Explanation #1: Later on, in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (Daf 122a) Rashi explains that the Tana declines to mention it specifically together with the other cases in the Beraisa, because it is talking about an Olah, which is a male.

Explanation #2: Implied Question: There are some texts however, which read 'Zevach' in Perek Kol ha'Zevachim she'Kiblu (Zevachim 28a & 28b), and not 'Olah' (in which case the Kashya remains)

Answer: The Beraisa only mentions things that apply to all Korbanos.

Implied Question: And even though it reckons the skin underneath the fat-tail, even though it is only one of a lamb that is brought on the Mizbe'ach ...

Answer: ... nevertheless it is subject to eating, either by a person or by the Mizbe'ach.

Question: Why does the Tana not also insert the skin of a Sh'lil (an embryo), which the Mishnah in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Daf 122a) reckons together with those whose skin is like their flesh?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that it is because a Sh'lil is not subject to Pigul, as the Gemara states in Perek Kol ha'Pesulin (Zevachim 38a) 'If the Kohen was Mefagel on a Sh'lil, the Korban does not become Pigul, and neither does the Sh'lil.

Clarification (Part 1): And there is no Isur of destroying the money of a Yisrael ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... and when the says 'bi'Pelugta', it is La'av Davka, seeing as Rebbi Yochanan, who says 'also with a nail', holds neither like Rebbi Yehudah nor like Rebbi Nechemyah.

Question #1: Does Rebbi Yehudah not say in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Zevachim) 69b and 70a) that the Shechitah of a bird is not Metaher its T'reifus from its Tum'ah (Neveilah), since the Torah says "Neveilah u'T'reifah Lo Yochal le'Tam'ah bah", and the Torah writes "T'reifah" to include a T'reifah that one Shechted in the Din of Tum'ah?

Question #2: Similarly, at the beginning of Maseches Taharos, in connection with the thirteen things that are said in connection with the Neveilah of a Tahor bird, the Tana Kama says that its Shechitah and its Melikah are Metaher its T'reifus from Tum'as Neveilah, Whereas Rebbi Yehudah rules 'Einah Metaheres'?

Answer #1: Nevertheless, seeing as Rebbi Nechemyah is Metaher it, Rebbi Yehudah ought not to have made the statement that he was feeding the people Neveilos.

Answer #2: And besides, we do not yet know the Gemara's conclusion that Rebbi Yehudah is the one who examined with the hand.

Implied Question: Even though we already learned earlier that 'Rav, Shumel and Levi all said 'Machnis Yado li'Fenim u'Bodeik'?

Answer: ... it is informing us here that they also ruled accordingly le'Ma'aseh.

Observation: The Gemara's question from the Beraisa specifically on Rav and Shmuel is 'not justifiable' ...

Reason: ... seeing as it could just as well have asked on Levi himself, who said earlier 'Machnis Yado li'Fenim u'Bodeik'?

Clarification: The Tana does not reckon the lungs, conforming to what we will learn later (on Daf 57a) that a bird does not have lungs as regards either falling or being burned.

Implied Question: ... because even though Chizkiyah concludes that they do not have lungs at all, that is only because he was not conversant with chickens.

Answer: It is nevertheless true, as Rav Chaga said 'since most of the ribs protect it'.

Text #1 (Part 1): This is Rashi's text; and he explains that the Safek is whether they ruled le'Isur by Tarpachas (the mouth of the womb), like Rebbi Tarfon in Sanhedrin, Daf 33a) where he fed it to the dogs.

Text #1 (Part 2): Rabeinu Chananel concurs with this explanation, and he rules le'Chumra, due to the Safek that perhaps 'Horu' means le'Chumra.

Question: The Gemara there (in Sanhedrin) considers Rebbi Tarfon as having erred in a 'D'var Mishnah? Indeed, Rebbi Tarfon himself retracted?

Answer: It is possible however, to differentiate between an animal and a bird, in that here the Gemara is speaking about the Tarpachas of a bird, which is more likely to be considered T'reifah.

Implied Question: And we cannot then resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa cited by Levi (on the previous Amud), which does not list Tarpachas together with 'the extra T'reifos that pertain to a bird' ...

Answer: ... because the Tana does not include whatever is a Machlokes in the list, just as he does not include 'a bird whose feathers have been removed' according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Question: Why do they not ask here whether they did not rule leniently both by Tarpachas and by Zefek?

Precedent: In the way that the Gemara asks in Perek Kirah (Shabbos 46a) regarding 'He ruled by a candelabra like Rebbi Shimon by a lamp', where they asked whether he ruled leniently by a candelabra, and leniently like Rebbi Shimon by a lamp; or whether he ruled strictly by a candelabra and leniently by a lamp, like Rebbi Shimon?'

Text #2: It therefore seems that the correct text here is 'Did they rule leniently by Tarpachas, and leniently by Zefek, like Rebbi'; or perhaps they ruled leniently by Tarpachas like Rebbi by Zefek'; they do not however, hold like Rebbi by Zefek.

Support: Now it makes good sense as to why they did not have doubts in our Sugya as to whether they ruled strictly by Tarpachas. This is because they took it for granted that it is permitted, as is evident in the above-mentioned Gemara in Sanhedrin (Daf 33a), seeing that Rebbi Tarfon retracted, and that they considered him as having erred in a D'var Mishnah.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Shabbos did not ask whether he permitted moving a candelabra which was not lit that Shabbos, like Rebbi Shimon permitted moving a lamp which was lit that Shabbos (though he did not hold like Rebbi Shimon by a lamp, which the owner had rejected with his hands) ...

Answer (Part 1): ... since it is not possible to connect the Heter of a candelabra to that of a lamp ...

Answer (Part 2): ... because, if a candelabra that was not lit that Shabbos is forbidden, it is not because it is Muktzah, but rather because of Binyan, as the Gemara explains there - that it has parts that are not detachable, and we decree on account of one whose parts are detachable; whereas if a lamp that one lit that Shabbos is forbidden, it is on account of Muktzah ...

Answer (Part 2): ... whereas here, it is possible to link the two; since just as Rebbi does not hold of T'reifus by a Zefek, so too, does he not hold of T'reifus by a Tarpachas.

Rashi's Explanation: Rashi however, explains there that the She'eilah is whether it was one ruling, and what the Gemara means is that he rules by a candelabra leniently, like Rebbi Shimon rules leniently by an old lamp; or whether they were two rulings - He ruled strictly by a candelabra, like he said in our Perek, and he decreed on account of the detachable parts. And leniently by a lamp, like Rebbi Shimon. But his explanation is confusing.

Clarification: This is included in 'Nekuvi' of our Mishnah, since the reason for the ruling is due to the fact that it will eventually become holed and rotten.