Proof: If so, why does the Pasuk say, "that they will offer from it?" This teaches that Cheilev similar to it, in that it is valid to offer it on the altar, is forbidden. However, Cheilev that is on the walls that is not fit to be offered on the altar, I did not forbid.

Proof (cont.): This indicates that I would forbid the Cheilev on the walls of the animal if it were not for the fact that it is not offered on the altar. If so, (i.e. This is Rebbi Eliezer from Mitz's proof that), the Cheilev of the diaphragm that is offered together with the diaphragm should indeed be forbidden.

Question: According to this logic, we also should forbid the Cheilev that is inside the groove in the kidney as it is offered together with the kidney. Yet our Gemara (as explained in the first part of Tosfos on 92b) says it is permitted!

Answer: However, it is possible to answer that the Cheilev in the kidney is different, as the Pasuk excluded it by saying, "on the kidneys" implying not what is in the kidneys.

Question: There is still a difficulty. According to this, we should forbid the fat in the tail that is offered together with the tail.

Answer: This is despite the fact that the Gemara later (117a) says that it is called "the Cheilev of the tail" and not "Cheilev." (This indicates it should not be forbidden as is Cheilev.)

Question: However, it should still be forbidden (according to Rebbi Eliezer from Mitz's understanding of the Beraisa) because it is offered.

Opinion #2: It therefore appears to me that this Beraisa specifically applies to Cheilev of the walls which is similar to other Cheilev (that is forbidden).

Opinion #2 (cont.): It is possible that if other Cheilev was draped around the meat and peeled away easily (similar to Cheilev that is forbidden, see 49b), it would be forbidden if it was offered on the altar.

Opinion #2 (cont.): However, the Cheilev of the diaphragm, the Cheilev in the kidney, and the fat of the tail are not comparable at all to the type of Cheilev that is forbidden, and therefore are not forbidden. They are not offered on the altar as part of a sacrifice because they are Cheilev, but rather because they are (physically) part of the diaphragm, kidney, and tail.

Explanation: He though that he even forbade it if he cut it off, due to Cheilev.

Explanation: This implies that until now the Gemara was not discussing cooking but rather roasting, and even so it said that this is forbidden because he did not cut it.

Implied Question: The Gemara later says regarding meat that is red (from blood) that it should have a spit stuck into it, causing the blood to flow out. The same applies to eggs and veins (in the neck). Rashi explains that this is without it being cut open and salted.

Implied Question (cont.): Rashi does not mean that he did not cut it or salt it at all, as even to roast it he must cut it. (What does Rashi mean?)

Answer: Rather, Rashi means that he did not do both, and instead only cut it.

Answer (cont.): Rashi was merely using the terminology used by the Gemara which says he cut it and salted it, and that is not necessary for roasting.

Observation: It would be difficult to differentiate by saying that the Gemara regarding the veins is referring to veins without meat when it is no longer attached to any part of the neck. It would not need special cutting for roasting because the blood comes out from where it was slaughtered. However, here the case is where the veins are whole inside the foreleg. This is why it requires cutting for roasting.

Observation: If we would say this it would prove difficult for the opinion of Rabeinu Tam who explains that just as the custom is to cook liver in a pot after it has been roasted, it is similarly permitted to cook it in a pot after it has been salted for the amount of time one salts meat. This is because salting is like boiling, meaning it is like the boiling temperature of roasting.

Proof: This is apparent from the Bahag's statement that the amount of time for salting is like the amount of time of roasting.

Observation (cont.): According to this difference (d) above, this is impossible. If he would not need to cut for roasting, there would be no proof from roasting to salting, as roasting causes more emission than salting, as roasting does not even require cutting. It would therefore be permitted to cook the liver in a pot after roasting, while it would be forbidden to do so after salting without cutting.

Explanation: Rashi explains that they are connected at the head of the ribs under the chest.

Opinion: One must warn the buyers of the inner part to dig out these strings (of Cheilev) until the chest.

Opinion: Digging around to find these strings is a Rabbinic commandment.

Proof #1: Firstly, the Torah stated that Cheilev is prohibited, not strings.

Proof #2: Additionally, the Pasuk states, "on the walls" implying not what is in the walls. Even so, the Rabbanan said one should dig out these strings of fat.

