Question #1: This is difficult. Don't we derive that it cannot be missing a limb from the word "Chayos?"

Answer: One cannot say that our Gemara means that we clearly know that a Treifah cannot be brought, as if a bird missing a limb cannot be brought since it is excluded from the word "Chayos," certainly a Treifah cannot be brought!

Question: Even so, I would say that perhaps the Pasuk ("Chayos") is excluding a Treifah, not a bird missing a limb.

Question #2: There is an additional question. This is understandable according to the opinion that a Treifah can live (for another twelve months), as he presumably holds that one would not exclude Treifah from "Chayos."

Question #2 (cont.): The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (5b) asks, "How do we know that a Nochri cannot offer an animal that is missing a limb as a sacrifice (to Hash-m)? This is as the Pasuk states, "from all that is alive." The Torah is stating that one should only offer an animal that is not missing a limb."

Question #2 (cont.): The Gemara (ibid.) asks, "Don't we require this Pasuk to exclude a Treifah? The Gemara answers, a Treifah is excluded from the Pasuk, "to let the seed live." The Gemara continues, "This is only understandable according to the opinion that a Treifah cannot give birth. However, according to the opinion that a Treifah can give birth etc."

Question #2 (cont.): This implies that we exclude a Treifah from the Pasuk, "from all that is living" even according to the opinion that a Treifah can live. The opinion that holds it can give birth certainly holds that it cannot live!

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that even the opinion that holds a Treifah can live can also hold that it cannot give birth, as implied earlier in Chulin (57b). The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (5b) also implies that we cannot say the Pasuk is talking about both a Treifah and an animal missing a limb.

Answer: Since the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (5b) is referring to the continuing existence of the world, there is no reason to presume it is excluding an animal that is missing a limb. Rather, it is clearly excluding a Treifah that even though it can still live, it will not live much longer. However, here one can say it is referring to both a Treifah and an animal missing a limb.

Answer (cont.): According to the opinion that a Treifah can still live it is illogical to exclude Treifah, since we can say instead that it is referring to an animal that is missing a limb. Alternatively, it is possible to differentiate between the implications of "Chai" and "Chayos."

Question: This is difficult, as it is also derived from the teaching of Tana Dvei Rebbi Yishmael. Since it is forbidden from benefit, it is not called "from what is drunk (i.e. permitted for consumption) by (a) Yisrael."

Answer: It is possible that we only exclude things from the Pasuk, "from what is drunk by a Yisrael" if it is similar to Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem that never were permitted to be consumed, as stated in Menachos (6a). Therefore, these birds would be able to be used for sacrifices (if not for the derivation in our Gemara). There is no problem with them being forbidden from benefit, as Mitzvos are not considered benefit.

Question: Study is required regarding a person who transgressed by dedicating an animal from an Ir ha'Nidachas as a sacrifice, and he indeed brought it as a sacrifice. The question is whether this is a valid sacrifice, since it was supposed to be burned.

Question: It requires study to understand how this implies that they are kosher birds.

Question: According to Rava, why do we require the Pasuk "Chayos?"

Answer: Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak are not arguing on each other. Each merely holds that a different Pasuk excludes this.

Observation: It must be that these birds can also be brought as sacrifices.

Proof: Otherwise, we should derive from Tana Dvei Rebbi Yishmael that they are forbidden! (See Tosfos #2 above.) This is why the Gemara states that they were switched for Avodah Zarah.

Observation (cont.): However, birds that were worshipped are obviously forbidden, as they are not fit to be brought as atonement.

Text #1: The following text is also found in an old Sefer: "Doesn't the Beraisa state that if the chick is a Treifah he is liable?" The Gemara understands at this point that the chick is a Treifah. The Gemara's answer is, "It means a chick whose mother was a Treifah."

Text #2: However, this is not understandable according to the Sefarim that have the text, "chicks that are Treifos." (It is less understandable to answer that what is meant is "chicks whose mothers are Treifos.")

Explanation: The question is whether this is a Chatzitzah and therefore he can take the bottom eggs before sending away the mother bird, or if it is not a Chatzitzah and therefore he cannot take the eggs on the bottom row before sending away the mother bird, as stated later.

Question: This is difficult. When the Gemara earlier says that one is still obligated even though the mother is on layers of branches, what is the case?

Question (cont.): If the bird is not even touching the chicks at all, what is the Gemara's answer here that even if the mother bird is on top of them he is exempt if she is not touching them, and this is the case of the layers of branches? This implies that if she is touching the chicks from the side, one should ask that one is obligated to do Shiluach in the case of the layers of branches earlier, even though the bird is not touching the chicks at all!

Question (cont.): If the Gemara earlier meant that one is only obligated when the mother bird is touching the chicks from the side, what does the Gemara mean when it says later that we require the case of hovering as it is exempt even though it is touching, since its wings are touching the nest from the side? Since the wings are touching from the side, one should still ask that the case of layers of branches should be stated, and we would certainly know that if it is hovering one is obligated!