Clarification: This cannot be compared to the Gemara in the second Perek of Zevachim, 18a & 18b, where we learn Shesuyei Yayin with a Gezeirah-Shavah "Chukah" "Chukah" from Mechusar Begadim, which in turn, we learn from the D'rashah 'Ein Bigdeihen Aleihen, Ein Kehunasan Aleihen'. And likewise all the cases there by whom the Torah writes :ve'Lo Yechal'lu", which we Darshen 'Ha Avdu, Chil'lu', and which we then learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Chilul" "Chilul" from Terumah.

Implied Question (Part 1): Yet with regard to separating Terumah from bad on to good, where we do not learn the Din of Misah from "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah, Rebbi Ya'akov from Orleans explains that this is because it is a 'Davar ha'Ba min ha'Kelal'.

Implied Question (Part 2): One needs to clarify however, as to what makes this a 'Davar ha'Ba min ha'Kelal' more than the other cases.

Implied Question #2: In Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (Chulin, 85a & 85b) Rebbi Shimon permits a Chulin Tereifah that is Shechted in the Azarah, and declares it Mutar be'Hana'ah, because it is not a Kasher Shechitah. And he learns it from a Gezeirah-Shavah from "u'Tevo'ach Tevach ve'Hachein", even though 'Zaevichah' is not mentioned specifically in connection with Chulin ba'Azarah', and we only learn it from an inference - 'be'Richuk Makom Atah Zove'ach, ve'I Atah Zove'ach be'Kiruv Makom'?

Answer: This is not considered 'min ha'Kelal', since the Torah writes "ki Yirchak Mimcha ha'Makom", and we learn from "u'Tevo'ach Tevach ve'Hachein" that it is referring to a Kasher Shechitah, and with regard to a Kasher Shechitah we extrapolate 'Ha be'Kiruv Makom, Lo!'

Implied Question: Similarly, at the beginning of Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos, 55a) regarding Ha'ara'ah, where the Gemara learns Chayvei Asei such as a Mitzri and an Edomi, by whom the Torah writes "Dor Shelishi Yavo, with a Gezeirah-Shavah 'Bi'ah' 'Bi'ah', even though we only learn 'Bi'ah' from the inference 'Ha Dor Sheini, Yavo'?

Answer: That is also no problem, since we learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah of 'Dor Shelishi Yavo' that the Bi'ah there is Ha'ara'ah, following which we extrapolate that by Dor Sheini Ha'ara'ah is forbidden.

Question: The Gemara ought rather to have learned Ba'al-Mum from Nosar, since it is preferable to learn Chilul de'Yachid ("ve'el ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Yigash ki Mum bo ... ve'Lo Yechalel es Mikdashi") from Chilul de'Yachid ("Ki es Kodesh Hash-m Chilel"); whereas by Terumah the Torah writes "ki Yechuleluhu" (see Maharsha) - and the Gemara said earlier that it is preferable to learn Chilul de'Rabim from Chilul de'Rabim'?

Atempted Answer: And if you will say that it is better still to learn one P'sul ha'Guf from another P'sul ha'Guf ...

Objection: Then earlier, when we learned Tamei she'Shimesh from Terumah, and we asked that we should rather learn it from Nosar, we should have answered 'because P'sul ha'Guf is preferable' and not because of Chilul de'Rabim?

Objection Overruled: Because here it is preferable to learn one P'sul ha'Guf of Avodah from another P'sul ha'Guf of Avodah.

Question: All of the earlier cases which we did not preclude, since they are cases of P'sul Tum'ah that are similar to Terumah and Tevel, even though Terumah is not a P'sul Tum'ah ...

Answer: They are nevertheless more comparable to Terumah than the current ones.

Question #1 (Part 1): The Gemara in the last Perek of Makos, 13a, implies that someone who benefits from Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is subject to Malkos, since the Gemara there lists Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh that have not been redeemed. Why is that, seeing as we learn them from Terumah, we should include only things the Kedushah of which, like Terumah, is Kedushas ha'Guf ...