Implied Question: It is unlike the fat that is covered by meat which is permitted. (Why is it different? Isn't it also covered by meat?)

Answer #1: This is because when the animal is alive it spreads out its limbs and the strings are revealed when it is walks (i.e. it is not really covered).

Answer #2: Alternatively, since most of them are revealed in general, even what is covered by meat is forbidden mid'Rabbanan.

Explanation: It is not considered Aiver Min ha'Chai according to Torah law. Since they are still slightly connected, they are permitted if the animal is slaughtered just as limbs hanging off the animal are permitted. It is only a Mitzvah from the Perushim (i.e. Rabbanan) not to eat it, as explained earlier (74a).

Explanation #1: He holds like Rav Ashi who said (18b) that when a person intends to go back to the place where he came from, he must abide by the stringencies of that place.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, this is according to everyone (not just like Rav Ashi). He meant, "You should not eat" in your place.

Implied Question: Some put a chicken in water after it is slaughtered and bury it in hot ash in order to take off the feathers. This is despite the fact that regarding the head of a sheep this is only permitted if it is placed with the nostrils downwards (so the blood can flow out). (What is the difference between the two cases?)

Answer: This is because the head contains many bones, and things that prevent the blood from flowing out. However, the fire causes the blood of a chicken to be drawn out.

Opinion: The Bahag writes that a person who wants to singe the head must put the head so that the area where it was slaughtered faces down, in order that the blood can flow out. If he forgot and had it face up, the brain is forbidden to eat but the head itself is permitted.

Opinion (cont.): This implies that the only prohibition is regarding the membrane covering the brain which contains blood. This is why the brain itself becomes forbidden, as it cooks in the blood of the membrane that covers it. However, one does not have this problem regarding a chicken, and therefore it is permitted.

Opinion (cont.): It appears that the strings in the cheek are also forbidden if he did not cut them off originally, as they are also forbidden due to their blood as stated later (133a).

Explanation: Rashi here explains that this is called "inner" because it is swallowed up until it is very close to the bone, while the "outer" one is close to the flesh and is not so swallowed up (this is not our printed explanation of Rashi). He explained this differently in the beginning of the chapter.

Explanation: The Mishnah is referring to regular (forbidden) Cheilev.

Proof #1: Rebbi Yehudah holds that the Cheilev of the Gid is entirely permitted. Accordingly, one cannot say that one is "believed" about it as I have explained.

Proof #2: Additionally, if the Mishnah would be referring to the Cheilev of the Gid, the Gemara should have asked a question on Shmuel, who says that everyone agrees the Cheilev of the Gid is permitted, from our Mishnah that is saying it is forbidden according to everyone.

Observation: It then could have answered that Shmuel meant everyone holds it is permitted according to Torah law, as the Gemara earlier answered in order to defend Shmuel from a question from a Beraisa.

Proof #3: Additionally, the Mishnah should have said "on it and on its Cheilev" if it was referring to the Cheilev of the Gid.

Explanation: Rather, it is referring to regular Cheilev. The argument is as follows. Rebbi Meir holds that they (slaughterer/butcher) are not believed regarding Gid ha'Nasheh because one must dig the Gid out thoroughly, which is tedious. Even though digging out the Cheilev is not as tedious as digging out the Gid, they were stringent that we should not believe him due to it being a stringent prohibition and tedious to dig out. This is why they are not believed.

Explanation (cont.): According to Rebbi Yehudah they are believed regarding the Gid because it only requires being cut off. Even though it is more tedious to extricate the Cheilev than the Gid (according to Rebbi Yehudah), it is not as difficult as it is to extricate the Gid according to Rebbi Meir.

Explanation: This is referring to the Gid, not the Cheilev.

Implied Question: Earlier (89b), when Rebbi Yehudah said (in the Mishnah) that it does not apply to the fetus and its Cheilev is permitted, the Gemara did not ask this question. (Why?)

Answer: This is because the statement, "its Cheilev is permitted" stands on its own, as explained by Shmuel earlier. However, here it is one statement in which the Chachamim say, "And they are believed on it and on the Cheilev." "Believed" refers to both the Gid and its Cheilev, and it implies that Rebbi Yehudah argues on Rebbi Meir in both of these cases.