Observation #1: Abaye could have said it can become impure from Neveilah.

Observation #2: Alternatively, it is possible that it is not impure due to Neveilah, as there are many things that become impure due to being food but not due to Neveilah. This is as the Mishnah (117b) states that if someone slaughters an animal for a Nochri and it is in its death throes etc.

Explanation: The case is where he caused the blood to harden by exposing it to the sun, as we explained in Menachos (21a). However, the case is not where he did so through heating it with fire, as we say that one is not liable for cooked blood.

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk for this? Isn't drinking included in eating?

Proof: This is as we derive in Shevuos (23a) from the Pasuk, "And you will eat before Hash-m...Ma'aser of your grain, wine etc." This indicates that consuming wine is deemed eating!

Answer: The Gemara in Shevuos (ibid.) is referring to items normally consumed through drinking, for example wine and oil, whereas our Gemara is discussing things normally eaten that happen to be turned into liquids and drunk.

Observation: The Gemara also could have said that the Torah states that the Mitzvah of Matzah requires eating.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that it is forbidden from benefit. (Why isn't this enough a reason for him to be liable for Kares?)

Answer: Having benefit from Chametz is not punished with Kares, but is rather a regular negative prohibition.

Question: Cheilev also had a time when it was permitted when the animal was in its mother's womb.

Proof: Even Rebbi Yochanan who states earlier (75a) that if someone detached Cheilev from a live nine month old animal in its mother's womb it is forbidden because its maturity causes the Cheilev to become forbidden will admit that if it was only eight months old the Cheilev is permitted.

Answer: The Chametz, as it is now, was once permitted and never changed afterwards. However, the Cheilev never became permitted again after it entered the world.

Question: Rabeinu Shmuel from Vardun asks that Rebbi Yosi does not worry about this question in Pesachim (23b), and he considers Cheilev not permitted from its usual status of being forbidden. This is as the Gemara states there that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili holds we are discussing an animal, and animal Cheilev is not permitted.

Question (cont.): One cannot say that the question according to him would be that Chametz is different as it is forbidden from benefit, as Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili holds that Chametz is permitted for benefit as stated there in Pesachim (ibid.).

Answer: According to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili it is clear that "Nefesh" teaches us something else.

Explanation #1: This is because Neveilah, as it is now, never had a time when it was permitted.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, when it was alive it was forbidden due to Aiver Min ha'Chai. Even according to the opinion that it was made to be cut into limbs (and therefore there is no prohibition of Aiver Min ha'Chai on the animal until a limb is cut off), there is a prohibition (while it is alive) due the fact that it was not slaughtered.

Question #1: This is difficult, as everywhere else it says that the impurity of Sheratzim is when it is the size of a lentil, and here it says it is even a minute amount!

Question #2: Similarly, in Zevachim (106b) the Gemara asks why we need a negative prohibition regarding Cheilev...we should derive it from Sheratzim that are impure! The Gemara asks, impure Sheratzim are impure with even a minute amount (as stated by our Gemara, unlike all other sources that discuss Sheratzim).

Answer: In any event, it seems that the correct text in Zevachim (ibid.) should not have "a minute amount." This is because it is unnecessary to state a minute amount regarding Cheilev, as Cheilev is not impure at all.

Answer (cont.): Scribes caused mistakes to the Sefarim, as afterwards the Gemara says, "And if we want to derive from Sheratzim that are pure we can ask that they are different, as they are forbidden with a minute amount," meaning because they are a Beryah (whole creation). They therefore wrote this regarding impure Sheratzim as well (that are forbidden with a minute amount, meaning because they are a whole creation, not that a small amount that is only part of a single Sheretz would make one fully liable).

Text: The text should read, "d'Tanya" as this is not a Mishnah.

Explanation: We cannot derive one of these topics from the others using a Mah ha'Tzad, as Chametz cannot be derived from the others because they did not have a time when they were permitted. Cheilev cannot be derived from the others because it was never permitted.

Question: However, there is a difficulty. We should derive Neveilah from the other topics (using a Mah ha'Tzad from Chametz, Cheilev, and Sheratzim)!

