Responsa for Chullin 17:37

מר סבר

only in respect of the prohibition [to be eaten], but there is no presumption in respect of defilement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer's argument is: The animal is now forbidden only because of the presumption which arose during its lifetime. Now, during its lifetime the animal was forbidden only to be eaten; it certainly could not defile. The effect, therefore, of the presumption can only be to render the animal forbidden to be eaten and not that it should defile.');">²¹</span>

Shut min haShamayim