Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'If already Tzara'as, which overrides the Avodah, and the Avodah overrides Shabbos ... '.

Question: But Rava does not hold of this Kal-va'Chomer, since in Perek Rebbi Eliezer de'Milah (Daf 132:) he maintains that the reason that Tzara'as overrides Avodah is not on account of the Chumra of Tzara'as, but because the man is not fit?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Chananel explains the Kal-va'Chomer as 'If Ochel Nefesh overrides Yom-Tov, even though thirteen Covenants were not made on it ... '.

Question: One can query this however in that 'Whereas Ochel Nefesh is a passing Mitzvah, seeing as the following day it will no longer apply ... '?

Explanation #3: The Ri therefore learns that one can make a Kal-va'Chomer from Nedarim and Nedavos which override Yom-Tov, even though thirteen Covenants were not made on them ... '.

Explanation #3 (concl.): And Rava holds that one may bring them on Yom-Tov.

Refuted Pircha: One cannot ask that 'Whereas Nedarim and Nedavos are for the needs of Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu ... ', as the Gemara asks in Perek Rebbi Eliezer (Ibid. 131.) with regard to the Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

Refutation: Since they Nedarim and Nedavos) are not considered a Chovah ...

Refutation (cont.): Indeed, even Chata'os and Ashamos are not called the needs of Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu, seeing as someone who has not sinned is not obligated to bring it.

Clarification: It seems that Rava holds like Rav Ashi, who considers Yom-Tov an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh, and that is why he needs the Kal-va'Chomer.

Clarification (cont.): Because if not for the Kal-va'Chomer, it would not be necessary to prohibit it.

Support: And this is implied in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 8:), where the Gemara asks (in connection with 'Eifer Kirah is prepared for Vaday ... ') 'When all's said and done, Yom-Tov is (also) an Asei, and an asei cannot override an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh?' Therefore Rava said .. '

Support (concl.): Implying that Rava holds that Yom-Tov is an Asei (as well).

Conclusion: And now "Levado" is not needed for burning Kodshim.

Conclusion (cont.): As a matter of fact, Rava mentions it in Perek R. Eliezer ... Im Lo Heivi (Daf 133.) ..

Conclusion (cont.): And the Gemara mentions it here in connection with the burning of Kodshim, which are automatically excluded.

Conclusion (concl.): And Rav Ashi does not come to argue with Rava; He merely gives his own reason with reference to Kodshim and even to Milah as is implied in Perek Im Lo Heivi, since he does not hold of the Kal-va'Chomer.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to the sinews in the neck.

Refutation: The Riva however, does not agree, since it is implied that now they are completely soft like meat.

Refutation (cont.): And even Resh Lakish only renders them Pasul because of the end.

Refutation (concl.): And above he concluded 'Only it is obvious that it speaks about the sinews in the neck!' - implying that they trend to become Nosar, and are unfit to eat, like bones.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that it is referring to the sinews in the spinal cord.

Explanation #2: Whereas 'the soft sinews' mentioned in the Beraisa speaks about the sinews in the Basar, which everybody agrees are like Basar.

Clarification: It transpires that Rebbi Yochanan only goes after now with regard to a part of a large ox that can be eaten when it is well-cooked.

Question: What is Resh Lakish now querying Rebbi Yochanan? Why does he not rather ask on himself, seeing as from the Beraisa it is evident that regarding a part of a large ox that can be eaten when it is well-cooked we go after now?

Answer #1: Resh Lakish holds that the Roshei Kenafayim (the cartilaginous tops of the forelegs) and the Sechusin (the cartilages) are considered more like Basar than the sinews.

Answer #1 (cont.): And he queries Rebbi Yochanan, since the Beraisa does not mention 'the sinews', which would be a greater Chidush.

Answer #1 (cont.): To which Rebbi Yochanan answers that there is no Chidush at all, in that they do not taste so much like Basar, since if they were soft, they would not render it Pasul.

Answer #1 (concl.): Consequently, seeing as they can be eaten when they are well-cooked, one can be delegated on them just like the Roshei Kenafayim and the Sechusim.

Answer #2: Whereas the Rashba answers that, according to Resh Lakish, sinews are not comparable to the Roshei Kenafaym and the Sechusim, because whereas the former will eventually become hard on the kid-goat itself, the latter of a large ox will become hard, but not that of a kid-goat.

Answer #2 (cont.): Consequently, one cannot go after the end, which in the case of a kid-goat and a lamb, will remain soft.

Clarification: This refers to the ruling in our Sugya, as is evident in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin 77.).

Question: The Ri asks that when Resh Lakish asks on Rebbi Yochanan from the case of 'Oroseihen ki'Besaran', why does he not ask on himself, since he holds with regard to Pesach that we go after the end, whereas the Tana goes after now?

Answer #1: Because the skin on the head of a tender calf tastes much more like Basar than sinews do.

Answer #2: The Riva cites the Yershalmi, which discusses the contradiction in Resh Lakish, and answers that Resh Lakish's reason is based on the Pasuk in Sh'mos 12), from which he Darshens "ve'Achlu es ha'Basar" - 've'Lo Gidin'.

Answer #2 (concl.): Consequently, whereas with regard to the skin of the head of a tender calf he goes after now, (according to the Tana) in our Sugya it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (as we just explained).

Clarification: This is not because he Darshens "Bo", 'be'Kasher ve'Lo be'Pasul'.

Reason: Seeing as Rebbi Shimon too explains earlier the opinion of the Tana Kama, who also says "Bo", 'be'Kasher ve'Lo be'Pasul', yet he holds 'that in both cases there is no Isur of breaking a bone.

Conclusion: Only Rav Yosef cannot find a difference between them other than where there was a Sha'as ha'Kosher and it became Pasul.

Question: On what grounds does he consider it Kasher more than fit to eat?

Conclusion: Seeing as anything that is not fir to eat is not Kasher?

Text #1: The text does read 'Yesh bo', because if it did, there would be a Kashya on Rav Yosef and we would not be able to establish 'like four of them'.

Change in earlier Text: There are some who read earlier in the words of Rav Yosef 'According to those who say 'Kasher', it is not Kasher; whereas according to those who say 'it can be eaten', it is fit to be eaten'.

Text #2: According to that, one can establish the text here as 'Yesh bo'.

Refutation: But this text is not correct, since throughout the Sugya, it sooner leaves the realm of fit to eat it than it does the realm of Kashrus ...

Source: Such as a limb, part of which went out of its Mechitzah, which is still called 'Kasher' but is not fit to eat.

Clarification: Te Ri and Riva explain that the Machlokes goes according to Rebbi, who learns in a Beraisa S'tam 'Yesh bo Shi'ur Achilah, Yesh bo Mishum Sheviras Etzem'.

Clarification (cont.): And they argue the same Machlokes as Rav Ashi and Ravina.

Clarification (concl.): But according to the Rabbanan, everyone holds that Sheviras Etzem applies.

Implied Question: And the Gemara asks ;If you say that there is not a k'Zayis of flesh on the Basar at all, why does Sheviras Etzem apply?', even though we could establish it according to the Rabbanan?

Answer: Since they are arguing according to Rebbi, and they hold like him, We establish the Mishnah like him.