Answer: Perhaps I would only say this regarding the prohibition against eating Neveilah. However, regarding the impurity of a Neveilah bird that is from a kosher species it is possible that we would not say this, despite the fact that it is stated as prohibited using the term "eating" as the verse states, "It should not be eaten to become impure with it."

Question: Which topic is the Gemara discussing? Chadash and Shevi'is are clearly prohibitions that occur by themselves. If it is discussing Tevel, we derive a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Chilul - Chilul" from Terumah in Sanhedrin (84a), and Terumah is derived from Bikurim. The Gemara later implies that Tevel ends up being derived using a Mah ha'Tzad from Terumah and Bikurim.

Question (cont.): It is difficult to say our Gemara is discussing Kilayim, as there is no prohibition of eating Kilayim stated in the Torah. The same applies to Hekdesh. Additionally, we could technically derive Hekdesh using a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Chet - Chet" from Terumah.

Answer: It must be that the Gemara is asking regarding Kilayim. Even though the Torah does not use the term "eating" when it prohibits Kilayim, it is logical that the Torah only forbade the prohibited item when it is extant.

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier asks that the Torah says, "eating" regarding Cheilev (and implies that this is why one must only be liable if it is in its original form, even though we just said that even if it did not say "eating" it still should have to be in its original form).

Answer #1: The Gemara could have asked this question even if the Torah did not mention eating. However, since the Torah did explicitly mention eating the Gemara mentioned it in its question.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Shmuel says that regarding Cheilev that was melted, if it would not say "eating" we would still say he is liable, as this liquid is made up of the actual Cheilev. The same applies to Chametz that was turned into liquid.

Answer #2 (cont.): However, regarding liquid that comes out of Kilayim, even though the Torah did not mention "eating" it is as if it did mention it regarding Kilayim. (One therefore would not be liable as) The juice is not considered the fruit itself.

Explanation #1: Rashi says that all of these prohibitions are deemed prohibitions that happen by themselves besides for Hekdesh.

Explanation #2: This is impossible. Rather, as I explained, the Gemara means that Kilayim is not a prohibition that occurs by itself, as only due to the planting does the Kilayim become prohibited. The sin, as well, was only during planting.

Question: How can Shevi'is be derived from all of these negative prohibitions when it only has a positive commandment, "When there is no more for the animal in the field etc.?"

Answer: It must be it is derived from impurity of Sheratzim that also does not entail a negative commandment.

Implied Question: We see that drinking is included in eating regarding grapes and olives. (Why shouldn't it automatically be included in Bikurim without requiring a special teaching?)

Answer: Since the Pasuk does not state the word "eating" regarding Bikurim to cause drinking to be included in eating, a special Pasuk is needed.

Explanation: According to Rebbi who says in Sanhedrin (83a) that if one purposely transgresses Me'ilah he is liable to be put to death, the question earlier must not be regarding Hekdesh as explained by Rashi (unlike the previous Tosfos that said the question is regarding Kilayim). This is because Me'ilah in Hekdesh causes someone to be liable for death and to pay a fifth extra according to Rebbi (just as this applies to Terumah according to everyone).

Explanation #1: This means from Neveilah and either Bikurim or Terumah, or from Sheratzim and either Bikurim or Terumah.

Explanation #2: This is unlike the explanation of Rashi that it refers to Chametz and either Bikurim or Terumah.

Question: This is because all of these involve a punishment of either death or Kares. Similarly, one cannot learn from Cheilev and either Terumah or Bikurim for this reason.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this Don Minah u'Minah is not literal.

Explanation #2: However, it is possible that it is literal due to grain that would be liquefied. This is because Rebbi Eliezer understands that Terumah must be taken from grain according to Torah law, and from other produce according to Rabbinic law.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rebbi Yehoshua says that liquefied grain is exempt, as Don Minah v'Uki b'Asrah. We can only derive that this applies to wine and olive oil, not to anything else, even grain. This is why Rebbi Yehoshua holds that other types are exempt, as they should not be more stringent than grain.

Question: One still might say that perhaps this only applies to the seven species, as Bikurim applies to them, as opposed to apple wine!

Answer: Since it even applies to Rabbinic items, it applies to everything.