Question: Perhaps it comes to permit a Ba'al Mum! It seems that the reason for a Zar according to R. Yochanan is because he learns from a Bamah, and a Ba'al Mum is not permitted on a Bamah, like is proven above (16a);

[The Gemara] asked "you cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah (of a Ba'al Mum and a Tamei), for they are not permitted on a Bamah."

Answer: If we would explain that R. Yochanan's reason is because he learns from Shechitah, even though it is not an Avodah, this would be fine.

Implied question: It is Yered, for a Mishnah (below, 111a) teaches that if one slaughtered a bird inside and offered it outside, he is exempt!

Answer #1: Even so, it is not Metam'ah b'Beis ha'Bli'ah, for we learn below from "Tereifah".

Answer #2: One who slaughtered a bird inside is different. The reason it is not Metamei is because also outside it is not Metamei.

Implied suggestion: Since Shechitah [outside] helps to be Chayav Kares [for Shechutei Chutz], we should say that if a Behemah or bird slaughtered outside ascended [on the Mizbe'ach], it is offered!

Rejection: Obviously, Yered. These are not related, Chiyuv Kares and Lo Yered, to say that if one slaughtered a Behemah or bird outside, because he is Chayav Kares, Im Alah Lo Yered;

Really, we say Lo Yered only when we find something like this Kosher inside.

Implied question: In Me'ilah (2b, the Gemara) equates them! Whenever we say that it is not Metam'ah b'Beis ha'Bli'ah, also Lo Yered!

Answer: That is only when there is something like it Kosher inside. This is from R. Baruch.

Explanation: This is according to R. Shimon, but R. Yehudah holds that Yered, just like [Shechitah or Melikah at] night, Yotzei or [Shechitas Kodshei Kodoshim in] the south, for R. Yehudah does not learn Avodas ha'Dam from a Bamah.

Question: Since it became Kodesh in a Kli Shares, this is called Pesulo b'Kodesh!

Answer: Since its initial Avodah is by hand, and it did not become Kodesh in a Kli Shares at the beginning of its Avodah, it is not considered Pesulo b'Kodesh;

It is unlike Shechitah, for [there] the knife is Mekadesh it.

Implied question: Why do we need a verse for Shechitah of a bird of Kodshim, that it is Metaher from [Tum'as] Neveilah, but regarding Isurei Hana'ah (e.g. Shor ha'Niskal), we do not need a verse that Shechitah it is Metaher from Neveilah?

Answer: These are different. Kodshim [birds], the Heter to eat them is not through Shechitah;

However, Isur Hana'ah (which are Chulin), the Heter to eat them is through Shechitah. Even though now [that they became Asur b'Hana'ah], Shechitah does not permit eating them, in any case it is Metaher them from Neveilah.

Explanation (Rashi): [Regarding birds,] Shechitas Chulin inside, we do not learn from Shechitas Chulin outside, rather, we learn from Shechitas Kodshim inside. (This is not in the standard text of Rashi. Rashi Kesav Yad says so.)

Question: If so, also Melikas Chulin inside and Kodshim outside, we should learn from Melikas Smol and at night, which is improper from improper!

Answer: Since [Melikas Smol and at night] Im Alah Lo Yered, this is called proper.

Question: Even an absolute Neveilah of Kodshim should not be Metamei according to R. Yehudah, for the Isur of Neveilah and Tum'ah does not take effect on the Isur Kodshim!

This is like R. Yehudah expounds in the Gemara, that Nivlas Ohf Tamei is not Metam'ah Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah because it says "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochal Letam'ah Bah" - what is forbidden due to "do not eat Neveilah";

This excludes [a Tamei bird], which is not forbidden due to "do not eat Neveilah", rather, due to "do not eat Tamei."

Strengthening of question: In Chulin (100b), we infer from this [Drashah of R. Yehudah] that [he holds that] Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, regarding R. Yehudah says that [the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh applies] even to a Tamei [animal]!

Answer: Only regarding a Tamei bird, since "do not eat Neveilah" does not apply to its species, rather, due to "do not eat Tamei", we exclude [the Isur Neveilah. Ayeles ha'Shachar - the Torah would not put an Isur on a species if it never applies properly. It can put an Isur on a species, even if sometimes a member already became forbidden, and the latter Isur does not take effect for lashes, rather, only to make one who transgresses a bigger Rasha, to be buried with others who transgressed two Aveiros.]

