Clarification (Part 1): This Pircha does not go like Rebbi Yossi, who says in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Zevachim 69a) in a case of 'Malak ve'Nimtzeis T'reifah, that Melikah does not remove the Tum'ah of Neveilah, since it is only Shechitah that renders the animal Tahor (but not Melikah) ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... but goes according to Rebbi Meir, who says there that Melikah renders it Tahor, too.

Implied Question: The Gemara could just as well have established the author as bar Kapara ...

Answer: ... only it prefers to establish the above Mishnahs like Rebbi.

Question #1 (Part 1): Rabeinu Efrayim queries Rebbi here (who holds that a bird requires Shechitah min ha'Torah) from the Gemara in Perek Mi she'Amar ... (Nazir 29b), where, regarding a certain Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan there, the Gemara establishes that both opinions attribute a father's right to declare his son a Nazir to Chinuch (education ['K'dei Lechancho be'Mitzvos'], which is only mi'de'Rabbanan) ...

Question #1 (Part 2): ... in which case, according to Rebbi, the Kohen will be eating Melikah (which is Neveilah, whenever the bird is not Kodshim min ha'Torah)?

Precedent: ... since the Gemara there earlier asked the very same Kashya on those who hold 'K'dei Lechancho be'Mitzvos' ('ka'Achil Kohen Melikah?'). And the Gemara there answers that this opinion holds 'Ein Shechitah la'Of min ha'Torah'.

Conclusion of Question (Part 1): ... but according to Rebbi (in our Sugya), that answer will not hold water. Consequently, the Kashya remains on him ...

Implied Question: Why can the Kohen simply not pull the Simanim round and move his nails backwards and forwards (thereby performing Shechitah on the bird)?

Answer: Because, according to Rebbi, it will still be Neveilah, since, based on the Pasuk "Vayikach es ha'Ma'acheles", he holds that Shechitah must be performed with something that is detached (thereby disqualifying a fingernail).

Question #2: And besides, the opinion that permits the Kohen to pull the Simanim round whilst performing Melikah, forbids moving his nails backwards and forwards ...

Reason: ... because otherwise, there is no way of explaining the Mishnah in the first Perek (19b) 'It transpires that what is Kasher by Shechitah is Pasul by Melikah', in which case (as far as Shechitah is concerned) it will be (Pasul because it is) 'Doreis'.

Answer #1: The Gemara in Nazir is merely a Dichuy (pushing off the proof), to say that there is no proof from the Beraisa there that whether it is a Halachah by Nazir or in order to educate him in Mitzvos, is a Machlokes Tana'im. In actual fact however, Rebbi must hold that it is a Halachah by Nazir, seeing as he holds that a bird requires Shechitah min ha'Torah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he really does hold 'K'dei Lechancho ... ', and, although the father brings a Chatas ha'Of (on behalf of his son), the Kohen does not eat it ... .

Source: ... like we find by a Chatas ha'Of that comes on a Safek (which is brought but not eaten).

Gematriyah (Acronym) #1: Some commentaries Darshen the acronym of "Ka'asher": 'Alef' - Echad be'Of; 'Shiyn' - Sh'nayim ba'Beheimah; 'Reish' - 1. Rubo shel Echad Kamuhu, 2. Rov Echad be'Of; 3. Rov Sh'nayim ba'Beheimah.

Gematriyah (Acronym) #2: The first letters of 'Rubo shel Echad Kamohu' backwards) spells "Ka'asher".

Clarification: Rashi explains that one needs to examine the Simanim, in case the Kaneh (the wind-pipe snapped or the Veshet (the esophagus) has a hole.

Question: What difference does it make if we attribute the blood to a dog or to a cane (and not to a cat), seeing as the Kaneh needs to be examined anyway?

Answer #1: The difference lies in the fact that, if we attributed it to a cat, one would need to examine the entire inside of the animal, even though the visible flaw is confined to the area of the Simanim.

Answer #2: Alternatively, regarding Safek D'rusah, it will be T'reifah even if the Simanim turned slightly red, as the Gemara will state later (on Daf 54a) that the Shi'ur D'risah of the Kaneh is a Mashehu, because the cats venom burns its way through.

