Explanation: He throws the Dam Tamztis as if it were water, like R. Eliezer (below, 77a), who says [that if Chatas and Olah limbs became mixed, we are Maktir them, and] "we view" [the Chatas limbs like wood].

He also holds like R. Eliezer, who says that if [Dam ha'Nefesh] became mixed with Dam Tamtzis, it is Kosher.

Observation: This question is according to the opinion above (18a) that the Avnet cuts. (If one ties the Avnet tight to hold up the Kesones, and it does not reach down as far as it should, it is as if the Kesones is too short, and he is Mechusar Begadim.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since there are people who eat [a fetus], he is Chayav Kares, for it is like a thigh of its mother... What is not normal to eat (is not Mefagel the Korban).

The same applies to the crop (innards of a bird), which is not proper to eat, for it is a mere secretion. Therefore, intent for it is not Mefagel.

However, when he was Mefagel a bird through something else, since there are people who eat it, he is Chayav Kares for it.

Rebuttal: There was no need [for Rashi] to say so [about the crop]. Even if it were like other meat (that everyone eats), it is not Mefagel the bird, since the crop goes to Beis ha'Deshen (it is burned with ashes of the Mizbe'ach), and people or the Mizbe'ach do not consume it.

Support: This is the reason why intent for Parim (inner Chata'os, in which the meat is burned outside) is not Mefagel Eimurim.

Distinction: However, one cannot say so about a fetus.

Implied question: In Temurah (25b), regarding one who slaughtered a Chatas and found inside a live four-month fetus (a Nefel), one Beraisa teaches that anyone may eat it, anywhere, at any time (it is Chulin);

If so, I could say that the reason intent does not disqualify is because it is not part of the Korban itself!

Answer: You are forced to say that R. Elazar holds that it is part of the Korban itself, for he said that if he was Mefagel the Korban, the fetus became Pigul;

He holds like the other Beraisa there (in Temurah), which teaches that only male Kohanim may eat it, for one day and a night, within the curtains (the Azarah). Also there we answer them. (The Gemara suggested that they argue about whether or not one can be Meshayer (if a fetus is not part of the mother, one could be Makdish an animal without its fetus). We reject and say that all could hold that one can be Meshayer. The mother was Hukdash, and then became pregnant. The Beraisos argue about whether the fetus becomes Kodesh in the womb, or not until it is born. Alternatively, the Tana of both Beraisos holds that it is Kodesh when it is born. In one Beraisa he was Makdish a pregnant animal. In the other, it became pregnant after he was Makdish it.)

Conclusion: Therefore, one must explain like Rashi.

Explanation #2: Some give a difficult explanation. We expound in Toras Kohanim in Parshas Tzav regarding Nosar, "ha'Zevach" excludes a fetus and a fetal sac;

Question: You are forced to say that Nosar applies to a fetus, like it says in Temurah (25b) regarding a fetus in a Chatas, that it is eaten only for one day and a night!

Answer: Therefore, Im Eino Inyan (if it need not teach) about Nosar, we expound it to teach about intent for Nosar.

Rebuttal: What is the Tana's source for this? Perhaps we need it for it itself, to exclude a fetal sac from Nosar!

It seems that [Toras Kohanim] excludes a fetus and fetal sac [that became Nosar] from the law of burning, for burning is written in the verse.

Explanation: In Chulin (121a), all agree that meat that comes off the knife (and sticks to the skin) when flaying the animal, this is Alal. We discuss that here;

Note: There, Reish Lakish said that this is Alal. Tosfos explains that even R. Yochanan, who said that Alal is Marteka (sinews of the spine or neck), means that also Marteka is Alal. The next line of Tosfos explains how Alal applies to birds, which are not flayed, and also Melikah is done with the fingernail, without a knife.

We discuss Olas ha'Of, in which he bores through to remove the crop with its feathers. It is impossible not to take some of the foodpipe with the crop.

Explanation: Intent for eating does not help for them, for it is something not normally eaten;

Also intent for burning [does not help for them], for the Torah was adamant about intent for consumption of the Mizbe'ach, but burning is not an expression of eating.

Implied question: We said above (31a) that if one intended that fire consume it tomorrow it is Pigul!

Answer #1 (Rashi): That is when he intended in an expression of eating, like we established it there.

Rebuttal (and Answer #2): There was no need to give this poor answer. Above, we discuss something proper for man, and he intended that fire consume it. It is Pigul;

However, this (inner Chata'os) consumption of man or the Mizbe'ach does not apply to them. (They are burned outside the city.)

Question: We should answer like we answer below (104b), that perhaps intent does not disqualify, but Linah disqualifies!

Answer #1: [We did not] because we do not want to resolve the question of R. Yirmeyah [there], whether or not Linah disqualifies Parim ha'Nisrafim.

Answer #2: The Gemara holds that if Linah helps, Pigul helps, so that if he was Mefagel in the Eimurim, at least the meat became Pigul.

Remark: The same applies to [intent to eat] tomorrow.

Question: Still, Nosar and Tamei are difficult, for it connotes here that the inference is that one is liable for a fetus or fetal sac for Nosar and Tamei, and the Beraisa above teaches that one is not liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei!

Answer: Really, one is not liable for a fetus or fetal sac due to Nosar and Tamei. They were omitted due to Pigul. (Pigul applies to them, if one was Mefagel in the mother. Regarding Nosar there is an exclusion 'ha'Zevach", like I explained above. We learn Pigul and Tamei from Nosar. However, we do not learn from Nosar to exempt for a fetus and fetal sac if one was Mefagel in the mother.

Explanation #1: This is not only for Dukin (a film over the eye). The same applies to other blemishes in which no limb is missing, like it says in Kidushin (24b) that only if the wing dried or the eye was blinded (it is Pasul).

Explanation #2: Other blemishes disqualify mid'Rabanan.

Explanation (Rashi): A bird missing a limb is Pasul due to "Hakrivehu Na l'Fechasecha" (one would not give such a gift to a governor to favor in his eyes).

Rebuttal: There was no need to explain so. We explicitly expound in Kidushin (24b) from the verse "Min ha'Of", but not all birds.