Implied Question: The Gemara in Zevachim (49b) establishes that we see from here that we do not teach something learned from a Hekesh by making another Hekesh in order to teach it regarding a different topic.

Implied Question (cont.): This is because the Yoseres and both kidneys (being offered as limbs on the altar) are derived regarding the goat brought for idolatry from the Par Helem Davar of the public. This law regarding the Par Helem Davar is derived from the Par Kohen Moshiach. (This would seem to be a lesson derived through a Hekesh that is taught to another subject.)

Implied Question (cont.): The extra Pasuk, "Like that which is taken" stated by the Par Kohen Moshiach is as if it was stated regarding Par Helem Davar (includng the Yoseres and both kidneys), in order to avoid having this teaching regarding the goat of Avodah Zarah be a Hekesh derived from a source which itself is derived using a Hekesh. (Tosfos is asking how Rebbi Yanai can derive Cheilev having Meilah from this Pasuk if the Gemara in Zevachim requires it to teach that we do not derive a Hekesh from a Hekesh.)

Answer #1: Rebbi Yanai holds like the opinion in Zevachim (41b) that the source for the Yoseres and both kidneys being limbs placed on the altar for a goat brought to atone for idolatry is the Pasuk, "And he will do for the Par etc."

Answer #2: Alternatively, Rebbi Yanai's teaching here is an Asmachta. This is apparent from the Gemara in Meilah (15a) where Rebbi Yanai says that one is only liable for Meilah on Hekdesh animals, not for sacrifices which have parts that are going to be eaten by the Kohanim and is owner.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara (ibid.) asks questions from many Mishnayos on Rebbi Yanai, and establishes that Rebbi Yanai agrees that there is Meilah for sacrifices according to Rabbinic law. The Gemara asks, doesn't Rebbi Yanai have a Pasuk stating this? This refers to the fact that "All Cheilev" includes limbs. The Gemara answers, it is only an Asmachta. This means that the derivation in our Gemara is also an Asmachta.

Implied Question: The Mishnah in Kerisus (13b) states that a person can eat and be liable for four Chataos and one Asham. (This implies that there is Meilah by Kodshim!)

Answer: It is possible to say it is referring to an Olah (which is not eaten). Even though its skin goes to the Kohanim it still has Meilah, as all of the meat is put on the altar.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asked that in Meilah (12b) we say that if someone bloodlets for animals of Kodshim, one transgresses Meilah for using the blood. This implies that one can transgress Meilah for using blood of Kodshim!

Answer: He answered that when the animal is alive it is possible to have Meilah, as it is not currently atoning (or about to atone) for a sin. However, after it is slaughtered, even before it atones one cannot do Meilah.

Question: The Mishnah in Meilah (11a), quoted in Pesachim (22a), says that one cannot originally do Meilah with blood. However, once it goes out to Nachal Kidron one can do Meilah!

Answer: The Meilah mentioned is only according to Rabbinic law.

Question: If so, why does the Gemara in Meilah (12b) have trouble finding a case of Meilah according to Rabbinic law? It should simply quote this Mishnah in Meilah (11a)!

Answer: The Gemara (12b) is referring to Kodshim slaughtered in the south of the Azarah, as it is akin to them being strangled. The Gemara has difficulty finding cases such as this, where the Rabbanan instituted Meilah even though people refrain from benefiting from these animals. The Gemara brings proof from Rebbi Yochanan who says that Kodshim that died do not have Meilah according to Torah law.

Question: In Temurah (32b), regarding someone who is Makdish an Olah to Hekdesh, the Gemara asks that if it is a Rabbinic law, how can the Mishnah say that it is possible to do two different forms of Meilah? What is the Gemara's question? The two Rabbinic Meilos are in the blood and in Kodshim that died!

Answer: Since there is Meilah according to Torah law regarding an Olah, the Rabbanan did not institute Meilah mid'Rabbanan. This is because people refrain from using it already.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara answers that the Mishnah means it is appropriate to have two forms of Meilah. There is Meilah according to Torah law in the meat, and there is Meilah in the skin according to Rabbinic law. Since there is no Meilah in the skin and therefore people will come to misuse it, the Rabbanan instituted Meilah for the skin.

Question: On the contrary, we should not exclude before atonement from Meilah, as there is no item that has not had the Mitzvah done with it, and yet Meilah does not apply!

Answer: We do find many cases like this. For example, the ashes of the Terumas ha'Deshen only have Meilah when the Terumas ha'Deshen is done, and the Eglah Arufah only has Meilah when it is taken to Nachal Aisan.

Question: The Mishnah in Me'ilah (11b) says that one may not benefit nor transgress Me'ilah with the ashes of the inner altar and the Menorah. The Gemara asks, it is understandable regarding the outer altar, as the Pasuk says, "And he will place it." However, how do we know this regarding the inner altar? This implies that we see from this Pasuk that there is no Me'ilah. In our Gemara the opposite is true, as this Pasuk seemingly implies that there is Me'ilah!

Answer: The Mishnah there implies that there is no Me'ilah regarding the ashes of the inner altar, as when the ashes are taken away there is no Me'ilah. However, before the ashes are taken away, there is Me'ilah. If so, it is clearly a Mitzvah to take the ashes away (from the inner altar).

