1) WHICH “CHELEV” IS “TAHOR”

(a) Objection (against Conclusion 3:i:5, 69B): We do not need “Treifah” to exclude Tamei animals (regarding Chelev) – we learn from “Chelev Neveilah”, animals whose Chelev is forbidden on account of Chelev, not on account of eating a Tamei species!
(b) Answer #2 (to Question 3:i): Rather, “Treifah” (in the verse of Chelev) includes (R. Tam’s text – excludes) Chayos;
1. 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, this is not so.
2. 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.
(c) Objection #1: Why don’t we say that the verse also teaches about Tamei animals (whose meat and Chelev are both forbidden)?
(d) 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)!
(e) Answer #3 (Abaye): Rather, “Treifah” (simply) is Metaher Chelev of a Treifah;
1. One might have thought, since it is forbidden while alive, like a Tamei animal, its Chelev is Tamei – “Treifah” teaches, this is not so.
(f) Objection #1: Likewise, “Treifah” regarding Nivlas Of should be needed to teach that a Treifah has Tum’as Beis ha’Beli’ah;
1. One might have thought, since it is forbidden to eat, like a Tamei bird, it does not have Tum’as Beis ha’Beli’ah.
(g) 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!
(h) (Attempted answer): “Treifah” is needed for a Behemah (or bird) born Treifah – since it was forbidden from birth, we could learn from Tamei!
(i) 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.
(j) Answer #3 (Rava): “Neveilah” (and “Treifah”, in the verse of Chelev) teach that when an animal becomes a Neveilah (or Treifah), the prohibition of Neveilah (or Treifah) is Chal (takes effect) on the Chelev (even though the Chelev was already forbidden);
(k) The Torah must teach both:
1. If it only said “Neveilah”, one might have thought that it is Chal on the Chelev, because Neveilah is Tamei, but Treifah is not Chal on it;
2. If it only said “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.
(l) Question: How does R. Meir expound “Treifah” (in the verse of Nivlas Of)?
(m) Answer: It excludes a bird slaughtered in the Mikdash (even though it is forbidden to eat it, it is not Metamei).
1. 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.
2. R. Meir uses the other “Treifah” to exclude a Tamei bird.
3. R. Yehudah excludes a Tamei bird from “Neveilah” (for it is not forbidden on account of Neveilah, rather, because it is a Tamei species).
4. Question: How does R. Meir expound “Neveilah” (regarding Nivlas Of)?
5. Answer: It teaches that one becomes Tamei after eating (the amount for which one is liable for eating Treifah,) a k’Zayis.
6. Question: We already know this, for one of the verses discusses one who eats Nivlas Of, eating always refers to a k’Zayis!
7. Answer: We need to learn that it must be eaten within Kdei Achilas Pras (the time to eat half a loaf);
i. 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, this is not so.
(n) (Beraisa): “V’Chelev Treifah v’Chelev Neveilah (is Tahor)” – the verse discusses a Tahor animal.
1. Suggestion: Perhaps it discusses a Tamei animal!
2. Rejection: The Torah teaches that slaughter is Metaher, and that Chelev is Tahor;
i. Just as it is only Metaher slaughter of a Tahor species, it is only Metaher Chelev of Tahor animals.
3. Question: Perhaps we should learn differently! The Torah is Metaher Neveilos (this will be explained), and it is Metaher Chelev;
i. Just as it is Metaher Neveilos only of Tamei species, it is Metaher Chelev only in Tamei species!
70b—————————————70b

4. Conclusion: It would not be clear which way to learn, therefore the Torah must say “Treifah”, animals in which Treifah applies – this excludes Teme’im.
5. Suggestion: We should not exclude Chayos, for Treifah applies to them!
6. Rejection: “V’Achol Lo Sochluhu” – the Torah discusses animals whose Chelev is forbidden and whose meat is permitted, not Chayos, for their Chelev and meat are permitted.
(o) 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 not that of a Tamei Behemah!!
(p) Answer (Rava): Others also misunderstood this – the Beraisa means, the Torah is Metaher Neveilos only of Tamei species *of birds* (not of Tahor species).
2) CAN BEHEADING BE “METAHER” FROM “TUM’AS NEVEILAH”
(a) (R. Yochanan): R. Meir is Metaher Melikah of a Tam bird, not of a Ba’al Mum;
(b) (R. Elazar): He is Metaher even a Ba’al Mum.
(c) (Rav Bivi citing R. Elazar): He is Metaher even a Ba’al Mum, even a chicken or goose (which is invalid for a Korban).
(d) 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?
1. 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, a different classification than calves (large animals);
2. Or, perhaps it suffices that goats are also animals!
3. Question (Abaye): The question assumes that an Eglah Arufah is not a Neveilah!
4. Answer: (Rav Dimi): Yes! Regarding the Eglah Arufah it says “Kaparah”, like it says regarding Kodshim (we learn from Kodshim birds, when killed according to Halachah (even if this was not slaughter) they are Tehorim.
(e) Question (Rav Noson, father of Rav Huna – Beraisa): “(The Chelev is Tahor, but) V’Achol Lo Sochluhu” – this refers to animals whose Chelev is forbidden to eat but is permitted to benefit from it;
1. Question: What is the source to include Chelev of a Shor ha’Niskal or Eglah Arufah?
2. Answer: “Kol Chelev”.
3. Summation of question: If Eglah Arufah is Tahor, why must we learn from a verse – we would never think that it is Tahor and its Chelev is Tamei (just the opposite of regular animals)!
(f) Answer #1: Indeed, if the calf was Arufah (as it should be), the verse is not needed;
1. The verse teaches about the case when it was slaughtered.
(g) Rejection: If it was slaughtered, it is Tahor (so surely, its Chelev is also Tahor)!
(h) Answer #2: Rather, the verse teaches about when it died without slaughter.
(i) 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)! (j) Confirmation: This is correct!
1. (R. Yanai): I was taught the time when it becomes forbidden, I do not remember;
2. (Rabanan): Presumably, when it is taken to the Nachal Eisan it becomes forbidden.