Observation: However, Kadosh is said by the Serafim. This is as the Pasuk says, "Serafim stand over Him etc." and after this the Pasuk states, "And this one calls to the other and says, Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh etc."

Observation: Every day we say in the blessing of Yotzer (ha'Meoros), "And the Ofanim and Chayos ha'Kodesh etc." because the Chayos also say Baruch, as they are holier than the Serafim.

Proof: The fact that the Chayos and Ofanim say Baruch is also indicated by the Pasuk, as after the Pasuk of Baruch it states, "And the sound of the wings of the Chayos touching is like a woman to her sister, and the sound of the Ofanim in contrast sounds like a very loud sound" (Yechezkel 3:13).

Proof (cont.): Generally, it is always implied that the Ofanim go wherever the Chayos go, as the Pasuk states, "And when the Chayos go, the Ofanim will go next to them, and when the Chayos are raised off the ground the Ofanim will be raised" (Yechezkel 1:19). The Pasuk also states, "The spirit of the Chayah is in the Ofanim" (Yechezkel 1:20).

Question: We learn according to this explanation (above) that Chayos and Serafim is not the same thing. However, the Gemara in Chagigah (13b) asks that one Pasuk says, "six wings for one" while another Pasuk says, "four wings for one." What is the Gemara's question? The Pasuk about six wings is referring to Serafim, and the Pasuk regarding four wings is referring to Chayos!

Answer: The Gemara understands that they should not have a different amount of wings.

Answer (cont.): We similarly find that the Gemara in Yoma (72b) asks that one Pasuk states, "And you should make for yourself an Aron from wood" while another Pasuk says, "And they will make an Aron out of Atzei Shitim." Despite the fact that the Pesukim are discussing two different Aronos, it would seem that each should be made by the same people (either "you" or "they").

Answer (cont.): We similarly find in Bava Basra (99a) that according to the opinion that the Keruvim face each other, the Gemara asks that the Pasuk says, "And their faces were towards the house (i.e. wall)." The Gemara asks a question from the Keruvim of Shlomo on the Keruvim of Moshe since one would think that they should not be different in this regard.

Question: Why do they argue regarding the Gid of a fetus but admit regarding the Cheilev of the fetus?

Answer: This is because it is not called Cheilev, as it is not something that is supposed to be offered on the altar. This is as the Gemara stated earlier (75a), "Just as Cheilev and the two kidneys stated regarding an Asham are not included regarding a fetus etc."

Implied Question: The Gemara had to quote Rebbi Elazar's statement. (Why? Don't we see they argue without it?)

Answer #1: Without Rebbi Elazar, I would think that when the Beraisa said "its fat" it meant the fat of the Gid and not the Cheilev of the fetus.

Answer #1 (cont.): It therefore quotes Rebbi Elazar to show that they each base this on their previous opinions. This indicates that they are basing their opinion on both Gid and Cheilev on their respective opinions (regarding whether or not it requires slaughtering).

Answer #2: Additionally, if Rebbi Elazar was only discussing the Gid, he should have said his statement on the Mishnah.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rebbi Meir's opinion is not mentioned in our Mishnah. (Why would we expect him to explain Rebbi Meir's opinion by commenting on a Mishnah where Rebbi Meir does not appear?)

Answer: Even so, it is possible to understand Rebbi Meir's opinion from the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah (which does appear in our Mishnah).

Answer #2 (cont.): Rather, he said it on the Beraisa in order to show that they argue regarding everything they are discussing, as regarding Cheilev as well they follow their opinion (regarding whether or not it requires slaughtering).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Cheilev that is high and the Gid that appears on the Shofi should be cut out and thrown away due to Maris Ayin, in order that he should not appear to be eating the Gid. However, the source and the roots of the permitted fat and the Gid are permitted.

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to this, they are not arguing regarding its Cheilev. Both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah hold that wherever the Gid is forbidden, the Cheilev is also forbidden.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Certainly this is a good question on Shmuel who says that everyone agrees its Cheilev is permitted. Here we see that even Rebbi Yehudah who is lenient forbids its Cheilev!

Question: However, the language is difficult. It says, "Rather, it refers to the Cheilev of the Gid. Don't they argue?" This implies that according to Rebbi Yehudah, even where the Gid is forbidden the Cheilev is permitted, as stated by Shmuel (unlike 1. above). Only Rebbi Meir argues (that it is forbidden).

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that "cutting it out" refers only to the Gid, not to its fat.

Implied Question: The Gemara later wants to establish that the Beraisa that says that the fat of the Gid is permitted but Bnei Yisrael, who are holy, have a custom to forbid it is according to Rebbi Yehudah. This is despite the fact that Rebbi Yehudah did not say "cut it out" regarding anything besides the Gid. (Why would he forbid the fat?)

