Observation: It would be better if it said "what is its (singular) law?", for it discusses only a cow that gave birth to a donkey, and not a donkey that gave birth to a kind of cow.

Explanation: Below (7b, the Gemara) infers that urine of a donkey is forbidden, and here we infer that it is a Siman, since it taught sheha'Yotzei (because what exudes), that it gives the reason. [If not,] it should have taught veha'Yotzei (and what exudes).

Implied question: Here R. Shimon expounds "Es", and in Menachos (11b) regarding Levonah, it says that R. Shimon does not expound "Es"!

Answer: We must say that [he expounds it, but] he does not expound it for that Drashah.

Proof: We must say so, since here it does not bring [there] the case of Shimon ha'Amsoni (who used to expound every "Es" in the Torah, and retracted), like it brings here.

Question: Here it implies that the one who expounds Es forbids a cloven [baby born to a Tamei animal], like R. Shimon;

And R. Yosi ha'Gelili expounds "Es" in Bava Kama (41b), for he expounds [about an ox that killed] "Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" from Demei Vlados (compensation for causing a miscarriage), and "Es" [to forbid] benefit from its skin;

And in Chulin (70b), regarding an animal whose fetus died, and R. Yosi ha'Gelili said that in a Tamei (mother) it is Tamei, and in a Tehorah it is Tahor, for it says "v'Chol Holech Al Kapav" - what walks on its soles (its hooves are uncloven, i.e. a Tamei) in a live animal is Tamei to you;

[The Gemara] asks, an uncloven [fetus] in a cloven's womb should be Tamei!

Inference: It was clear to [the Makshan] that according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, we infer that in a Tahor animal it is Tahor!

Answer #1: [The Gemara] prefers to resolve R. Yosi even according to the opinion that a cloven [born to a Tamei] is permitted.

Answer #2: It discusses [there] when the head and majority resemble its mother. R. Shimon agrees that it is permitted.

Assertion: We can infer from here that this is the Halachah, that we do not expound Es, for we hold like Rabanan, who permit an uncloven [born to a Tahor] in Chulin (75b);

Citation (75b): All agree that an uncloven Ben Peku'ah (fetus found inside a slaughtered animal), the son of an uncloven [mother] is permitted [without Shechitah, even if it stepped on the ground]. People remember doubly bizarre things. (They will not think that animals do not need Shechitah.)

Inference: An uncloven [born to a Tahor] is permitted!

Rejection #1: We can reject, that we can establish it when the head and majority resemble its mother.

Rejection #2: We can permit an uncloven [born to a Tahor] from "Hu Tamei", and we establish "Es" to forbid [a Tamei animal's] milk, and "Gamal" was repeated due to the Shesu'ah (a species or mutation that has two backs and two spines), just like Shafan and Arneves were repeated for it, below (6b). We can say the same according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili.

Inference: We can infer from Nidah (37a). We hold that [blood seen amidst] Koshi (prenatal pain) does not Soser [cancel clean days counted towards Taharah from] Zivah. If a Tana is found who says that it is, it is R. Eliezer, and there (35a) it explains that R. Eliezer's reason is because he expounds "Es".

Implied question: In Kesuvos (103a, Rebbi) said "be careful to honor your mother", and the Gemara says that he referred to the father's wife. It asks that also this is mid'Oraisa - "Es Avicha" includes your father's wife!

Answer: [The Gemara] prefers to resolve Rebbi according to everyone.

Retraction: There is no proof from Nidah. Why did [the Gemara] need to say "if a Tana is found who says that it is, it is R. Eliezer"? There are all these Tana'im who expound "Es"! (Rather, only R. Eliezer expounds it for that Drashah. However, Tosfos (Nidah 37a DH Naktinan) says that the Gemara connotes that Rabanan do not expound Es at all. If so, we hold like the opinion that does not expound Es.)

Question: Why didn't [Shimon ha'Amsoni] establish ["Es Hash-m Elokecha Sira"] to include fear of father and mother, for their fear is equated to fear of Hash-m (Kidushin 30b), and [the Drashah causes one who transgresses] to transgress two Lavim?

[This would be] like we say about Tefilin, that there are eight Mitzvos Aseh (four verses command about the hand Tefilin, and four about the head)!

Answer: It connotes to him that [we must include something] similar to fear of Hash-m, and this is impossible;

R. Akiva includes Chachamim, for a Mishnah teaches that fear of your Rebbi should be like fear of Shamayim.

Question #1: If he expounds from ha'Temei'im of Sheratzim, this is difficult, for in Chulin (122b) we establish it [to teach that] its skin is like its meat!

Question #2: And in Toras Kohanim it does not expound it regarding Sheratzim, rather, regarding a Tamei animal, for it says "Temei'im Hem Lachem"!

Observation: However, you are forced to say that he expounds from ha'Temei'im of Sheratzim, like is proven in Chulin (120a) in the Sugya of one who melted Chelev and swallowed it;

It brings this Drashah of ha'Temei'im concerning that Sugya, and asks "the Torah should write about Sheratzim, and we will learn [liability for drinking Chelev, Chametz or Nevelah] from it!" This connotes that we expound from [ha'Temei'im of Sheratzim].

