Version #1: This is Rashi's text.

Question #1: What was the question "why is this different than Tamei? Just the contrary, because it resembles Tamei, we need a verse to include it!"

Question #2: What was the question "v'Achol Lo Sochluhu"? Just the contrary, due to this we need the verse of Tereifah, which connotes that anything that has Tereifah in its species, its Chelev is Tahor, and even a Chayah!

Version #2: R. Tam's text says "rather, it excludes a Chayah. What is the reason? [The verse refers to] one whose Chelev is forbidden [and its meat is permitted]." The text does not say "one might have thought..."

[The Gemara] asks why we need a verse to teach that Chelev of a Chayah is Tamei. Why is it different than a Tamei...?

Question: "Tereifah" does not connote to exclude, rather, to include anything that has Tereifah in its species!

Implied question: Shechitah is not Metaher a Tamei. You cannot learn from it to a Tereifah (which Shechitah is Metaher)!

Answer: Chayah is Yochi'ach. (Shechitah is Metaher it, and its Chelev is Tamei.)

Question: According to the opinion that holds that [Isur Chal Al Isur for] Isur Mosif (e.g. initially only the Chelev was forbidden. Now, Neveilah forbids the entire animal), why do we need a verse? (R. Akiva Eiger asks that this is Isur Kolel! Perhaps Tosfos means that Neveilah is Mosif because it forbids the Chelev even to the Mizbe'ach. Mar'eh Kohen says that sometimes the Gemara says "Mosif", and really it is Kolel, and so does our Tosfos. Taharas ha'Kodesh suggests that there is a printing error, and the text should say "Kolel".)

He learns from here to elsewhere [that Isur Mosif is Chal Al Isur].

Rejection: Here is different, for the Isur Chelev is lenient. It is totally permitted [in a Chayah]. Therefore the Isur of Neveilah takes effect on it!

Question: In Chulin (37b) it makes a Kal v'Chomer oppositely! In its lifetime, the Isur Tereifah takes effect on the Isur Chelev. Neveilah, which is after death, all the more so! I explained there (DH u'Mah. The Gemara thought that the Isur Neveilah begins while it is alive and dangerously sick. Tereifah is not Metamei, and it takes effect on the Isur Chelev. Neveilah, which is Metamei after death, all the more so it takes effect on the Isur Chelev! Our Sugya is like the conclusion there, that Neveilah takes effect only after death. In this way Tereifah is more stringent, so there is no Kal v'Chomer.)

Implied question: Why doesn't R. Meir learn from R. Yehudah's source?

Answer: R. Meir holds also elsewhere that Isur Chal Al Isur.

Question: You are forced to say that the Torah needed to write Neveilah, for had it written [only] "Tereifah Lo Yochal Letam'ah Bah", and not written Neveilah, one might have thought that Tereifah without Neveilah is Metamei!

Answer: Since it is written "v'Chol Nefesh Asher Tochal Neveilah u'Tereifah", just like there Neveilah is with [Tereifah], also here Neveilah is with it (it is Metamei only if it is Neveilah).

Remark: It is possible that also R. Yehudah holds like [this Drashah], even though [the verse] is not extra.

Implied question: Why does the Gemara in Chulin (70b) struggle to find that the Neveilah of a Kosher species of Chayah is Tamei? Why couldn't it expound from here, that its Chelev is Tamei? (The verse was Metaher only Chelev of Behemos. Surely, Chelev of a dead Chayah is Tamei due to Tum'as Neveilah!)

Answer: Had we not found elsewhere that the Neveilah of a Chayah is Metamei, we would not expound so [here].

Support: The Mishnah in Taharos (1:1) proves like this somewhat. It teaches that 13 laws were said about Nivlas Of Tahor, and the Seifa teaches "R. Meir says, Melikah or Shechitah [of a Tereifah Nivlas Of Tahor] is Metaher it";

Inference: [The Seifa] refers to all birds, just like the Reisha (the laws of Nivlas Of Tahor).

Implied question: Geese and chickens are not the species of Turim and Bnei Yonah (to which Melikah applies), yet [Melikah] is Metaher them!

Answer: That is unlike here. A calf is a big animal (cattle are used for work), and a goat is a small animal, but big and small do not apply to birds (none are used for work), even though we find in a Mishnah (Chulin 42a) "a small bird" and "a big bird."

