Explanation: Reish Lakish asked a strong question on Rebbi Yochanan from the Mishnah, "The skin of these is like their flesh etc."

Question: Why isn't this a question on Reish Lakish as well? He himself says that we look at the eventual state of the sinews that will end up hardening!

Answer: This is unlike a Korban Pesach. Regarding the impurity of food, even skin that was cooked can contract impurity due to its being food because it indeed is fit to eat as stated later, even though one cannot be part of a Korban Pesach by just having ownership of some of the skin (as this is only done with parts of the animal that are always eaten). The same applies to sinews that will eventually harden.

Proof: In Pesachim (84a), the Gemara asks a question from Rebbi Yochanan's statement that the soft skin of the head of a calf cannot contract impurity of food on his statement regarding Gidin that will end up becoming hard that certainly one should not be able to be part of a Korban Pesach with the Gidin (if the soft skin cannot even be considered food). (In other words, we see that when impurity of food does not apply, certainly one cannot use that part of the animal for his ownership of the Korban Pesach.)

Observation: When the Yerushalmi discusses the soft head of a calf, Rebbi Yochanan says that this is only regarding impurity. However, it is not regarding receiving lashes (if one eats this skin from an animal that is a Neveilah). Reish Lakish says that this Mishnah applies both to impurity and to lashes.

Observation (cont.): The Yerushalmi concludes that their opinions seemingly need to be switched. Can Reish Lakish say that regarding sinews that will harden it is not meat and therefore one cannot own that part of the animal to be part of the Korban Pesach and also hold here that it is not meat?

Observation (cont.): Rebbi Boon says that the reason of Reish Lakish is because the Pasuk says, "And they will eat the meat" implying meat and not sinews. (Accordingly, while sinews are not meat, the soft head of a calf could be meat.)

Observation (cont.): The Yerushalmi implies that we always look at the current status (of the item in question) besides when dealing with the Korban Pesach, as stated in the Pasuk.

Explanation #1: He understood that that the correct text at the end of the Mishnah was, "These are the words of Rebbi Shimon."

Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi's explanation that he simply held it was a minority opinion.

Question: In Yevamos (42b) the Gemara asked, "Didn't Rebbi Yochanan say that the law follows the Stam Mishnah?" This is despite the fact that it is according to the (minority) opinion of Rebbi Yehudah? (This indicates that Rebbi Yochanan could very well rule like a minority opinion quoted in a Stam Mishnah, as he does in Yevamos (ibid.). Accordingly, he would not be able to tell Reish Lakish that he should have known he does not rule this way because it is a minority opinion. However, if it says in the Mishnah, "These are the words of Rebbi Shimon" it is no longer a Stam Mishnah, which is why Rebbi Yochanan felt that Reish Lakish should have known that Rebbi Yochanan does not hold this way.)

Question: How do we know he retracted his opinion regarding the sinews of a Korban Pesach? Perhaps he retracted his understanding stated later (122b) that the Mishnah states, "These are the words of Rebbi Shimon?" (See Maharam.)

Answer: It is more understandable to say that he retracted in order to agree to the position of Reish Lakish.

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier (53b) says that if the meat is worn away we look at it as if it is nonexistent. (How is this different from the question of our Gemara?)

Answer: This is when the meat is in the lungs or sinews, as being a Treifah is dependent on these things. However, in our case where being a Treifah is dependent on the bone, even though the meat is worn away it is possible it still protects.

Text #1: Rashi's text is "Di'dei" with a Daled.

Text #2: Rabeinu Chananel and Rabeinu Tam have the text "Ri'rei" with a Reish. This means its moistness that sticks to the skin and creates a scab or scar.

Question: If so, he should be able to eat skin to fulfill his obligation of Korban Pesach! This is as the Mishnah states in Pesachim (84a) that whatever is eaten from a large ox when cooked can be eaten roasted from a young goat.

Answer: It (the skin of the ox) needs to be eaten cooked in a normal circumstance (and it is not).

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara quote the Mishnah in Chulin (117b) that explicitly states that skin cannot combine to create the impurity of a Neveilah?

Answer: The Gemara quotes the Beraisa instead because Rabah bar Rav Chana said regarding the Beraisa that it was required to exclude a case where the skin etc. was cooked for a long time together with spices. He could not have said this regarding our Mishnah, as our Mishnah needed to teach that it does not combine to create impurity of Neveilah.

Explanation: This is when it does not have a Kzayis of meat on it, as this is what is said in the Gemara later (126b).

Explanation (cont.): We also derive there, "with its Neveilah - and not a closed thighbone." These teachings are similar.

Implied Question: The Beraisa could not have included a case regarding a regular Neifel (child who will not survive for thirty days). (Why not?)

Answer: This is because any placenta that comes out within three days of a Neifel is linked to the Neifel as stated by Rava in Nidah (26b, unlike the law of this Beraisa).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is according to the Rabbanan (who say that anything that does not have the shape of a person is not considered a birth of a person).

Explanation #2: However, the terminology, "the stringency of two births" indicates that it is according to Rebbi Meir who holds that a birth of something that looks like an animal or bird is considered a birth.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The case where this would make a difference according to Rebbi Meir is where the animal born with it is male. If it would be female (which causes the mother to have the longest amount of days of impurity), there would be no difference regarding whether or not the placenta tells us to suspect another birth (as she already has the longest amount of impurity) unless one came out before sunset and one came out after sunset, as stated in Nidah (25b).