Answer #3 (Part 1): The Riva explains that our Sugya is talking about a Safek D'rusah (and not Nekuvah [see Maharam]), which explains why the Gemara says that 'the Veshet can only be examined from the inside' - which is in turn, because the redness of a D'rusah is not discernable on the outer red skin of the Veshet ...

Answer #3 ( Part 2): ... whereas by a Nekuvah, the Veshet can be examined even from the outside (since it is discernable)..

Proof: ... and thus it is implied in 'Eilu T'reifos' (Daf 43a) where the Gemara establishes the ramifications of Rabah's ruling that a Veshet requires examination from the inside and not from the outside, to a Safek D'rusah, but does not mention a Safek Nekuvah.

Question: Furthermore, the Gemara says there that the Veshet has two skins; If one of them has a hole but not the other, the animal is Kasher. Now if the inner skin is holed but not the outer one, how will we know this, if not for the fact that the Veshet is not subject to an external Bedikah, even as regards a hole?

Refuted Answer: And to answer that it speaks where the inner skin is holed due to an illness, whereas the outer skin bears no sign of any illness is a Docheek

Question: (From here until the end of the Dibur is a note - Maharsha). Rebbi Elchanan asks that, if the Veshet can be examined from the outside, why does the Gemara ask how Rebbi Meir could possibly eat meat? Why can we not answer that he would eat after an external examination?

Answer #1: There must therefore be some sort of illness where the skin turns red like a D'rusah, and which cannot therefore be examined from the outside.

Answer #2: Alternatively, what the Gemara means is, that even if you say that he would not eat before performing a Bedikah, the Kashya will remain with regard to eating Pesach and Kodshim, where it is impossible to part the skin (in order to examine it), since there is no bigger blemish than that?

Implied Question: In Perek Eilu T'reifos (Daf 44b) in the case of a wind-pipe that was brought before Rav, and which he examined via the majority of its width ...

Answer #1: ... the Gemara refers to it as a majority, even though it is really only a half.

Answer #2: ... But according to the Gemara's conclusion (where everybody agrees that half is not considered a majority), it works out even better.

Clarification: Even Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who holds in the second Perek of Bechoros (17a) 'Efshar Letzamtzem', concedes that, in the case of an earthenware vessel 'I Efshar Letzamtzem', as the Gemara explains there, seeing as it contain holes.

Halachah #1: One can prove from here that le'Halachah we say 'Efshar Letzamtzem' specifically in matters that are bi'Yedei Adam (man-made) ,...

Source (Part 1): ... seeing as the Amora'im argue over a case of 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah', and in the first Perek of Eruvin (15b), over 'Parutz ke'Omeid' ...

Source (Part 2): Now if we were to hold 'I Efshar Letzamtem', how could they possible permit it mi'Safek; seeing as, even the one who rules Asur, that is only because of the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai 'Shecht the majority!' and 'Fence the majority!'

Halachah #2: In cases of bi'Yedei Shamayim however, it appears that the Halachah is 'I Efshar Letzamtzem' ...

Source #1: ... since the Gemara in Perek Arba Achin (Yevamos 28a) queries Rebbi Yochanan, who said that he did not know who learned the Mishnah of 'Achyos' - Why can we not establish the author as Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili? And it answers that there is no S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who holds 'Efshar Letzamtzem! (by Dinei Shamayim)'.

Source #2 (Part 1): And in Perek ha'Zorek (Gitin 78a) where, regarding the Mishnah which rules 'Megureshes ve"Einah Megureshes', in the case of a Get which is Safek Karov leih and Safek Karov lah, and which, after establishing where they both enter the vicinity of four Amos of the Get simultaneously, the Gemara asks 've'Ha I Efshar Letzamtzem' ...

Source #2 (Part 2): ... that too, is like bi'Yedei Shamayim, since it is unlikely that they intended to arrive within the four Amos at the same time.