Question: Another Mishnah teaches this, in Kinim (2:3)! If a bird from [a group of] Chata'os ha'Mesos flew to any [collection of birds, and it is not known which is the Chatas ha'Mesah, all of them must die!

We must make a Tzerichusa (reason why both are needed) for in the Gemara it asks "this was taught already in our Mishnah of everything forbidden to the Mizbe'ach", and answers that both are needed.

Answer: Perhaps if we had only that Mishnah, one might have thought that birds, which are a small loss [we are stringent about them], but Zevachim, which are a great loss, we do not lose (condemn to die) all of them.

Question (Rivam): In Sanhedrin (79b), a Mishnah teaches that if a murder became mixed with others, all of them are exempt;

R. Yehudah says, we enter them into Kipah (a cell. They die there by themselves);

The Gemara explains that they argue about an ox that did not have a final verdict that became mixed with other oxen that had a final verdict. Rabanan exempt, because we make a final verdict on an ox only in front of it.

Summation of question: Here, most are permitted, and there is a loss of Kodshim, and we say that all of them must die. There, most are forbidden, and it is [a loss to a] person, all the more so [we should say that all must die]!

Answer #1 (Ri): The text says like is found in one old Sefer. An ox that did not have a final verdict became mixed with other oxen. The text does not say that they had a final verdict. Rather, we discuss proper oxen [that never killed].

Objection #1 (R. Tam): Our Mishnah taught "all of them are exempt." This connotes that the others were liable (just we may not kill them)!

Implied question: At the beginning of our Sugya, we say "what are 'others'? If they are Kesherim, this is obvious!" It does not ask "why does it say they are exempt? It should say it is exempt!" (This shows that it is fine to teach "all are exempt" even if only one should have been liable.)

Answer: There, since we can ask from the law itself, [the Makshan] was not particular to infer [and challenge the inference].

Objection #2: Reish Lakish refers to R. Avahu, who answered "here we discuss a murderer who did not have a final verdict that became mixed with other murderers";

Reish Lakish refers to this, and answers that regarding a person, all agree that he is exempt!

Answer #2: Rather, we discuss an ox that did not have a final verdict...

Inference: The same way that R. Avahu established it regarding a person, Reish Lakish established it regarding an ox that had a final verdict;

However, if it became mixed with proper oxen, Reish Lakish would say that we should force them to go away, and each that separates is (assumed to be) from the majority.

Implied question: A Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (74a) says that Shor ha'Niskal forbids a mixture of any amount!

Answer: It discusses when it was stoned, so we cannot say "let us force them to go away."

Proof: It did not teach that it had a final verdict.

Answer #2 (cont.): Our Mishnah here, which taught that all of them die, discusses when it became mixed with Zevachim, and for [offering to] Hash-m. This is a decree, lest 10 Kohanim come at once (and each will take an animal that separated, and offer it, and these 10 will be the majority, so presumably the forbidden animal is among them, and it is as if) they bring from the Kavu'a (what did not separate) on the Mizbe'ach.

However, normally we say that we force them to go away, so they wander [from their Kevi'us].

Consequence: R. Tam derived that we may permit an animal Nidras (clawed) by a wolf (if it became mixed) in a majority (even though the Nidras is Tereifah due to poison in the wolf's claws);

Cases regularly occur in which wolves are Toref and carry a Seh from the herd and a shepherd saves them and [the entire herd] is permitted, even though living animals are important [and are not Batel - below, 73a].

And similarly, many birds are Dores geese and chickens, and they are permitted (even though presumably, some of them were Nidras).

Answer #2 (cont.): There (in Sanhedrin 79b, an ox that did not have a final verdict) became mixed with in a majority that had a final verdict. [Rabanan] exempt even if they wander, and we do not say that each that separates is from the majority...

It does not say that they are exempt and one may benefit from them. Rather, they are exempt that Beis Din does not toil to kill them, for an ox is killed like (with the same conditions according to which) the owner (i.e. a person) is killed (Sanhedrin 79b).

Also, [Beis Din does not kill them] lest the law be confused with that of people (and they kill people in such a case). All agree that people are exempt!