Observation: Alternatively, we could explain that the Mishnah is according to the Rabbanan that an animal etc. is not a birth. The Beraisa says, "the stringency of two births" because of the placenta, not because of the animal. The woman must act stringently (in all aspects of this law), as if she had either a male or a female.

Implied Question: However, if this indeed is according to the Rabbanan, it should have said, "she should sit (i.e. have days of impurity) for a male, female, and as if she was a Nidah" as perhaps she only had one child (as opposed to saying we give her "the stringency of two births").

Observation: According to Rashi it is understood why we did not say, "and as if she was a Nidah," as this part of the stringency of two births.

Question: According to the explanation earlier (in our previous Tosfos) that the Beraisa is specifically discussing animals, as regarding a Neifel we would not suspect that the placenta indicates another birth being that the birth of a Neifel occurred normally, our Mishnah is also discussing a case of a normal birth and yet we still suspect that if the fetus is not connected to the placenta that there is another birth!

Question (cont.): What proof is there from here to Rebbi Elazar? On the contrary, the Beraisa should be a question on him being that it specifically discusses an animal and bird! (This indicates that if it would be a person, we would not differentiate between the placenta being connected to the child or not, as Rebbi Elazar indeed differentiates regarding a Neifel in our Mishnah!) It should be a proof to Rebbi Yochanan!

Answer: The determining factor is not a normal birth. Rather, it is obvious to the Gemara that it is normal for a human's placenta to delay coming out. However, regarding an animal or bird, whether it comes out of a woman or an animal the placenta does not usually detach itself from the fetus. This is even when the animal has a fetus that will live (normally) after birth.

Question: Our Beraisa states that perhaps the fetus was squashed. This indicates that we are unsure whether or not this is the case. Why, then, should the placenta be forbidden to be eaten when some of it is "born" and there is a child along with it?

Question (cont.): This should be a Sfeik Sfeika (double doubt causing it to be permitted)! Perhaps the placenta does not indicate another birth. Even if it does, perhaps the small part of the placenta that went out did not contain most of the stillborn!

Question (cont.): In Bava Kama (11a), the Gemara implies that a Sfeik Sfeika would indeed permit eating the placenta. We deduce there from the statement, "There is no placenta with a fetus" that there can be a slight amount of placenta without a fetus. This indicates that we should permit it therefore due to this Sfeik Sfeika.

Answer #1: The Beraisa that says that "perhaps" is referring to a placenta that came out after the fetus. The Mishnah is discussing a placenta that came out before the fetus.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is forbidden to be eaten because we decree that a minor part of it is forbidden due to most of it being forbidden, as we conclude in Bava Kama (ibid.).

Implied Question: The Mishnah in Bechoros (21b) states that if a cake of blood came out of a large animal, it should be buried and the animal is exempt from its next offspring having the status of a Bechor. We do not say that this cake should be thrown to the dogs for the reason that we state in our Gemara that it should be thrown to the dogs. (Why not?)

Answer: We only say that the cake should be buried there in order to publicize that the animal has been exempted from its next offspring being a Bechor, as stated in the Gemara there.

Implied Question: The Gemara there only gives this answer due to the question asked there on Rebbi Chiya who says, "Being that it does not cause impurity by it being touched or carried, why should it be buried?" The Gemara answers, "in order to publicize etc." (It seems as if the Gemara would not have otherwise come to our conclusion.)

Answer: It would have come to this conclusion that the reason is to publicize etc. in any event. However, Rebbi Chiya apparently is not pleased with this reason, being that even if it did give birth to something that should be considered holy (i.e. a Bechor) it would not require burial being that it is nullified.

Explanation: Being that a "Nidmeh" (an animal that does not look the same type of animal as its parents) cannot be considered holy our Gemara says, "most" not "all."

Question: Offspring of Kodshim are always considered holy, as is apparent from Temurah (17a)! The Gemara in Temurah (ibid.) says that one only finds Kilayim, a Tumtum, or Androginus as an offspring of Kodshim. This indicates that Kilayim (offspring from two different types of animals) that was born from an animal dedicated as a Korban is holy. Kal v'Chomer an animal that is a Nidmeh should be considered holy!

Proof: This is as indicated by the Gemara in Bava Kama (78a) when it says, "Now that Kilayim are included, there is no question about a Nidmeh!"

Answer: The Gemara there is according to the opinion that offspring of Kodshim are holy in their mother's womb. Our Gemara does not agree with that opinion.

Implied Question: Our Gemara understands a Neifel is holy (can be deemed a Bechor, despite the fact that when it comes out it will not survive).

Answer #1: This is because we derive from a Bechor of an animal that it is considered holy when it comes out of the animal, as we derive in Kerisus (should read Bechoros 3a) from the Pasuk "Sheger" - "send (i.e. it was sent out of its mother)."

Answer #2: Alternatively, even the opinion that offspring of Kodshim animals are holy in the womb will hold here that only most animals should be buried, being that there is offspring of an animal that looks like a pigeon which indeed will not be holy. [Analyze Tosfos in Zevachim 84b, DH "u'Motzi" 114a DH "v'ka'Savar."]