Question #1 (Part 2): ... like we find in Zevachim in Perek Beis Shamai, 45b, where we learn that the Kodshim of Nochrim are not subject to Me'ilah, since we learn Kodshim "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah, and by Terumah the Torah writes "B'nei Yisrael" - 'and not of Nochrim'.

Question #1 (Part 3): And the Gemara continues 'When does that speak, by Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, they are subject to Me'ilah'; and the Gemara ascribes this to the fact that when we learn Me'ilah "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah, it is confined to Kodshim that are similar to Terumah - which are Kedushas ha'Guf, but not to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, which are Kedushas Damim?

Partial Refutation: One can partially refute the proof from Makos - that it is speaking about Kodshei Mizbe'ach that became blemished and that are subject to redemption.

Question #2: There is however, a Kashya from Me'ilah, Perek ha'Neheneh, 18b, where the Gemara precludes Mechubar (something that is attached) from Me'ilah, because we learn it from Terumah, which proves that we learn Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis from Terumah?

Answer: It is specifically there (regarding Mechubar) that it needs to be similar to Terumah, because the Torah writes "la'Hashem" to include it, so we can only learn what is similar to Kedushas ha'Guf (but not Bedek ha'Bayis).

Implied Question: ... and even though it is Rebbi Yossi there who makes this D'rashah ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, the Rabanan too, accept the D'rashah to the extent that we do not learn Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis from Terumah (See also Temurah 3a DH Mai Terumah).

Clarification of Text: DH 'Hachi Garsinan: 've'Itzrich Lemichtav "Makeh Ish Vameis", ve'Itzrich Lemichtav "ve'Ish ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh". Not like the text that appears in the Sefarim, that reads "Kol Makeh Nefesh" ...

Source: ... seeing as in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah, 44b & 45a) we learn that someone who murders a one day-old baby is Chayav, and the Gemara learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Ish ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh" - 'Nefesh Kol-D'hu'.

Clarification of Text: There are some texts that read 'Ishah, Lo!'

Implied Question: Even though the Torah generally compares a woman to a man ...

Answer: ... that is only there where the Torah speaks in the masculine, but there where it writes specifically "Ish", it comes to preclude women, as Tosfos already explained in Perek Arba Misos (earlier on Daf 66a) regarding someone who curses his father and mother.

Question: Then how does one pay for the babies, seeing as one is Chayav Misah?

Answer #1: We would have thought that here is different, as it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that there where he did not intend to kill the babies, he is obligated to pay, as we find according to Rebbi, according to whom the Pasuk "Venasata Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" means Mamon.

Answer #2: Alternatively, even though one is Chayav for killing a Nefel after it is born, one is not Chayav before it iss born.

Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara is speaking about weakening the person in a way that is incurable; Otherwise, the term Nezek would not apply, only Sheves ...

Clarification (Part 2): Similar to where one strikes a person's hand and it shrivels up temporarily, but will eventually be cured.

Clarification (Part 3): And by an animal the four things (Tz'ar, Ripuy, Sheves and Boshes) do not apply

Tosfos already explained this in Perek ha'Nisrafin (79a, DH 'Bein')

Clarification: We do not find the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon regarding 'Mekalkel ba'Chaburah' and 'Mekalkel be'Hav'arah' either in a Mishnah or in a Beraisa.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): In Perek ha'Oreg (Shabbos, 106a & 106b) Rashi 'pushes' to learn it from the Machlokes of 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah'. According to Rebi Shimon, who holds Patur, there is no Chovel and Mav'ir who will not fall under the category of Mekalkel, and even burning wood for cooking purposes will be considered Mekalkel as far as the wood is concerned.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): The fact that he is Mesaken in other regards is not significant according to Rebbi Shimon, since it is a 'Melachah she'Enah Tzerichah le'Gufah', in which case, when the Torah declares Chayav Chovel and Mav'ir, since it needs to specifically permit Milah, and since it forbids the burning of a bas Kohen, Mekalkel mus be Chayav ...

