Explanation: The Gemara is not asking regarding the practical difference between the opinions of Rebbi Akiva and Beis Hillel, as their argument is clear being that Beis Hillel requires that the fish be dead (before it is able to become impure).

Explanation (cont.): Rather, the argument is between Beis Shamai and Rebbi Akiva, as both of them say it becomes impure while it still is somewhat alive.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara explains that the difference between them is a fish that is "Mekartei'a." This means it is jumping and skipping strongly. According to Beis Shamai it can already become impure, while Rebbi Akiva holds it is pure being that if it would be thrown back in the water it can live.

Explanation (cont.): Mekartei'a is a term referring to something being strong and very alive.

Proof #1: This is as the Aruch quotes from the Yelamdeinu in Behalosecha that once he goes out and sees the candle, he immediately starts to be happy, and he stands and is Mekartei'a in front of it.

Proof #2: "Tadutz D'avah" - "worry skips away" is translated in the Targum as "Katmei Mekartei'a."

Implied Question: Rebbi Yehudah earlier permits the fat of a nine month old that is alive. (How can Rebbi Yochanan argue with Rebbi Yehudah?)

Answer: This is only after it is permitted by the slaughtering of its mother.

Question: What does the Toras Kohanim quoted by Rashi mean when it says, "One might think that this is not punished and forbidden, but rather can be ready to be offered?" The Pasuk, "the fat that is on the intestines" that excludes the fetus is referring to offering it (on the altar as part of) as a Korban! (It is clearly saying not to offer it!)

Answer: It is possible to answer that when the Toras Kohanim says, "not the fat of the fetus" it doesn't mean that this is excluded from the Pasuk, "the fat that is on the intestines." Rather, it is permitted due to the Pasuk, "anything in the animal" and is not considered fat. The Toras Kohanim therefore says that even though the fat being permitted is derived from this Pasuk, perhaps this only means one is not punished and warned about eating it, but it possibly could be something that can be offered on the altar (along with the fats of its mother that are being offered on the altar).

Implied Question: When the Mishnah states that if he tore it apart its fetus (inside of it) requires slaughtering, it is even according to the one who permits. (Doesn't this opinion seem to be against the Mishnah?)

Answer: In our Gemara, it is specifically the opinion that permits the fetus when slaughtered that forbids it when the mother is a Treifah. This is because the slaughtering of a Treifah helps regarding the mother not becoming impure, and it therefore is considered half-slaughtered. Accordingly, slaughtering will not help the fetus. However, in the case of the Mishnah it was not slaughtered at all.

Implied Question: Similarly, we asked earlier (74a) what the law would be if a person stuck his hand into the animal and slaughtered a nine month old fetus. We said that perhaps even according to the Rabbanan the Torah gave four possible Simanim (trachea and esophagus of both the mother and the fetus) to make this animal kosher. This is unlike the case here where we say the Rabbanan would say the fetus is forbidden. (Why?)

Answer: This is because our case where the animal is considered half slaughtered is worse, as we have explained (in b above).

Observation: Even according to Rava who says here that the Torah said four Simanim can make it kosher, we can still ask the question asked earlier (74a). Perhaps only in that case, where the animal did not yet enter the world it should be forbidden even according to Rebbi Meir.

Observation (cont.): We can also say that this question (74a) is according to Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish who argue regarding a piece of forbidden fat ripped off of a live nine month old fetus.

Observation (cont.): Even according to Rebbi Yochanan who says that the months (of the age of the animal) cause it to be forbidden, this only applies if the forbidden fat was ripped off and came into the air of the world. The prohibition of forbidden fat does not apply until it is born, as implied later (103a) and in Kerisus (23b).

Observation (cont.): Even according to Reish Lakish who says that a combination of months and being outside its mother cause it to be forbidden, it is possible that slaughtering it will help when it is inside its mother, just as slaughtering its mother causes it to be considered slaughtered when it is inside its mother.

Question: This is difficult. If Rav Chisda heard a Beraisa to this effect, why didn't he merely quote it as a Beraisa (instead of saying it on his own)? (See the Rashba for a discussion of this question.)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this offspring is as if it only has one Siman to slaughter because of its mother (who was a regular animal), and an animal cannot be permitted by the slaughtering of one Siman.

