Clarification (Part 1): Even Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who is stringent and who requires Pirchus of both the foreleg and the hind leg, will concede that this is considered Pirchus.

Clarification (Part 2): Consequently, the Gemara's Kashya from the Beraisa which it asks shortly 'If the cow lows or defecates, this is not Pirchus' is justified.

Clarification (Part 3): Whereas Shmuel, who asks whether Rav requires the animal to move its ear, holds like the Rabbanan, according to whom either the foreleg or the hind leg will suffice ...

Clarification (Part 4): ... which explains why the Gemara queries Rav Anan, who explains Shmuel's opinion - in that this is a Mishnah and it is therefore obvious that, according to the Rabbanan, if the animal's leg was straight and it bent it, that it is considered Pirchus, whereas if it was bent and it straightened it, it is not considered Pirchus.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Shmuel referred to Rav by that name by way of respect.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): ... whereas according to the Aruch, this was his real name, and they called him Rav on account of his eminence, in the same way as they referred to Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi as 'Rebbi' - and Shmuel, who was his Chaver, called him by his real name.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Likewise later, where the Gemara states 'If that is what Aba said, then he knows nothing about T'reifos!', in Arvei Pesachim (Pesachim 119b) where it says 'for example, young pigeons for me and mushrooms for Aba!' and in Perek Kol Gagos (Eruvin 94a) 'If Aba is particular, then let him take his belt and tie the Tallis!'

Proof: And his explanation is implied at the end of Perek Reishis ha'Gez (later 137b), where Rebbi Yochanan was angry with Isi, when in reply to his query as to who led the learning Seider in Bavel, he replied 'Aba Aricha', for calling him by that name, a clear indication that Aba is not a title of Kavod.

Clarification: He would not have been angry however, merely because he called him by his name alone, if he had not have added 'Aricha' (lanky) which is degrading, seeing as Rebbi Yochanan himself called him 'Aba', in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (later on Daf 84a), when he said 'Aba is from a family of healthy people' - even though Rav was much more Chashuv than he was.

Question: On Rav Huna though, who said in Perek Yom ha'Kipurim (87a) 'Aba is going to kill a man', there is a Kashya since he called him by his name, even though he was his Talmid ...

Source: ... and the Gemara in Cheilek (Sanhedrin 100a) explains that Gechazi was punished because he called his Rebbi (Elisha) by his name.

Conclusion: According to Rashi however, who explains that 'Aba' is a Lashon of Chashivus, the Kashya falls away.

Clarification (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara extrapolates this from the fact that the Tana concludes 'she'Einah Ela Hotza'as Nefesh'.

Clarification (Part 2): ... and (what the Gemara is therefore asking is) would it not be considered a full life, if it only expired at the end of the Shechitah?

Implied Question: Why do we not suspect that perhaps at the beginning of the Shechitah it squirted blood (Zinuk, which is considered Pirchus as we learned earlier)?

Answer: Because it is unusual for Zinuk to occur before the end of the Shechitah.

Clarification: It is not from the Lashon 'Leidah' that the Gemara extrapolates it but from the Gezeirah-Shavah 'Leidah' 'Leidah' from B'chor, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah 40a).

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara there then Darshen "Ishah ki Sazri'a Veyaldah" - 'until she gives birth from the location where the seed is sown, implying that it comes to preclude a 'Yotzei Dofen. Why do we not learn it from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' 'Leidah' 'Leidah' from B'chor?

Answer: Because were it not for the Pasuk "ki Sazria", we would have Darshened "Teiled" 'to include a Yotzei Dofen, like Rebbi Shimon.

Question #1: Why here, does "O" come to exclude, whereas in the first Perek (23a) we learned "O" 'to include a Palgas'?

Question #2: And with regard to 'Oso ve'es B'no' too, we Darshen (later on Daf 78:) "O Seh" 'to include Kil'ayim'?

Answer (Part 1): Regarding Palgas, it is automatically precluded, and we only need a Pasuk to include it ...

Answer (Part 2): ... and by the same token, by 'Oso ve'es B'no', Kil'ayim is automatically excluded, seeing as an ox and a lamb cannot produce Kil'ayim (in which case the Pasuk must come to include it) ...

Answer (Part 3): ... whereas here, the Torah writes "Kesev va'Eiz" - which can produce Kil'ayim, which is therefore automatically included (in which case the Pasuk must come to exclude it).

Precedent: And the Gemara gives a similar answer in 'Merubeh' (Bava Kama 77:) with regard to 'u'Tevacho O Mecharo".

Question: In tahat case, we ought to exclude Kil'ayim from "O Eiz" - seeing as with a lamb it can produce Kil'ayim - and 'Nidmeh' from "O Kesev"?

Answer: Nidmeh is not as apt to exclude as Kil'ayim; That is why we establish the first Miy'ut to preclude what is more apt - Kil'ayim, and only the second one, Nidmeh, since we only exclude Nidmeh because it is similar to Kil'ayim.

Implied Question: When the Gemara states in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah 44a) and in Perek Mi she'Meis (Bava Basra 142b) that it is the fetus that dies first ...

Answer (Part 1): ... that is specifically where the mother died by itself, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Erchin (Daf 7a) - because since the life of the fetus is minimal, the drop of the Angel of Death enters it and cuts the Simanim ...

Answer (Part 2): ... but not where it (the mother) is killed (where she dies immediately).

Refuted Proof: We cannot prove from here that 'Efshar Letzamtzem' (it is possible to define the exact moment), even bi'Yedei Shamayim (with regard to natural events) ...

Refutation (Part 1): ... since it is possible to establish the Pasuk in a case where Eliyahu ha'Navi would come and testify that the two occurred precisely at the same moment.

Refutation (Part 2): ... and we leave the Pasuk to establish itself (even if it is forced).

Implied Question (Part 1): The Gemara does not specifically mention the lobe of the liver, seeing as the entire Olah goes up to Hash-m (is burned), in which case the entire animal is like the Cheilev and the Dam.

Implied Question (Part 2): Consequently, it also refers to a k'Zayis of any other part of the flesh, like we say in the Gemara 'If he gave a Zuz to a Jewish butcher, what is the Din?' ...

Answer: ... and the Gemara mentions it (the lobe of the liver) because it is common.

Question (Part 1): Later (on Daf 39b & 40a) the Gemara comments on the Mishnah, which invalidates the Shechitah of someone who Shechts in the name of mountains 'Pasul yes, Zivchei Meisim, no!' (meaning that it is not Asur be'Hana'ah) ...

Question (Part 2): ... whereas here, Rebbi Eliezer says 'Pesulah', even though it is also Asur be'Hana'ah, as the Mishnah goes on to explain 'because the thought of a Nochri S'tam is for Avodah-Zarah'?

Answer: The inference of the Gemara later is based on the fact that it did not say 'Harei Eilu Zivchei Meisim'; whereas here Rebbi Eliezer says 'Pesulah' because the Chachamim said 'Kesheirah'.

Clarification (Part 1): This refers to the Rabbanan and Rebi Eliezer in our Mishnah ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... but not to Rebbi Yossi, who cannot hold like Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yossi ...

Reason: ... since he maintains that it all depends on the one who is performing the Avodah.