Question (Part 1): At the beginning of Eruvin (5b) with regard to the Din of a Lechi (an upright plank) that extends from the wall of the Mavoy, where Rav Ashi says that even if it speaking about a Mavoy of eight Amos, Mah Nafshach, if the part that is standing is more, then it is permitted because of "Omeid Merubeh", whereas if the breached part, then it has a Din of a Lechi. What will you then say, that the two parts are equal? That is a Safek de'Rabbanan, and in a Safek de'Rabbanan, we are always lenient ...

Question (Part 2): ... This implies that it is impossible to assess and verify the matter (even though it is bi'Yedei Adam)?

Answer: In fact, it is possible to clarify and to measure, only with a lot of effort, and the Rabbanan did not trouble them to measure mi'Safek, since, whether the Omeid is more or the Parutz, there is no suspicion of Isur, only when they are exactly equal, and that is something that is not common.

Refuted Question: We cannot ask on Rav Ashi that, even if the two are equal, it should be permitted, since we Pasken 'Parutz ke'Omeid Mutar' ...

Refutation: ... because Rav Ashi refers specifically to Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, who confines the case there by a Mavoy of seven Amos, which is permitted by 'Omeid Merubeh al ha'Parutz', and Rav Huna b'reih de'Rav Yehoshua holds that 'Parutz k'Omeid Asur!'

New Explanation (Part 1): ha'Rav Shimon used to explain that both Amora'im here and in the Sugya of 'Parutz k'Omeid' could well hold 'I Efshar Letzamtzem' even bi'Yedei Adam, and they are arguing over where we think it is Mechtzah al Mechtzah ...

New Explanation (Part 2): The one who permits it, it is because a. we assume that he Shechted the majority, and b. even if they are in fact, equal, the Torah's requirement is not to leave over the majority ...

New Explanation (Part 3): ... whereas the one who forbids it holds that a. We assume that he left the majority not Shechted, and b. even if they are in fact, equal, the Torah's requirement is to Shecht the majority.

New Explanation (Part 4): According to this explanation, the case of Safek Divreihem Lehakel fits better, since it is impossible to assess accurately.

Question (Part 1): This implies that by a Safek d'Oraysa, it is forbidden due to the suspicion that they are equal, even though if the Omeid was more than the Parutz or vice-versa, it would be permitted.

Question (Part 2): But, in our Sugya, it is permitted even by an Isur d'Oraysa, because the Heter is more common than the Isur, as it is in the case of 'Parutz ke'Omeid'. In that case, in the case there of Lechi, it ought to be permitted too, even though it is a Safek d'Oraysa?

Answer: It therefore seems that in the case there that one needs to suspect that the eight Amos are not exactly eight Amos, in which case even if the Parutz is more than the Omeid, it will have a Din of Lechi. Consequently, it is only by a Safek de'Rabbanan that we can be lenient.

Question (Part 1): The problem with Rabeinu Shimon's explanation however, is from the Gemara in the second Perek of Bechoros (17b), which extrapolates from the case there where a corpse is found between two cities, that bi'Yedei Adam Efshar Letzamtzem

Question (Part 2): Why can we not say there too, that even if we say 'I Efshar Letzamtzem' the Rabbanan will nevertheless agree that one brings two claves, since each town will bring one 'Mah Nafshach', because a. Perhaps it is the closest, and b. because even if they are exactly the same distance, the Torah writes 'ha'Kerovah', implying even 'K'rovos'?

Statement: This problem is non-existent according to the first explanation, because, since we hold 'I Efsher Letzamtzem' it is not possible for them to be exactly the same distance, one of them must be closer, in which case, they will be Yotzei with one calf and a condition that it will cover whichever town is the closer.

Answer (Part 1): According to Rebbi Shimon too, one will be Yotzei with one calf over which one makes a condition, Mah Nafshach, because if it is the closer one, then it is Yotzei with it, and if it is the one that is further away, then it is bringing it on behalf of 'its friend'.

Answer (Part 2): What will you say? Perhaps the two are equidistant? That is unusual and so we don't need to contend with it.

Conclusion: There is nothing more to say here; However, in Eruvin (5b DH 've'Safek'), Tosfos will elaborate. In fact however, they elaborate more in Succah (15b DH 'Parutz ... ') and in Bechoros (17a DH 'Efshar').