Clarification: The Gemara now concludes that the She'eilah is mi'd'Oraysa, but that mi'de'Rabbanan, they concede that one counts Rishon and Sheini (by Chibas ha'Kodesh) ...

Source: And so it is implied in Perek ha'Nesachim (Menachos 102b) where the Gemara asks that, since Nosar and Parah are mere dust, why are they Metamei Tum'as Ochlin? And it answera by ascribing it to Chibas ha'Kodesh. And on the Kashya 'Then let us resolve the She'eilah of Resh Lakish (whether Chibas ha'Kodesh makes a Rishon and Sheini)' the Gemara answers 'Resh Lakish asks about the Din d'Oraysa, whereas the Gemara here is speaking about de'Rabbanan'.

Question (Part 1): And when the Gemara in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 20a) asks how, in the case of a needle that is found inside a piece of meat, where the meat is Tamei, the meat became Huchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah. If it is through Chibas ha'Kodesh, says the Gemara, perhaps Chibas ha'Kodesh only helps to invalidate the actual object, but not to count a Rishon or a Sheini?

Question (Part 2): ... And if you will say that it does, then why can one not resolve Resh Lakish's She'eilah ... '?

Question (Part 3): ... the Gemara could have answered that Resh Lakish is only asking what the Din will be mi'd'Oraysa ...

Answer #1: ... only the Gemara gives a good answer there, when it establishes the case where he passed the animal across a river.

Answer #2: Moreover, also because Rav Yosef there also asked earlier what the Din will be de'Rabbanan.

Question: Why can we not resolve Resh Lakish's She'eilah from Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who holds that Mashkei Beis ha'Mitbachayim is not Machshir. Now if Chibas ha'Kodesh was applicable to count Rishon and Sheini, then why would we need a Hechsher anyway?

Answer: The difference will manifest itself regarding many things that they brought into the Azarah (which were not subject to Chibas ha'Kodesh (such as Bikurim), and even Chulin, which they would bring to eat together with Zevachim and Menachos, so that the latter should be eaten 'al ha'Sova' (to satisfaction), as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos 21b).

Clarification: This is permitted even Lechatchilah ...

Implied Question: ... and the reason that it uses a Lashon of Bedi'eved is ...

Answer: ... because it continues 'ad she'Tefarcheis'.

Implied Question: At the beginning of 'Eilu T'reifos (42.), the Gemara Darshens from the same Pasuk that a T'reifah cannot live.

Answer: That is according to the conclusion of our Sugya, that does not establish it by a Mesukenes.

Clarification: The Gemara currently holds that a S'tam Neveilah is a Mesukenes prior to its death, hence the Gemara's inference is correct, in that if it is forbidden prior to its death, it is obvious that death will not render it permitted, as Rashi explains.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked there and then 'Perhaps the Pasuk is speaking specifically about a Neveilah that was not a Mesukenes prior to its death - such as one which was torn apart' ...

Answer: ... only the Gemara waited till the end of the Sugya to ask it.

Refuted Explanation: One cannot however, explain that, even if the animal would not necessarily be a Mesukenes before it dies, the Gemara would still make the same inference, inasmuch as since the Torah forbids a Mesukenes because it is close to death, how much more so, an animal that is dead!

Implied Question: ... even though the Torah finds it necessary to forbid Neveilah, despite the fact that it has already forbidden T'reifah ...

Answer: ... because T'reifah (is different, in that it) is Chaser (lacking - whereas a Mesukenes is not).

Refutation: We cannot learn like that, because if so, how can the Gemara later ask that 'Perhaps the Pasuk is speaking specifically about a Neveilah that was not a Mesukenes prior to its death - such as one which was torn apart'?

Conclusion: It is therefore obvious that this 'Kal va'Chomer' is unacceptable, due to the fact that a Mesukenes is more stringent, since it takes effect already during the animal's lifetime ...

Precedent: ... as the Gemara states in Zevachim in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Daf 70a), where we do not learn Neveilah from T'reifah 'because, since the latter takes effect during the animal's lifetime, it is more stringent.

Question (Part 1): According to what we just said, even assuming a Mesukenes is permitted, why do we need a Pasuk to render a Neveilah forbidden, seeing as it is forbidden whilst it is still alive, there already exists an Asei of Einah Zevuchah that began in its lifetime, since the Torah writes "Vezavachta", and this animal has not been Shechted ...