Explanation #1 (Part 3): ... whereas Rebbi Yehudah who holds that 'Melachah she'Enah Tzerichah le'Gufah' is Chayav, will establish the Chiyuv of Chovel where he needs it for his dog, and that of Mav'ir, where he needs the ashes. Consequently, even though it is Mekalkel regarding the Melachah itself, it is Mesaken regarding others.

Explanation #1 (Part 4): According to Rebbi Yehudah, in such a case it is considered a Melachah due to the Tikun in other regards ...

Explanation #1 (Part 5): ... but Mekalkel which is not Mesaken is Patur (Up to here is the wording of Rashi).

Conclusion: It emerges that, according to Rashi, when the Gemara says in Perek ha'Oreg, ibid., 'Tani Rebbi Avahu Kameih de'Rebbi Yochanan "Kol he'Mekalk'lin Peturim Chutz me'Chovel u'Mav'ir". Amar leih "Puk t'ni li'Bera, Chovel u'Mav'ir Einah Mishnah!", the wording of Rashii implies that R. Avahu holdas like R. Shimon, and R. Yochanan, who requires 'Tzarich le'Kalbo' and 'le'Afro', like R. Yehudah.

Question #1: But this is a Kahya! Because if that is so, why did Rebbi Yochanan tell Rebbi Avahu to 'learn his Beraisa outside? Just because he holds like Rebbi Yehudah, is that a reason to silence somebody who holds like Rebbi Shimon - in the same way as the Gemara asks in the first Perek of Chulin, Daf 15a?

Question #2: Furthermore, if 'Tzarich le Kalbo u'le'Afro' is considered a real Tikun, then why mention specifically Chovel and Mav'ir (see Hagahos Maharshal)?

Question #3: Moreover, even Chovel and Mav'ir require 'Tzericha le'Gufa, as our Sugya concludes regarding Chovel, and in Perek Safek Achal (Kerisos, 20b) regarding Mav'ir?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that Rebbi Avahu and Rebbi Yochanan are arguing according to Rebbi Shimon ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... Rebbi Avahu holds like Rebbi Shimon, as the Gemara states in Perek ha'Oreg (Shabbos, 106a), whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, even Rebbi Shimon requires a small Tikun.

Explanation #2 (Part 3): Only according to Rebbi Yehudah this is not considered enough of a Tikun to be Chayav, since one does not normally wound a fellow-Jew to give blood to one's dog, or to burn a hay-stack to obtain ashes.

Source of Dispute #1: And the Machlokes of Mekalkel ba'Chaburah between Rebi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon is either based on a tradition, or it is a Beraisa that is learned somewhere (of which we are unaware).

Question: And in case you will ask that, according to Rebbi Avahu, since there is no Tikun, how will we ever have a case of 'Tzericha le'Gufah'?

Answer (Part 1): We will find it in a case of Isur Hana'ah, where the perpetrator thinks that he is permitted to have Hana'ah and to give it to his dog.

Answer (Part 2): And Mav'ir too, speaks by Isurei Hana'ah, where he thinks that he is permitted to cook a certain dish.

Source of Dispute #2 (Part 1): And regarding Mekalkel ba'Chaburah, one can prove (Rebbi Shimon's opinion), from the Mishnah in Pesachim in Perek Eilu Devarim (Daf 72b & 73a & 73b), which states 'And all other Korbanos that one Shechted as a Korban Pesach, if they are not fit, one is Chayav'. And the Gemara states there 'Who is the Tana that draws a distinction between what is fit and what is not fit? It is Rebbi Shimon! And the Gemara earlier established the case where he erred, from which we can extrapolate that 'Mis'asek' is Chayav ...

Source of Dispute #2 (Part 2): And we say in Perek Safek Achal (Kerisos, 19b) - with reference to someone who performed Milah on Shabbos - 'Leave the children, since Mekalkel ba'Chaburah is Chayav, Mis'asek is also Chayav!' Consequently, seeing as Rebbi Shimon declares Mis'asek ba'Chaburah Chayav, he also holds Mekalkel ba'Churah is Chayav.