Explanation #1 (cont.): He also explained that this second Siman (the only Siman of the offspring) does not combine with the slaughtering of its mother/grandmother, as there would be no greater Shehiyah (waiting between slaughtering the two Simanim needed to slaughter an animal, which causes the slaughtering to be invalid) than this!

Explanation #1 (cont.): He also explained that Rav Mesharshiya does not agree with the earlier statement that a fetus has four Simanim which can be used to slaughter it.

Question: This is all unclear. Even if the animal would be permitted with the slaughtering of its one Siman it cannot be permitted, as each Siman is considered half slaughtered. There is no most of a Siman which is required for slaughtering!

Question (cont.): Even if Shehiyah would not be a problem causing it to be unkosher it would not be possible to permit it, being that half of the body of the offspring which is coming from its mother was not slaughtered at all!

Question (cont.): Even the opinion earlier that the Torah gave the fetus four Simanim to cause it to be kosher will admit to the law of our Gemara. This is because in that case the slaughtering of a Treifah is not considered slaughtering. However, here it is as if half of the animal is slaughtered.

Question (cont.): He will also admit to the Gemara earlier (69a) regarding the offspring of this fetus. This indicates that the fetus that leaves the mother cannot be eaten due to slaughtering, as its Simanim are already considered slaughtered, and they can no longer cause the animal to be permitted. According to Rashi's explanation, this entire Gemara cannot be like Rav Mesharshiya.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that he holds like the Rabbanan, he does not forbid an animal stomped upon by a wolf. (Why not?)

Answer: They only decreed that it required slaughtering, as this would be publicized (if it were not slaughtered). However, the fact that it had become a Treifah would not be so publicized (and therefore one can slaughter it after it is a Treifah, despite the fact that he could not eat it without slaughtering mid'Rabbanan).

Observation: Rashi also explains that the animal was no loner able to live, and even so it was permitted. This seems correct, as the Gemara would not mention it was trampled by a wolf for no reason.

Explanation: The point of the Gemara is the continuation of this statement, "Moreover etc." Otherwise, why should we say Rabin's statement has more weight than the statement of Zeiri?

Opinion: This is how we rule, as this was a practical ruling in the Gemara (which has the most halachic weight).

Observation: We rely on this opinion to allow us to light Shabbos candles with all types of oils.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rebbi Shimon Shezuri only says in Shabbos (26a) that one can light with tar and kerosene. (How do we know he holds one can use all oils?)

Answer: If he would hold one can even use tar (but not other fuels), this is the same opinion as that of the Tana Kama (in Shabbos 26a). (The Gemara and Tosfos in Shabbos 26a do not have this text in Rebbi Shimon's statement.)

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that an Am ha'Aretz is scared of a mixture of Terumah and Chulin. Being that the Terumas Ma'aser was already taken, it is more stringent in his eyes when it is mixed into Chulin.

Explanation: There is an argument in the Yerushalmi regarding the reason of the Tana Kama that he is only believed on Shabbos. One opinion is that this is due to the honor of Shabbos (that one can be lenient). The other opinion is that the Am ha'Aretz is scared to lie due to the sanctity of Shabbos.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks that if he is scared to lie due to Shabbos, why does the Mishnah in Dmai (4:1) say that on Motzei Shabbos he should not eat until he takes Ma'aser? The Yerushalmi answers that we suspect that he did not tell the truth on Shabbos. (The Maharsha explains that being that on Motzei Shabbos one can fix the situation, we do not rely on him having told the truth on Shabbos.)

Explanation (cont.): According to the opinion that is due to the honor of Shabbos, why does he have to ask the Am ha'Aretz at all? The Gemara answers that this is in order that he has an answer to rely upon (though it would not normally be accepted).

Explanation (cont.): The Yerushalmi also asks that the Mishnah (ibid.) states that if one asked the Am ha'Aretz during the week, he cannot eat on Shabbos. According to the opinion that one can be lenient due to the honor of Shabbos, why can't he eat on Shabbos (based on this answer, as he has something to rely upon)? The Gemara answers that this leniency is only for those who are accidentally in this situation on Shabbos, not those who plan ahead to be in this situation. This is apparent from the fact that the Mishnah (ibid.) states, "and he forgot to take Ma'aser."