Answer #1: We must say that from the extra Hei of ha'Temei'im he expounds that their skin is like their meat.

Proof: Regarding an animal, about which it is written Temei'im, and not ha'Temei'im, it expounds in Toras Kohanim to forbid their brine and gravy, and we do not include that their skin is like their meat.

Implied question: However, still it expounds another Drashah from ha'Temei'im in Chulin (126b) to forbid the egg of a Sheretz!

Answer #2: There Rashi explained that the extra Hei is expounded for several Drashos - to forbid their brine and gravy, and that its skin is like its meat, and for the egg of a Sheretz. (They are equal, so we can expound all of them. In Answer #1, we learn from the Hei only that their skin is like their meat.)

Inference: Brine is [forbidden] mid'Oraisa, since the Gemara asks "why is milk different than brine?" This shows that it is an absolute Drashah.

Support: Also in Chulin (120a) it says that [this, and also the Drashos to obligate one who drinks Chelev, Chametz or Nevelah,] are needed.

Question #1: In Avodah Zarah (40a), regarding Safek Tamei fish, it distinguishes between one who dips in its brine and [the fish] itself!

Question #2: In Chulin (99b), R. Yehudah says that brine of [Tamei] fish, one Revi'is [mixed] in two Sa'im [forbids the mixture]. It asks that R. Yehudah holds that Min b'Mino is never Batel, [and answers that] brine is an exception, for it is a mere Zei'ah (sweat). This implies that it is [forbidden only] mid'Rabanan!

Answer: Brine of [Tamei] fish is mid'Rabanan. Brine of Sheratzim is mid'Oraisa.

Implied question: Also in Toras Kohanim we expound about fish "Sheketz Hu Lachem" to forbid their brine, gravy and Kipah (thick gravy with bits of flesh).

Answer: "Their brine" is a mere Asmachta.

Implied question: In Chulin (112b), regarding Rav Mari, who salted Shechutah (Kosher meat) with Tereifah (it absorbs brine of the Tereifah), and Rava forbade due to ha'Temei'im. [The Gemara] challenges [Rava] from Tahor fish salted with Tamei fish (the Tahor is permitted). How can it ask from fish (whose brine is forbidden only mid'Rabanan) to meat?

Answer: [The Makshan] knew that [fish] brine is Asur at least mid'Rabanan.

Support: Also in Terumos (10:8) and in Chulin (99b) it brings that brine of Tamei fish is forbidden. This shows that we permit when they were salted together because they do not absorb [from each other];

It says in some Seforim "this shows that their brine is permitted." The [correct] text does not say so.

Question: Since we need a verse for [brine of a] Sheretz and [of a] Tamei animal, and [of fish], for which there is no verse, is not forbidden mid'Oraisa, how can Rava bring a proof there from ha'Temei'im to forbid brine of a Tereifah?

Question: I already know this from "Mishras", which teaches Ta'am k'Ikur (if one can taste Isur in a mixture, it is forbidden). From here you learn to all Isurim in the Torah (Pesachim 44a)!

Answer #1: The verse primarily comes for their brine. The Gemara is wont to do so (attribute other Drashos to a verse, even though it is not their real source).

Source #1: [We expound] "v'His'alamta" - sometimes you ignore [an Aveidah], and the verse primarily teaches a Chacham for whom it is below his dignity [to carry the Aveidah. The Gemara attributes to it also that a Kohen ignores an Aveidah in a cemetery, or if returning it would cause him a loss more than the Aveidah's value - Bava Metzi'a 30a, Brachos 19b].

Source #2: Also in Chagigah (4a) it says "Regalim" excludes people who need a walking stick, and the verse primarily excludes a lame or blind person, and not people who need a cane, which we expound there from "Pa'amim".

Answer #2: Here we need not say so, for we need it for the gravy and Kipah, to teach that a dissolved [Sheretz] is like it itself, if he melted a Sheretz. One might have thought that it is like drinking, and it is not included in eating, and eating was written about [Sheratzim]. The verse teaches that it is included in eating it.

There (Chulin 120a) we bring it regarding one who melted Chelev, Chametz or Nivlas Ohf Tahor and swallowed it.

Question: It connotes here that it is needed for brine, to teach that it is considered like the Sheretz itself! It asks from it about milk, that it should be forbidden like brine!

Answer: These (forbidding the brine, and to consider a dissolved Sheretz like a Sheretz) are equal (so we may learn both).

Observation: We could not learn from brine alone that drinking is like eating (since one is liable for the brine), for we could have established it when he solidified it and ate it.

Reference: In Chulin (120a, Rava) says that Kipah is dregs of meat. [Abaye] asked that dregs themselves have Tum'as Ochlim! (The Mishnah says that Kipah joins for Tum'as Ochlim. Rav Papa said that) rather, it is spices (cooked with the meat).

Observation: Here [Kipah] can be either dregs or spices. It comes to teach only that drinking is like eating.

Support: Rashi connotes like this. He explained that it is shreds of meat and leeks at the bottom of the pot.