Explanation: The Pasuk quoted in the Beraisa is only an Asmachta.

Question: Being that according to Torah law the limb can be eaten, why did the Beraisa (73a) say, "No. If the slaughtering of a Treifah caused the animal and the limb hanging off of it not to be impure (as a Neveilah) etc." Why would the Beraisa mention the limb hanging off? The limb is even permitted to be eaten according to Torah law (and therefore should not be mentioned as having the same law as the Treifah itself)!

Answer: The Beraisa meant that the limb hanging off is decreed forbidden by the Rabbanan. However, they did not therefore decree that the slaughtering of the animal should not help it become pure (i.e. not Neveilah) as they indeed did regarding a fetus that was not part of the animal.

Question: We still require the Pasuk, as stated later (128b), "One might think that flesh that comes off of Sheratzim should be impure. This is why the Pasuk says, when they are dead. Just as dead means that their body will not rejuvenate new skin etc." (How is our Gemara's answer correct if the two Pesukim of "when they are dead" are already used for other derivations?)

Answer #1: The derivation that they must be like they are dead and this derivation are learned from one Pasuk (as they are similar).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the teaching there is from the Pasuk, "their carcasses." We derive that just as their carcass does not rejuvenate etc. The Gemara said it was from "when they are dead" because it is a more simple way of stating the derivation (even though the actual source is from "their carcasses").

Explanation: This is specifically referring to a fetus that is eight months old. If it would be nine months old it would be like any other animal according to Rebbi Meir, and therefore require Shechitah.

Question: It is somewhat bewildering that this is one entire Beraisa, and yet the questioner in the Gemara knew the first half but not the second half.

Question: The Beraisa in Shabbos (136a) derives from the Pasuk, "to eat it" that the Shechitah of an eight month old fetus does not cause it to be pure (i.e. not Neveilah). Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Elazar the son of Rebbi Shimon say that it does cause it to be pure.

Question (cont.): All of these Tanaim are unlike the Tana of our Mishnah. Even the Tana Kama there implies that if it were not for the Pasuk of "to eat it" I would think that Shechitah does help it become pure (i.e. not Neveilah). According to the Tana of our Mishnah, being that an eight month old cannot be slaughtered (to be eaten), we know from an unkosher animal that its Shechitah will not make it pure either. (Whose opinion matches the Tana of the Beraisa in Shabbos?)

Answer: However, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa here can hold like the Tana Kama there. Being that it is possible to be considered slaughtered if it is in its mother when its mother is slaughtered, it is deemed that an eight month old can be slaughtered. We cannot derive from an unkosher animal (which has no possibility of having a status of being slaughtered). This is why "to eat it" is necessary there, in order to teach that its slaughtering does not cause it to be pure.

Implied Question: However, the Gemara there is unlike the Tana Kama of our Beraisa. Rava there explains that the reason of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Eliezer is that they hold regarding a Treifah that even though it is dead, slaughtering it will take away the impurity of Neveilah. Here, too, there should be no difference.

Implied Question (cont.): The Rabbanan say that this fetus is unlike a Treifah, even a Treifah from the womb (that was born), as these types of animals can have Shechitah (to make them pure). In the case of an eight month old fetus there is no possibility of Shechitah. (If the Mishnah there is not like the Tana of the Beraisa, who is it like?)

Answer #1: Perhaps the Tana of our Mishnah holds that an eight month old does not have slaughtering due to the Pasuk of "to eat it" (and does not derive it from an unkosher animal, allowing him to hold like the Tana of the Beraisa in Shabbos).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Pasuk of "to eat it" that the Tana Kama teaches there (in Shabbos ibid.) is an Asmachta (and therefore he can agree with our Tana Kama).

Proof: According to Abaye there who says that their argument is that one holds it is considered alive and one holds it is considered dead, one must say that it is an Asmachta. Being that it is considered dead, without a Pasuk one would say that slaughtering it does not help.

Text #1: Rashi does not have the text of our Gemara, as it is obviously referring to the fetus. He therefore takes out the text, "rather it is the fat of the Gid (ha'Nasheh)" as we are not discussing an animal, and instead are discussing the fetus.

Text #2: Rabeinu Tam says that one can explain the text of our Gemara as follows. What fat? "If it refers to the fat of the fetus," means the body of the fetus, such as the fat of the kidneys and the intestines, excluding the fat of the Gid ha'Nasheh of the fetus.

Text #2 (cont.): Don't they argue, as Rebbi Yehudah permits the fat and Gid ha'Nasheh of a fetus that is nine months old? Rather, it must be referring to the fat of the Gid ha'Nasheh, as Rebbi Meir only argues regarding the slaughtering of the fetus, but he agrees that the fat of the Gid is permitted.

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier said, "This excludes its fat and its Gid." (We are not saying it only refers to the fat of the Gid!)

Answer #1: The Gemara earlier meant the fat of the Gid.

Answer #2: Alternatively, "and its Gid" refers to the secondary sinews (closer to the meat, see Rashi 92b DH "Kenokenos") that are permitted.

Text #2 (cont.): Rebbi Meir argues and forbids even the fat of the Gid and the secondary sinews of the fetus. This is apparent from the Beraisa that says Rebbi Meir holds the Gid must be taken out "wherever it is." This indicates that it even applies to a fetus. He says that one must cut its fat from its root and "dig out after it" implying that this even applies to the secondary sinews.

Implied Question: When the Gemara answered "the fat of the Gid," it could have countered that Rebbi Oshiya should not have said, "only regarding slaughtering," being that they argue regarding the fat of the kidneys, fat of the intestines, and the Gid ha'Nasheh of the fetus. (Why didn't the Gemara ask this question?)

Answer: It asked a better question instead that there is also an argument regarding the fat of the Gid ha'Nasheh.

Observation: This is also the reason the Gemara did not say that Rebbi Oshiya is excluding its blood that everyone agrees that if a person drinks it they receive Kares, as he said, "only regarding matters of slaughtering."

Text #2: We would have asked, don't they argue regarding its fat and Gid ha'Nasheh? This is why the Gemara explains that Rebbi Oshiya said, "they are only arguing regarding matters of eating (including the fat and Gid)." Oso v'Es Bno is also considered eating.

Explanation #1: One might think that it is worse than an animal that is in its death throes, in which case one who has relations with the animal is liable as stated later (121b).

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the case there is referring to a Jew with an unkosher animal or a Nochri with a kosher animal. However, being that in this case the animal is becoming permitted to eat (and is therefore considered slaughtered), one might think he is not liable. (See Rashash 121b who asks a question on this Tosfos.)

Explanation: Rashi explains that the teaching is based on the fact that an animal cannot be a Korban Pesach if it is taken out of its mother via Caesarean section.

Question: This cannot be the explanation of the Gemara, as if so how could Rebbi Meir say it can be used for Pidyon? We said earlier that according to Rebbi Meir this is a good sheep and one can do Pidyon with it!

Answer: Rather, it is invalid due to the fact that it is considered slaughtered and one cannot redeem with a slaughtered sheep, as stated in Bechoros (12a).