Question: In Chulin (140a), regarding "Shtei Tziparim Chayos", we expound two laws from [Chayos] - that their outermost limbs are intact, and to exclude a Tereifah!

Answer: Tziporei Metzora are different, for they are like a Korban, and both are the same regarding Pesul;

However, regarding No'ach, that other Mumim are Kosher, we should establish it to exclude only a Tereifah.

Explanation: According to him, "mi'Kol ha'Chai" is not extra [to exclude] an animal missing a limb, for we need it to exclude a Tereifah.

Question: Since a Tereifah can live [more than a year] and give birth (Tzon Kodoshim - if it can give birth, all the more so it can live), how do we exclude it from "mi'Kol ha'Chai"?

In Chulin (140a), we do not exclude Tereifos from "Chayos" according to the opinion that a Tereifah can live!

Answer: Here is different, for "mi'Kol ha'Chai" is extra, and it properly connotes to exclude a Tereifah, even though it can live, for it connotes total life;

It is more reasonable to exclude a Tereifah, even though it can live and give birth, more than to exclude an animal missing a limb, for in any case a Tereifah is not a creation that will remain [alive so long], and it is not so proper for perpetuating the world.

Question: If so, why do we need mi'Kol ha'Chai? We learn [to exclude] both of them (Mechusar Ever and Tereifah) from "Itach"!

Suggestion: Perhaps No'ach himself was Mechusar Ever.

Rejection: Surely Hash-m did not tell him to enter [only animals that are] Mechusar Ever, but not to enter intact animals!

Answer: We establish the verse for what is more reasonable, i.e. for Tereifah. It is not so reasonable to [exclude] Mechusar Ever, for to perpetuate the world, we are not concerned for this.

Question: Afterwards, [No'ach] lived another 300 (actually, 350) years! (If so, surely he was not Tereifah.)

Answer #1: Perhaps he did not have proper strength and health, and our Sugya is like the opinion that a Tereifah can live.

Answer #2: R. Tam used to distinguish between Tereifah of people and Tereifah of animals, because people have Mazal (they can survive more).

Question: In Chulin (43a, the Gemara) brings a proof from Iyov to Tereifah of a Behemah!

Question: According to R. Yosi, who said above (45a) that one who slaughters Kodshei Nochrim outside is liable, it should not have taught the expression "Asur';

Source: It is proven like this in Yoma (73b) that regarding a Chiyuv Kares, [the Tana] should not teach "Asur"!

Answer: It taught "Asur" because there are several Avodos for which one is not liable outside. It is forbidden to help them, for we decree due to Avodah for which one is liable.

Reference: [R. Elazar's] primary teaching is in Menachos (22a).

Implied question: Here it says "Kesef", and here it says "Zahav"!

Answer #1: Below it explains that he collected silver worth 50 Shekalim of gold from every Shevet, i.e. 600 gold [Shekalim] from all the Shevatim.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): The Midrash says that he gave to him 50 Shekalim of gold, i.e. 600 silver Shekalim.

Question: (This connotes that gold is worth 12 times as much as the same weight of silver.) In Bava Kama (36a) it connotes that a gold Dinar is worth 25 of silver!

Answer (R. Tam): A gold Dinar is twice as thick as a silver Dinar.

Proof: It says in Chulin (55b) about the spleen "if there remained the thickness of a gold Dinar, it is Kosher. [Since it needed to specify of gold], this connotes that it is not the same thickness as of silver.

Note: Since gold is denser than silver, it need not be twice as thick in order to weigh twice as much. Tosfos assumes that gold and silver Dinarim have the same diameter. Perhaps this justifies why both of them were called "Dinar", even though their weights and values were different.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Even at the time when the [Machanos] went away when [Bnei Yisrael] traveled, [Kodshim Kalim] were not disqualified. Rather, they take them with them, and eat them where they camp, within Machaneh [Yisrael].