Clarification: Because the Torah writes (in Devarim 21) "Kaper le'Amcha Yisrael, and Kodshim are Asur be'Hana'ah, seeing as they are subject to Me'ilah.

Question: The Gemara in Kerisus (Daf 6a) learns it from "ve'Arfu Sham", 'Sham t'hei Kevurasah'?

Answer #1: Both Pesukim are necessary - because, from 'Kaparah' alone, we would have thought that it is only Asur whilst it is still alive - like Kodshim, but that after the Arifah it is permitted ...

Reason: Seeing as its Mitzvah has been completed - hence "ve'Arfu Sham" is necessary ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas from "ve'Arfu Sham" alone, we would have thought that the Isur Hana'ah only applies after the Arifah, but not as long as it is still alive - therefore that is why 'Kaparah' is necessary.

Answer #2: Alternatively, when the Gemara here says 'Kaparah K'siv bah', that is not the main D'rashah, since it is need to teach us something else, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 11a) ...

Answer #2 (cont.): 'Perhaps it is a T'reifah - And if you will ask "What difference does it make"? Kaparah is written by it like Kodshim' ...

Answer #2 (concl.): And the main D'rashah here is from "ve'Arfu Sham" (See Masores ha'Shas).

Clarification: And the Meshulachas will also be forbidden from the moment the other bird is Shechted until it is sent away.

Refuted Explanation: Since we cannot say that 'mi'Sha'as Shechitah' is confined to the Shechutah, and that the Meshulachas is not Asur at all ...

Refutation: Seeing as the Tana says 'Tzipurei Metzora (in the plural), implying both of them.

Refuted Answer: Because we cannot say that bringing the birds is comparable to taking the Eglah Arufah down to the valley ...

Refutation: Since by the latter, the Torah specifically writes (in Devarim 21) in the Parshah "ve'Horidu Ziknei ha'Ir es ha'Eglah", whereas it writes nothing about bringing the birds ...

Refutation (cont.): But regarding 'taking them' it writes (in Vayikra 14) 've'Lakach la'Mitaher".

Question: According to Chizkiyah (Pesachim, Daf 21b [See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim], who maintains that "Lo Sochlu" does not imply an Isur Hana'ah, from where does this Tana learn that they are Asur be'Hana'ah?

Answer: He learns the Isur by the Meshulachas from the Shechutah, inasmuch as just as the latter is Asur, so too is the former.

Answer (cont.): And the Isur of the Meshulachas can only be an Isur Hana'ah, since as long as it is alive, it is not subject to Achilah.

Explanation #1: The Gemara thought, Rashi explains, that when he examined the Simanim, it was found to have become T'reifah via the Shechitah - e.g. by means of a hole in the esophagus ...

Proof: Because if it had been a Tr'eifah already beforehand - e.g. via a hole in the brain or where its legs were cut off, it could not have said 'Nimtzeis' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And this explains why the Gemara asks why it is Mutar be'Hana'ah - in other words 'Where did the Isur go'?

Explanation #1 (concl.): And it answers that 'It was found to be a T'reifah in the intestines, which occurred, not during the Shechitah but beforehand.

Clarification: And it establishes the case by T'reifus of the intestines, because, had it been talking about an external T'reifus before the Shechitah, it would have referred to it, not as 'Nimtzeis', but would have said 'ha'Shochet T'reifah' ...

Clarification (cont.): But with regard to T'reifus of the intestines, it is justified to refer to it as 'Nimtzeis', seeing as it is not visible.

Refutation: Even if it is found to have hole in the intestines (Chulin, 42a), why is it permitted? It is possible that the T'reifus occurred after it was taken and it ought therefore be Asur mi'Safek?

Explanation #2: Tosfos therefore explains that, initially the Gemara thought that 'Shochet ve'Nimtza'as T'reifah means that there was a hole in the intestines, on which it asks why it is Mutar - seeing as perhaps it happened after it was taken?

Explanation #2 (cont.): And it answers that 'It was found to be a T'reifah in the area of the intestines - for example, where the liver was missing (Ibid.) or some other similar T'reifus, which it must have had since birth.

Clarification: Rashi explains that 'Machshir ' refers to the birds of the Metzora, and 'Mechaper', to the Eglash Arufah.

Question: Here the Gemara implies that we learn the Isur Hana'ah by the birds from the Calf, whereas in Kerisus (Daf 25a) it implies that we learn the Calf from the birds?