Question (Part 2): ... because Mah Nafshach even after it became a Neveilah, the Asei of 'Einah Zevuchah' (not eating an animal that has not been Shechted) remains ...

Source: ... as is implied in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 36a) and in the first Perek of Nazir (4a), where Rebbe Shimon says that someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur is Patur, due to the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur'. implying that even if it became a Neveilah on Yom Kipur itself.

Question (Part 3): ... Now surely when the animal dies, the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai falls away. So why should the Isur of Yom Kipur not take effect simultaneously with that of Neveilah?

Question (Part 4): It is therefore clear that there is an Isur of Einah Zevuchah already in its lifetime which does not depart (and which prevents that of Yom Kipur from taking effect).

Answer: The Gemara could indeed have retorted 'u'le'Ta'amech' (to offset the Kashya).

Clarification: This question is not synonymous with the question that the Gemara asked just before ...

Reason: .... because now all the Gemara wants to say is that before it dies, from the moment its life is jeopardized it is already called a Neveilah.

Suggested Answer: And if you want to say that we need it for T'reifah that is not lacking, such as one that comprises an extra limb ...

Refutation: ... since we have the principle that 'Whatever is excessive is as if it is removed', that too, is considered lacking ...

Conclusion: ... and 'Naflah' (if the animal fell [see Daf 42a]) too is considered lacking.

Clarification: The explanation here is the same as one that we learned earlier (to which we referred in DH 'Dilma ... ') ...

Reason: Since what the Gemara now wants to say is that every Mesukenes is called a T'reifah, that T'reifah is a Lashon of Mesukenes - meaning that it is close to dying, whether it lacks a limb or not.

Question: When the Gemara asked earlier 'Haynu Neveilah, Haynu Mesukenes?', why did it not answer 'to transgress an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh', like it answers here?

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that if already during the animal's lifetime where the Isur Mesukenes is merely due to the fact that it is close to death, the Isur of T'reifah takes effect on that of Cheilev, need it mention Neveilah itself?

Explanation #1 (Part 2): Consequently, since it does find it necessary to mention Neveilah, we can extrapolate that a Mesukenes is not considered a T'reifah, and it needs to inform us that Neveilah that comes from a Mesukenes and not from a T'reifah (which was not a T'reifah prior to its death), takes effect on Cheilev.

Implied Question: And we cannot learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from T'reifah ...

Answer: ... since the reason by T'reifah is not because it is close to death, but because it is lacking ...

Source: ... in the same way as the Gemara needs to mention both of them in Zevachim in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Daf 70a).

Question #1: Why can we not learn that the Isur Neveilah takes effect on that of Cheilev from a Kal va'Chomer? And as for the fact that T'reifah is lacking (Chaser), the fact is that Neveilah too, where the animal is dead, there is no bigger Chesoron that that?

Question #2: Furthermore, what does the Gemara ask afterwards 'Perhaps we need the Pasuk for Neveilah which does not come from a Mesukenes?' Since that too, we learned from a 'Kal va'Chomer', as we explained above (Amud 'Alef' DH 'Hashta me'Chayim')?

Question #3: Moreover, granted that a Mesukenes is not included in the La'av of T'reifah, it ought nevertheless to be forbidden, due to the Asei of "Zos ha'Chayah", implying that one may not eat whatever cannot live?

Answer to Question #3 (Part 1): This Kashya one can answer however, in that if we were to establish the Pasuk of "Zos ha'Chayah" to forbid a Mesukenes, it would be logical to establish it by the La'av of T'reifah ...

Answer to Question #3 (Part 2): ... because, just as the Asei of "Zos ha'Chayah" refers to both of them, since both fall under the heading of 'Einah Chayah', so too, will the La'av of T'reifah refer to both of them. If so, why does the Torah need to write "Neveilah" to teach us that Neveilah takes effect on the Isur of Cheilev?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): According to Rabeinu Tam, what the Gemara means to say is that if already T'reifah, which occurs during the animal's lifetime and which is not subject to Tum'ah, takes effect on the Isur of Cheilev, how much more so Neveilah, which occurs after its death and which is subject to Tum'ah!