Answer (cont.): Regarding this, the Gemara in Me'ilah (ibid.) asks that it is understandable there is a Mitzvah to take away the ashes of the outer altar, as the Torah explicitly states, "And he will put it." Even so, there is still Me'ilah after the ashes are taken. This is as we derive in Temurah (34a), "And he will put it - gently, so it should not scatter (and people will end up using it)."

Answer (cont.): However, how do we know that it is a Mitzvah to take away the ashes of the inner altar, which is the basis for saying that after it is taken Me'ilah does not apply? The Gemara answers that the Pasuk says, "And he will take away its gizzard and throw it towards the place of the ashes." If we do not need this Pasuk to teach us regarding the ashes of the outer altar, as the Pasuk already states, "And he will put it," it must be teaching etc.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara there replies, we do need this Pasuk to teach the location where the ashes of the outer altar are taken, and this Pasuk states, "to the east."

Observation: The Gemara in Me'ilah (11b) discusses this at greater length than does our Gemara, but has the same conclusion as our Gemara.

Question: This is difficult, as one should be enough. The same difficulty applies to the Gemara earlier regarding the goats (113b).

Question: This is difficult, as for Nosar and impurity we should only require one exclusion, as we derive laws one from the other using a Gezeirah Shaveh "Chilul-Chilul" even in a lenient fashion, as stated in Zevachim (45b)! (Accordingly, let it be said by one and we will derive that it also applies to the other through the Gezeirah Shaveh!)

Explanation: Since the Mishnah earlier (77a) says regarding placentas that they do not become impure as if they were food nor as if they were Neveilah, the Mishnayos continue by discussing skin and sludge.

Implied Question: There are other Mishnayos stated since the Mishnah regarding placentas. (Why wasn't our Mishnah stated immediately following that Mishnah?)

Answer: This is because the Mishnah stated beforehand (74a) that if someone finds a live nine month old fetus in a slaughtered animal, it requires slaughtering before it can be eaten and one transgresses Oso v'Es Beno if they slaughter it on that day. Accordingly, the Mishnayos started discussing Oso v'Es Beno.

Answer (cont.): Since the Mishnayos started discussing slaughtering that is not appropriate (in connection with Oso v'Es Beno), it started discussing the covering of blood. Once it started discussing regarding the covering of blood that it applies only to undomesticated animals and birds, it started discussing Gid ha'Nasheh that applies to animals and not birds.

Answer (cont.): Since it started discussing a thigh that was cooked with its Gid ha'Nasheh and therefore absorbed prohibited matter, it started discussing all matters regarding meat (that was cooked, with milk etc.). After it was finished, it got back to what it was discussing originally.

Explanation: Some explain in the Gemara that this means "Martika." Rashi explains this refers to the sinews of the neck.

Implied Question: The Mishnah did not say sinews without saying Martika (he'Alal). (Why say Martika if it is a type of sinew, and sinews are already stated in the Mishnah?)

Answer: I would have thought that since Martika is hard it does not combine, as it is (unlike and therefore) not included in the category of other sinews. If the Mishnah would only say Alal, I would think that other sinews even combine to create Tumas Neveilah.

Explanation: The Gemara explains that this refers to a place (on the horns) where if it is cut, it will bleed.

Text #1: We do not have the text, "And nails" as these are only relative to birds, and the Mishnah is not discussing birds as is evident from its omission of beaks. Beaks are discussed in the Mishnah (Taharos 1:2) quoted in our Gemara later (121a).

Text #2: It is possible that the text, "And nails and beaks" should be in our Mishnah, as it does not discuss these items in other Mishnayos in this chapter (the Tiferes Yaakov says this must be the intent of Tosfos).

Explanation: Regarding nails, the Gemara explains that it is referring to the part of them that is sunk into the flesh.

Implied Question: The Mishnah does not discuss hooves. (Why not?)

Answer: It is possible that even the part of hooves that are not sunk into the flesh have more of a connection to the flesh than do nails.

Implied Question: There is no need to say that the Beraisa is referring to a source that the peel/skin acts as part of the item to make it impure (when the impure item only touched the peel/skin). (The Tiferes Yaakov explains that as the Beraisa does not clearly say it is talking about a Shomer, perhaps it is referring to it helping make it pure or impure. How does the Gemara know otherwise?)

Answer: We derive this from Yad (i.e. a "handle" of something), as the Gemara concludes, "We need it for combining."

Implied Question: The Gemara in Kesuvos (111b) says that wheat kernels are buried "without clothing." (The Beraisa says it is planted with its peel!)

Answer: The Gemara in Kesuvos (ibid.) means that even when it is planted without its peel it ends up having many "garments."

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk to teach this? We cannot derive that it should be a Shomer from seeds, as they have greater impurity, as the Gemara asks later.

Answer: I would think to include it from the inclusion of "it will become impure."

Question: The Gemara in Pesachim (33b) states that grapes that were made impure should be stomped in amounts smaller than the size of an egg (at a time). This is because the Gemara holds that juices gather inside the grapes, and do not become impure together with the grapes. Why don't they become impure when the impurity touches the peel of the grape due to the laws of Shomer?

Answer: This is because they are not considered juices until they exit the grape.