Answer: To begin with, we need to learn the birds from the calf - that just as the Calf is at least Asur from the time of the Arifah, so too is the Meshulachas Asur - at least with regard to the Isur that is applicable to it, whilst it is still alive before it has been Shechted ...

Answer (cont.):And once we have found the Isur on the Meshulachas during its lifetime, we learn (there) from it that the Eglah Arufah too, is also Asur whilst it is still alive ...

Answer (concl.): And finally, we learn from the Eglah Arufah, that, from the time it is taken, the Shechutah too, is Asur during its lifetime.

Clarification: It mentions (two) witnesses, because, if it was only through one witness or through the owner himself, they would not be forbidden to a Hedyot.

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam, who explains that a live Shor ha'Niskal is Mutar be'Hana'ah until after it is stoned, and so he also says with regard to a Rove'a ve'Nirva ...

Question (cont.): The Gemara here is difficult - in that why does it say that live animals are forbidden, implying that they Asur be'Hana'ah even whilst they are alive?

Answer: According to his opinion, Hana'ah during the ifetime is not mentioned at all ...

Answer (cont.): And what the Gemara therefore says is that 'We do not find live animals that are Asur' - meaning that the Torah warned not to Shecht them in order to eat the flesh ...

Answer (cont.): On which the Gemara asks 'Harei Rove'a ve'Nirva, which are live animals, yet which the Torah only warned not to Shecht in order to eat their flesh? ...

Answer (concl.): But to benefit from them as long as they are alive is definitely permitted.

Clarification: Rashi explains that in the field sending them away is not valid, since one needs to fulfill the Pasuk "ve'Shilach al-P'nei ha'Sadeh".

Question: But he was a Metzora, and he becomes Tahor outside the town ...

Reason: Seeing as he is forbidden to enter anywhere within the walls?

Answer: Perhaps after the Kaparah ceremony the Kohen, or his Shali'ach, carried it (the bird) to inside the wall ffrom where he sent it out.

Explanation #1: Asur be'Hana'ah, Rashi explains - since there is nothing to render them permitted ...

Reason: Because, since they became sanctified, they can only become permitted through Z'rikah, which perm its by Kodshim, and these, that were Shechted outside, are not subject to Z'rikah.

Introduction to Question: Similarly, asks the Ram, we find by Me'ilah that Z'rikah takes oout of Me'ilah, yet the Gemara says in Me'ilah (Daf 12a) 'Kodshim that die are no longer subject to Me'ilah' - despite the fact that the blood was not sprinkled.

Question: Why can we not likewise say that the Shechitah takes out of the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai, and that they should therefore be permitted to eat?

Explanation #2: The Ram therefore explains 'Just as Mine in yours is Asur' - in that they do not have a Din of Kodshim, to go on the Mizbe'ach, to render the owner Yotzei, 'so too yours in Mine ... ' - they do not have the Din of Chulin ... and do not therefore become eligible to be permitted regarding the Heter that applies to them - i.e. to be eaten.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that we need all three Pesukim: One for Chayos, one for birds and one for the prohibition of eating Bedi'eved, as the Gemara explains ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): If it is not needed wit regard to Shechitah, use it for eating, since we do not need a Pasuk for Ba'alei Mumin, even as regards Shechitah, as the Gemara explains, since they belong to the species of Heter.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the Gemara learns it from a S'vara, and does not therefore require a Pasuk ...

Implied Question: Even though by Chayhos too, the Gemara says 'I will include Chayos, which are subject to Shechitah like a Beheimah - implying that it learns it without a Pasuk ...

Answer: What the Gemara means is that 'We would include Chayos' with a Dochek - if there was no Pasuk, but now that there is, we will learn it from the Pasuk.

Explanation #1 (concl.): But Ba'alei Mumin are more similar, since they are of a species that is Kasher (for Korbanos) and they are subject to Shechitah.

Explanation #2: One can also explain 'Talmud Lomar "ve'Shachatu", "ve'Shachat oso", "ve'Shachat oso", implying that one needs three Pesukim, refer to Ba'alei Mumin, Chayos and birds ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas the prohibition against eating Bedi'eved we learn from the same Pasuk as Temimim, inasmuch as just as we learn the Isur of eating Temimim from "ve'Zavachta ve'Achalta", so too will we learn these from there ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): Because since we learn the Isur of Shechting them in the Azarah, we will say that the D'rashah of 'What you Shecht ... ', refers to all of them.