Refuted Question: And we cannot ask like we do in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Ibid.) that T'reifah is more stringent, since its Isur takes effect during its lifetime ...

Refutation (Part 1): ... since the Gemara there goes according to the conclusion of our Gemara's, that a Mesukenes is permitted ...

Refutation (Part 2): ... but according to the current assumption - that the Isur Neveilah begins already in its lifetime, because it is impossible for the animal not to have been a Mesukenes, and a Mesukenes is forbidden because of Neveilah, since it brings its death closer ...

Refutation (Part 3): ... and even if we say that there is only an Isur Asei by Mesukenes, one can still ask that T'reifah is different since there is a La'av, seeing as in any event, the Isur Neveilah applies in its lifetime, we would have known that it takes effect on the Isur of Cheilev from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from T'reifah.

Conclusion: However, now that Mesukenes is permitted, it makes sense to ask from T'reifah that takes effect during the animal's lifetime, whereas Neveilah does not apply then at all.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): According to this, the Gemara is justified when it asks later 'Really, I will say that even if a Mesukenes is forbidden, and we need the Pasuk to inform us that the Isur Neveilah comes and takes effect on the Isur of Cheilev in the case of a Neveilah that was not initially a Mesukenes, such as that of Gist'ra (where the animal was torn apart down the middle), which is not forbidden during its lifetime and we cannot therefore learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from T'reifah?

Explanation #3 (Part 1): Rabeinu Gershon explains the Sugya like this: 'And if during the animal's lifetime the Isur T'reifah takes effect on the Isur Cheilev', even though we cannot apply a 'Migu' and say that since it takes effect on one Isur, it also takes effect on the Isur of Cheilev, it does not need to mention Neveilah of after death, which was a Mesukenes before, and where we can say that, since it took effect on the Isur of Mesukenes, it also took effect on the Isur of Cheilev,?

Explanation #3 (Part 2): We must therefore say that since the Pasuk finds it necessary to mention Neveilah, Mesukenes must be completely permitted.

Explanation #3 (Part 3): According to this too, the Gemara is justified when it asks later 'Perhaps the Torah needs to write it in a case where he made it a Gist'ra, where there is no Migu, since it was not previously a Mesukenes'?

Question #1: The problem with this explanation is that the Gemara does not mention this 'Migu' at all?

Question #2 (Part 1): Furthermore, one can ask a 'Pircha' on it, in that there is also a Migu with regard to the Isur T'reifah, since it also takes effect on that of 'Eino Zavu'ach' ...

Question #3: ... whereas according to the opinion in 'Gid ha'Nasheh' (Daf 103a) that holds 'Beheimah be'Chayehah le'Evarim Omedes', the Isur T'reifah will also take effect on the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai, leaving us with a 'Migu'?

Question #4: And finally, even if we say that a Mesukenes is forbidden, and there is a 'Migu' with regard to Neveilah, one cannot learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from T'reifah, due to the 'Pircha' 'Mah li'Tereifah she'Kein Asurah me'Chayim'? as the Gemara asks in Zevachim (70a)?

Question: According to Rebbi Yochanan, who states later in Perek ha'Zero'a (Daf 132b) that someone who eats from an animal whose Matanos have not been separated, is considered as if he has eaten Tevel', what is the Chidush of Yechezkel?

Suggested Answer: Even though Yechezkel was a Kohen ...

Refutation: ... a Kohen is also obligated to separate T'rumos and Ma'asros, and he too, is forbidden to eat Tevel.

Answer: Rebbi Yochanan will hold like those who learn later that what Yechezkel did not eat was from an animal which required a Chacham to Pasken that it is Kasher.

Question: What is the Chidush of Yechezkel, seeing as it forbidden to everyone, as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 20b) and in Perek Na'arah she'Nispatsah (Kesuvos 46a), based on the Pasuk "Venishmarta mi'Kol Davar Ra" - 'that a person may not think lewd thoughts by day ... ')?

Answer: It is nevertheless considered a Chidush, now that the Gemara in Perek Get Pashut (Bava Basra 164b) cites three things from which one cannot escape each day 'Lewd thoughts, Lashon ha'Ra and Iyun Tefilah' (see Sugya there).