are compared to water, regarding both Hechsher and Kisuy ...

Answer (Part 2): Only the Torah reveals that a Chayah and a bird are Chayav Kisuy, leaving intact the comparison to water regarding Hechsher, seeing as their blood is poured on the ground.

Explanation #1: It is talking about meat that is for roasting, which does not require Hadachah.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is for cooking, and it is speaking where the meat was washed with fruit-juice (which is not Machshir).

Question (Part 1): Rebbi Ya'akov from Orleans asks from the Gemara in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 22a) where the Gemara asks (on the Sugya there) from blood, about which the Pasuk writes "ve'Chol Nefesh Mikem Lo Sochal Dam" - and we learned in a Mishnah how the various bloods mixed in the Amah (the stream that passed through the Azarah) and flowed to the Valley of Kidron, where they were sold to the gardeners as manure?

Question (Part 2): And the Gemara answers there that the Torah writes "al ha'Aretz Tishp'chenu ka'Mayim" - 'just as water is Mutar be'Hana'ah, so too is blood'.

Question (Part 3): How can the Gemara now learn that the blood of Kodshim is Mutar be'Hana'ah from this Pasuk, seeing as the blood of Kodshim is not compared to water?

Answer: The fact remains however, that, since the blood of Chulin is Mutar be'Hana'ah, the 'Achilah' ("Lo Sochal Dam") that is mentioned in connection with blood means literally eating (see also Tosfos, Pesachim Daf 22a DH 'Mah').

Clarification: Despite the Lashon 'Dilma' (perhaps), it seems that this statement is correct.

Proof: Indeed, the Beraisa itself clearly holds like that, since 'Osrin be'Ma'aser' implies 'eating'.

Conclusion: In fact, in Perek Ein Dorshin (Chagigah 18b), not one text contains the word 've'Dilma'.

Implied Question: It was not necessary to mention here 'Achilah de'Chulin' ...

Answer: ... and the Gemara only mentioned it because it needed to do so in Chagigah (Ibid.)

Question: Even if the Mishnah had said 'Ochlin', it could have extrapolated that it is talking about touching ...

Proof: ... because if touching was permitted, why should one not be permitted to eat it when blood oozes from it, seeing as its body does not become Tamei and one is permitted to touch it?

Answer: We would nevertheless have thought that the Chachamim are strict, and forbid eating it with Tamei hands, even though one is permitted to touch it.

Clarification (Part 1): And even according to Resh Lakish who says in Zevachim (Daf 32b) that a Tamei person who places his hands inside the Azarah receives Malkos ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... that is confined to the Beis-ha'Mikdash, which we learn from the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga, ve'el ha'Mikdash Lo Savo, ad M'los Yemei Taharah" - just as touching slightly is considered is if one has touched completely, so too, is entering slightly considered as if one has entered completely (but does not extend to other areas of Halachah).

Question (Part 1): In the fifth Perek of Sotah (Daf 30a) 'Rebbi Asi (the Gemara there actually quotes Rav Asi, the Talmid of Rav) quoting Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehoshua states that a Sheini does not make a Shelishi by Chulin; Rebbi Meir, as we learned in the Mishnah 'Whatever requires Tevilah mi'de'Rabbanan ... and is Mutar by Chulin.

Question (Part 2): What sort of a proof is this? Rebbi Akiva (who holds that a Sheini does make a Shelishi by Tum'ah d'Oraysa) concedes by Tum'ah de'Rabbanan, like we say here - where it implies that it is coming to preclude from the opinion of Rebbi Akiva who states earlier there that a Sheini makes a Shelishi by Chulin.

Answer: Rav Asi does not concur with the answer given in our Gemara.

Conclusion: According to Rebbi Asi, it transpires, the Gemara in the first Perek of Shabbos (13b) lists the things that render Terumah Pasul, implying, but not Chulin - does not go according to Rebbi Akiva, since, according to him, even by Tum'ah de'Rabbanan a Sheini makes a Shelishi by Chulin.

Clarification: The Gemara in the first Perek of Shabbos (14a) attributes this to the fear that one might eat Tamei food and then take a Terumah beverage and drink it (whilst the food is still in his mouth).

Question: Why does the food then need to be a Rishon? Why will it not suffive if it is a Sheini?

Suggested Answer: And if you will try to answer that this is on account of Ma'aser Sheini, which does not become Pasul via a Sheini ...

Refutation: ... but surely liquid Chulin become a Rishin even via a Sheini?

Answer: Rebbi Eliezer holds across the board that food renders the person who eats it like the food itself (in which case, if he eats a Sheini, he will become a Sheini).