Support: We must say so in the Gemara regarding Chelev Neveilah;

We do not need Tereifah to teach that Chelev Tereifah is Tahor, and we do not expound 'what is forbidden due to "do not eat Neveilah", to exclude a Tereifah' like we expound regarding a Tamei 'what is forbidden due to "do not eat Neveilah", to exclude a Tamei animal.'

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): It mentions 14 days because we say in Nidah (31a) that there are three partners in [formation of] a person - Hash-m contributes 10 matters, which is as much as his father and mother together (each of them contributes five).

Now we say Dayo (it suffices) to be like his father, from which we learn.

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): According to letter of the law, [the Tana] should have said "Kal v'Chomer to the Shechinah forever", for it is so severe. Rather, he mentioned two [periods] of Hesger (quarantine of a Metzora), for we do not find more than two Hesgeros (for Tzara'as of people).

Support: It says like this in Pirkei d'R. Eliezer "Kal v'Chomer to the Shechinah, two Hesgeros."

Question: It should suffice 13 days, for the seventh day counts for both (the last day of the first Hesger, and the first day of the latter Hesger), like a Mishnah in Nega'im (3:5) teaches "there are not in two Hesgeros less than 13 days"!

Answer: He said 14 like the wording of the verse, because it is written seven days about each Hesger.

Question: We need this like we expound in Chulin (27b) "just like an animal [is permitted] through Shechitah, also a bird [is permitted] through Shechitah";

And R. Eliezer expounds "just like an animal [is slaughtered] from the neck, also a bird from the neck"!

Answer: We expound for everything, for it is a Hekesh, and a Hekesh is not [expounded only] half-way.

Explanation #1: [If a Tereifah can live] it is not Metamei until after it dies, and then it is in the category of a Neveilah!

And if a Tereifah cannot live, it is in the category of a Neveilah!

Source: We cannot explain after death, for it connotes that it comes to be Mechadesh more Tum'ah if it cannot live than if it can live, since it returns and says "and if a Tereifah cannot live, it is in the category of a Neveilah!"

Therefore, Rashi explained that from when it became Tereifah, it became Tamei. To where will the Tum'ah go?!

Objection #1: It is astounding to say so, for we do not find that living beings become Tamei!

And it is obvious in the entire Gemara that a Tereifah is not Metamei in its lifetime, for in Chulin (20b) Ze'iri said "if the neckbone was broken, and the majority of flesh with it, it is Neveilah", but without the majority of flesh, no (it is not Metamei), even though he did Melikah of the first Siman and the neckbone;

It connotes like this there. It asks "[according to Ze'iri,] does he divide (cut the second Siman of Olas ha'Of) on a dead bird?!" (Rava concluded that in Melikah he breaks the neckbone without the majority of flesh. Now we do not say that he divides on a dead bird, even though it is already Tereifah due to the neckbone and the first Siman.)

Objection #2: Also R. Meir, we find in Chulin (57b) that he says that a Tereifah cannot live, for he said that a Siman for a Tereifah is [that it cannot live] 30 days, and he said above that Melikah is Metaher it from its Tum'ah. (Our text there says Rebbi. Mesores ha'Shas there points out that Tosfos' text there said R. Meir.)

If it was Metamei in its lifetime from when it became Tereifah, how does the Tum'ah away through Melikah?!

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): It means as follows. If a Tereifah cannot live, and we discuss when one detached from it meat while it was alive, and ate it, it is in the category of a Neveilah;

This is because meat that separates from it is like what separates from a Mesah. It is Metamei, even though the animal is not Metamei, since it is living now.

Explanation #3: "Iy Tereifah Chayah", i.e. we discuss a live Tereifah, i.e. it is still alive, and he detached a k'Zayis of meat and ate it. [It is not Metamei,] for only a Neveilah was said [that it is Metam'ah b'Beis ha'Bli'ah];

We do not discuss at all the argument about whether or not a Tereifah can live.

Explanation #3 (cont.): "V'Iy Tereifah Einah Chayah", i.e. we discuss a Tereifah that is not alive. It died and became a Neveilah. It is in the category of a Neveilah.

Remark: In Toras Kohanim, the text [in the Reisha] says "Iy Tereifah Einah Mesah."

Objection #1: The wording is awkward. It should have said Iy b'Tereifah Chayah, with [the prefix] "Beis" [to show that we discuss a particular bird]!

Objection #2: It should have said [in the Seifa] "it is a Neveilah" [and not "it is in the category of Neveilah]!