Objection (against Conclusion 3:i:5, 69b): We do not need "Treifah" to exclude Tamei animals (regarding Chelev). "Chelev Neveilah" refers to animals whose Chelev is forbidden due to Chelev, and not due to eating a Tamei species!

Answer #2 (to Question 3:i): Rather, "Treifah" (in the verse of Chelev) includes (R. Tam's text - excludes) Chayos;

Version #1 (our text, Rashi): One might have thought that the Torah is Metaher Chelev only in animals whose Chelev is forbidden and whose meat is permitted, but not in Chayos (whose Chelev and meat are permitted). "Treifah" teaches that this is not so.

Version #2 (R. Tam): "Treifah" teaches that the Torah is Metaher Chelev only in animals whose Chelev is forbidden and whose meat is permitted, but not in Chayos.

Objection #1: Why don't we say that the verse teaches about Tamei animals (whose meat and Chelev are both forbidden)?

Objection #2: (The verse regarding Chelev says) "v'Achol Lo Sochluhu" (surely, this does not apply to Chayos, their Chelev is permitted; R. Tam - therefore, "Treifah" is not needed to exclude them)!

Answer #3 (Abaye): Rather, "Treifah" (simply) is Metaher Chelev of a Treifah;

One might have thought that since it is forbidden while alive, like a Tamei animal, its Chelev is Tamei. "Treifah" teaches that this is not so.

Objection #1: Likewise, we should need "Treifah" regarding Nivlas Of to teach that a Treifah has Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah;

One might have thought that since one may not eat it, like a Tamei bird, it does not have Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah.

Objection #2: We cannot learn Treifah, which once was (potentially) permitted (it could have been slaughtered before it became Treifah), from Tamei, which was forbidden from birth!

(Attempted answer): "Treifah" is needed for a Behemah (or bird) born Treifah. Since it was forbidden from birth, we could learn from Tamei!

Rejection: Even this case we cannot learn, for within the species of (Tahor) Treifos are Behemos (or birds) born Kosher, which were once permitted, unlike Teme'im.

Answer #3 (Rava): "Neveilah" teaches that when an animal becomes a Neveilah, the Isur of Neveilah is Chal (takes effect) on the Chelev (even though the Chelev was already forbidden). "Treifah" teaches that the Isur Tereifah is Chal on the Chelev.

The Torah must teach both;

Had it said only "Neveilah", one might have thought that it is Chal on the Chelev, because Neveilah is Tamei, but Treifah is not Chal on it;

Had it said only "Treifah", one might have thought that it is Chal on the Chelev, because Treifah is Chal on live animals, but Neveilah does not take effect on it.

Question: How does R. Meir expound "Treifah" (in the verse of Nivlas Of)?

Answer: It excludes a bird slaughtered in the Mikdash (even though one may not eat it, it is not Metamei).

It says "Treifah" twice regarding Nivlas Of. R. Yehudah expounds one of them like R. Meir, and the other to teach that a slaughtered Treifah is Metamei.

R. Meir uses the other "Treifah" to exclude a Tamei bird.

R. Yehudah excludes a Tamei bird from "Neveilah" (for it is not forbidden due to Neveilah, rather, because it is a Tamei species).

Question: How does R. Meir expound "Neveilah" (regarding Nivlas Of)?

Answer: It teaches that one becomes Tamei after eating (the amount for which one is liable for eating Treifah, i.e.) a k'Zayis.

Question: We already know this, for one of the verses discusses one who eats Nivlas Of, and eating always refers to a k'Zayis!

Answer: We need to learn that it must be eaten within Kdei Achilas Pras (the time to eat half a loaf the size of six or eight eggs. Opinions of this range from two to nine minutes);

One might have thought that since Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah is a Chidush, it applies even if it was eaten slower. The Torah teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa): "V'Chelev Treifah v'Chelev Neveilah (is Tahor)" discusses a Tahor animal.

Suggestion: Perhaps it discusses a Tamei animal!

Rejection: The Torah teaches that Shechitah is Metaher, and that Chelev is Tahor;

Just like it is Metaher Shechitah only of Tahor species, it is Metaher Chelev only of Tahor animals.

Question: Perhaps we should learn differently! The Torah is Metaher Neveilos (this will be explained), and it is Metaher Chelev;

Just like it is Metaher Neveilos only of Tamei species, it is Metaher Chelev only in Tamei species!

Conclusion: It would not be clear which way to learn, therefore the Torah needed to say "Treifah", i.e. animals in which Treifah applies. This excludes Teme'im.

Suggestion: We should not exclude Chayos, for Treifah applies to them!

Rejection: "V'Achol Lo Sochluhu" - the Torah discusses animals whose Chelev is forbidden and whose meat is permitted, but not Chayos, for their Chelev and meat are permitted.

Question (R. Yakov bar Ada): (The Beraisa says that the Torah is Metaher Neveilos only in Tamei species.) This implies that the Neveilah of a Tahor Behemah is Teme'ah, but that of a Tamei Behemah is not!

Answer (Rava): Also others misunderstood this. The Beraisa (n:3:i) means that the Torah is Metaher Neveilos only of Tamei species of birds (but not of Tahor species).

(R. Yochanan): R. Meir is Metaher Melikah of a Tam (unblemished) bird, but not of a Ba'al Mum;

(R. Elazar): He is Metaher even a Ba'al Mum.

(Rav Bivi citing R. Elazar): He is Metaher even a Ba'al Mum, even a chicken or goose (which is invalid for a Korban).

Question (R. Yirmeyah): (According to Rav Bivi) if a goat was Arufah (beheaded, instead of a calf, where a corpse was found), does it become a Neveilah?

Perhaps Melikah is Metaher chickens and geese, for they are birds, just like Torim and doves, to which Melikah applies, but goats are small animals, which is a different classification than calves (cattle are large (work) animals);

Or, perhaps it suffices that also goats are animals!

Question (Abaye): The question assumes that an Eglah Arufah is not a Neveilah!

Answer: (Rav Dimi): Yes! Regarding Eglah Arufah it says "Kaparah", like it says regarding Kodshim. (We learn from Kodshim birds. When they are killed according to Halachah, even if this was not Shechitah, they are Tehorim.)

Question (Rav Noson, father of Rav Huna - Beraisa): "(The Chelev is Tahor, but) v'Achol Lo Sochluhu" refers to animals whose Chelev is forbidden to eat, but one may benefit from it;

Question: What is the source to include Chelev of a Shor ha'Niskal or Eglah Arufah?

Answer: "Kol Chelev" includes these.

Summation of question: If Eglah Arufah is Tahor, why must we learn from a verse that its Chelev is Tahor? We would never think that it is Tahor and its Chelev is Tamei (just the opposite of regular animals that died without Shechitah)!

Answer #1: Indeed, if the calf was Arufah (like it should be), the verse is not needed;

The verse teaches about the case when it was slaughtered.

Rejection: If it was slaughtered, it is Tahor (so surely, also its Chelev is Tahor)!

Answer #2: Rather, the verse teaches about when it died without Shechitah.

Inference: Since a verse is needed to teach about this case, it must be that Eglah Arufah is forbidden when it is alive (otherwise, it would be like a regular Neveilah)!

Confirmation: This is correct!

(R. Yanai): I was taught the time when it becomes forbidden. I do not remember it.

(Rabanan): Presumably, when it is taken to the Nachal Eisan it becomes forbidden.