Answer: This is because the fat is dependent on the custom, and wherever they were stringent they kept this stringency. This is as the Gemara states in Nidah (66a) regarding the stringency of Rebbi Zeira to have seven clean days.

Explanation #3: Alternatively, it is possible that when Rebbi Yehudah says, "cut it out" it is also referring to the fat. This fits well with the Gemara later that says the Beraisa is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.

Explanation #3 (cont.): However, according to Rebbi Meir one would think it should be forbidden according to Torah law, as he says that one must cut it out and uproot it, as he says that one must cut the fat out from its origins.

Explanation #3 (cont.): The Gemara concludes that the Beraisa is according to Rebbi Meir. However, Rebbi Meir does not hold that it is forbidden according to Torah law, but rather it is a custom of Yisrael who are holy. Rebbi Yehudah holds it is completely permitted.

Implied Question: The Mishnah states that the Chachamim hold he is believed about this and the Cheilev. (This implies that the Cheilev of the Gid is forbidden!)

Answer: This is referring to Cheilev in general, and not the Cheilev of the Gid. Since it is totally permitted according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is not possible to say it should require believability. I will explain this later (93b, DH "Ne'emanin") with Hash-m's help.

Explanation: The argument regarding whether Gidim have positive taste and the argument between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah regarding cutting out the Gid ha'Nasheh is unlike the argument between Rav and Ula.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, Rav holds that the argument among the Tanaim regarding whether Gidim have a positive taste is regarding the Kenokenos (offshoots of the Gid). However, everyone agrees that the Gid itself is like wood.

Explanation (cont.): Rav certainly holds like the opinion that the Kenokenos do have taste. According to the opinion that they don't, there would be no difference between the Gid and the Kenokenos.

Explanation (cont.): Similarly, the argument between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah regarding cutting out the Gid, and the Tana who argues on Rebbi Yehudah by saying that the Torah only forbade what is on the femur, Rav will say that all of this is discussing the Kenokenos (not the Gid itself).

Explanation (cont.): Ula understands that all of these arguments are regarding the Gid itself and not the Kenokenos. Everyone agrees the Kenokenos are permitted, as the Torah said the Gid is forbidden, not the Kenokenos. Ula certainly holds like the opinion that there is no taste in Gidin, as he says it is like wood.

Opinion: The Sheiltos of Rav Achai Gaon in Parshas Vayishlach says that even though the Gemara says Ula's opinion is logical, we forbid the Kenokenos according to Rabbinic law. This implies that according to Ula, they are even permitted according to Rabbinic law.

Opinion #1: The Gemara implies that the law is that the fat in the groove in the kidney is permitted, and one only must cut out the fat outside the kidney. Rashi also writes that one who is lenient has not lost out.

Opinion #1 (cont.): The Sheiltos in Vayishlach only quotes the lenient opinion, not the stringent opinion. His text is that Rabah cut it out, not Rava, as if it would be Rava the law would be like Rava, as the law is always like Rava when he argues with Abaye. In all of the Sefarim, the text indeed is Rabah.

Opinion #2: However, Rashi writes regarding the fat in the kidney that one should follow the stringent opinion to uproot it, as the Halachah was not established to follow Abaye.

Opinion: One who is stringent should be stringent, and one who holds back from being stringent has not lost out.

Implied Question: Regarding fat that the meat covers, Rashi implies that it is obviously permitted. This is despite the fact that regarding the fat in the groove in the kidney he did not clearly rule that it is permitted.

Answer: Perhaps he understood that everyone holds like Shmuel who says that when meat covers the fat it is permitted.

Implied Question: A reason is needed why the two cases (the fat in the groove and fat covered by the meat) should be different.

Implied Question (cont.): If we derive that the Torah said "on the walls" indicating that the fat in the walls is permitted, why don't we also derive that the Pasuk, "on the kidneys" excludes fat that is in the kidneys?

Implied Question: Even though the strings in the Cheilev are forbidden according to Rabbinic law, it is more understandable to decree they should be forbidden due to the Cheilev (they are in) than saying the Cheilev in the kidney should be forbidden.

Opinion #1: Our Gemara contradicts the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer from Metz who said that fat that is on the diaphragm is forbidden, even after the membrane is taken off of it.

Proof: This is apparent from the Beraisa in Toras Kohanim that says, "for whoever eats Cheilev from the animal that they will offer from it etc." This only teaches that Cheilev of animals without a blemish is forbidden, as they are fit to be offered on the altar. How do we know that the Cheilev of animals with a blemish is forbidden? The Pasuk teaches, "from the animal." How do we know the Cheilev of regular animals (not dedicated to be a sacrifice) is forbidden? The Pasuk says, "for whoever eats Cheilev."