Explanation: [The Kohen eats Neveilah,] because the Mitzvah is to offer Chatas ha'Of through Melikah [which is not Shechitah].

Implied question: We should ask that he eats [also] Tereifah, for Melikah is from the back of the neck, and he breaks the spinal cord!

Answer: We can say that he holds like the opinion (Chulin 19b) that one [may] move the Simanim (foodpipe and windpipe) to the back of the neck. (He can cut them and kill the bird before breaking the spinal cord, so it is not Tereifah.)

Version #1: The text says "does R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina hold like this?! A Beraisa says that R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina says..."

Objection (R. Chananel): This text is wrong, for R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina is an Amora, and not a Tana!

Version #2: [R. Chananel's] text says "[R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina] holds like R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says that birds need not be slaughtered [mid'Oraisa], and [the Isur of] Chulin slaughtered in the Mikdash is not mid'Oraisa";

Version #2 (cont.): Does R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah hold like this?! A Beraisa teaches...

Disclaimer: The only place we find that [R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah] holds like this is from what he said below (29b) "until when may a man impose Nezirus on his son? Until the age of Nedarim";

There is one version in the Gemara that explains that his reason is in order to train him in Mitzvos. If so, he must say everything we said according to R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina, that birds need not be slaughtered mid'Oraisa, and Chulin b'Azarah is not mid'Oraisa;

Defense (of Version #1 - R. Tam): We need not change the text in Seforim. You are forced to say that R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina in our Sugya was a Tana. He is not the one mentioned in the Gemara as an Amora.

Source: In our Sugya, Reish Lakish said in the name of R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina, and R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina was a Talmid of R. Yochanan;

It says in Sanhedrin (30b) that R. Yochanan gave Semichah to him, and told him "say what you heard." How would Reish Lakish (who became like a colleague of R. Yochanan) say a teaching in his name?

Conclusion: You are forced to say that there were two [Chachamim named R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina].

Explanation: They are the same regarding this law. A male brings a Korban for a Vadai [Aveirah], e.g. Chatas Behemah if he ate Chelev, and the same applies to a female;

This is obvious without a Hekdesh. Therefore, we equate them "just like a male brings for a Safek Asham Taluy, also a female brings for a Safek.

Question: Also this is obvious! The Parshah of Asham Taluy is written regarding a man and a woman, for the entire Torah is written in the masculine [and females are included, unless there is an exclusion].

Answer (Ri): We discuss a male who had Bi'ah with a Zavah. Just like the male brings a Chatas [for the Bi'ah], also the female brings [for Zivah];

Note: Birkas Rosh explains that the Ri found the Drashah difficult. How is Safek Chelev connected to the Parshah of Zivah? The Ri answers that la'Zachar vela'Nekevah equates the Korban for Zivah to the Korban for forbidden Bi'ah. We attribute Korban Bi'ah to the man, and Korban Zivah to the woman.

Just like he brings for a Safek Zavah, also she brings Chatas ha'Of. I.e. he had Bi'ah with her when she was a Safek Zavah. Also a female brings for a Safek, i.e. Safek Zivah,

Observation: We could have said "just like a male...", like we say below. (Birkas Rosh - really, the first two times it says "just like a male" are not needed. It would have sufficed to bring only the last one. All is included in it.)

And just like a male, the same species he brings for a Korban for Vadai, i.e. an animal for a Chatas, he brings for a Safek, an animal for Asham Taluy...

Also a female, the same species she brings for Vadai [Zivah], i.e. Chatas ha'Of, she brings for a Safek, a bird for a Chatas.

Observation: We could have said, just like he brings Asham Taluy for Safek Chelev, he brings for Safek Zivah, i.e. Chatas ha'Of that is brought for a Safek. (The Hekesh could be made to other Chayavei Kerisos. It did not need to be to Bi'ah with a Zavah.)

Explanation: Mid'Oraisa, there are not two Isurim, for the Torah does not obligate Shechitah of birds, and Chulin b'Azarah is not mid'Oraisa.

Question: If it is a real Drashah, how can it say "no. If you will say regarding a male, who has one Isur, will you say regarding a female, who has two Isurim mid'Rabanan"? Also, we do not challenge a Hekesh!

Answer: Surely, the Hekesh is a real Drashah, regarding that there is a solution for a Safek Yoledes to bring Chatas ha'Of;

However, this that the Tana says that it is not eaten, this is a stringency mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, it may be eaten, for Shechitah of birds and [the Isur of] Chulin b'Azarah are not mid'Oraisa. Rabanan were stringent [about them].

Source: According to the opinion that Chulin b'Azarah is mid'Oraisa, and we hold everywhere that Chatas ha'Of is brought amidst Safek, you are forced to say that it is a real Drashah;

This is because Melikah of birds is like Shechitah of Chulin. (It would be forbidden due to Chulin b'Azarah, if not that the Drashah permits it.) This is proven from the entire Sugya. Rashi said so (Kerisus 7a)

Question: How can Rebbi hold that it is for Chinuch? In Chulin (28a), it connotes that he holds that the Torah obligates Shechitah for birds! If so, how may [the Kohen] eat Melikah?!

Answer: According to this version, we must say that he brings [Chatas ha'Of], but it is not eaten, just like Chatas ha'Of brought amidst Safek (Pesachim 28a).

Explanation: Do not bother to check me, for I am a Nazir in any case. If I am a Katan (minor), I am a Nazir due to my father. If I am Gadol, I am a Nazir due to myself.

Now we are thinking that he means "if I am a minor regarding accepting vows, i.e. before I reached the age of Nedarim. If I am an adult regarding accepting vows, i.e. he reached the age of Nedarim."

Therefore, the Gemara asks "granted, according to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who said that even one who reached the age of Nedarim, his father cannot impose Nezirus on him;

This is why he said "if I am Katan... and if I am Gadol, I am a Nazir due to myself", which implies that his father cannot impose Nezirus on him.