But according to the one who says a treifah gives birth, what is there to say? This means, according to him, "from all living creatures" excludes a treifah. But how can a treifah be excluded if it can give birth and therefore live? Even those who say a treifah cannot give birth concede it can live. So how can "from all living creatures" exclude it? Perhaps the verse means entirely healthy and vigorous creatures, not sickly ones. A treifah, though living, is perpetually ill and deteriorating. Thus, it's excluded more readily than an animal missing a limb, which is otherwise healthy. Rashi offers a similar explanation later (51a).

With you, those similar to you However, this doesn't exclude animals missing limbs or with blemishes, as only procreation is relevant. But how do we exclude a treifah if we accept they can reproduce? Perhaps "from all living creatures" is needed to exclude those missing a limb. "With you" alone might refer to those missing a limb, not a treifah, as the former is more repulsive. Many treifot are undetectable. The Gemara's earlier question (5b) about excluding treifot refers to "from all living," implying healthy, not treifah. An animal missing an ear is otherwise healthy.

Perhaps Noah himself was a treifah Although Noah lived many years after, he might have been a treifah at the time, unknowingly bringing one aboard. This is unlikely, as the warning surely concerned only visible treifot. Perhaps the Gemara now follows the opinion that a treifah lives, consistent with the view that it can reproduce.

Tamim (Unblemished) is written about it Why does Menachot 5b need "from the cattle" to exclude treifot? Why not derive it from "unblemished"? It's logical that "unblemished" excludes blemished animals, which are more offensive offerings than treifot. The verse about blemished offerings ("Offer it to your governor; will he be pleased with you?") highlights their unacceptability. Some treifot aren't readily apparent. Furthermore, the verse explicitly states a blemished animal isn't "unblemished": "It must be unblemished and without defect."

Now that we have derived from "with you"… If a treifah doesn't give birth and is excluded by "that its offspring may live," why do we need "with you"? We can't dismiss it as standard phrasing, since Sanhedrin 36b derives from it. Perhaps we derive from "with you" that they should be secondary to you, as in Bava Metzia 62a ("Your brother shall live with you" prioritizes your life) and Bereishit Rabbah ("It will be for you and for them" makes them secondary).

And if you say that they and their festivals are ten days If the Mishnah's three days exclude the festival itself, its brevity is understandable, as festivals can last one, two, or eight days. However, if the three days include the festival, how can the next Mishnah list Kalanda, implying a three-day prohibition, when it's actually ten (eight for Kalenda, plus two)? There must be at least two days between Kalenda and Saturnalia. Since the Gemara suggests the Mishnah should state ten days, there must be two non-festival days before Kalenda. This is logical, as Kalenda's eight days correspond to Adam's eight festivals, likely not instituted immediately after the solstice.

But learn from this that they [three days] are without their [festival] days—learn from this Why doesn't the Mishnah itself clarify this? "Three days before their festivals" implies exclusion. If inclusive, it should say "two days." A "one day" formulation would have been unambiguous.

They [three days] are without their [festival] days—learn from this Why does Shmuel state the seemingly obvious point that, according to Rabbi Yishmael, it's always forbidden? Perhaps to emphasize the continued prohibition despite no leniency ever being applied. Or perhaps to clarify that Rabbi Yishmael, like the Rabbis, doesn't forbid the days after the festival. Or perhaps to emphasize that a single day, like Sunday, carries the same weight as other festivals.

Or perhaps because of, “Do not place a stumbling block before the blind”? Some question Rashi's interpretation of "giving and taking" as buying and selling. Selling is clearly a stumbling block; how is buying? Perhaps by providing funds for idol worship.