1)

(a)The Beraisa learns that in the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with Sheratzim) " ... ve'ha'Tzav le'Miyneihu", the word "le'Miyneihu" comes to include an Arod, ben ha'Nefilin and a salamander (different types of toad [or ferret]).

1. An Arod is - a cross between a Tzav and a snake.

2. A Salamander is - a Sheretz that is created by means of Kishuf (magic) in a furnace, from the wood of a myrtle-tree. Its blood prevents burning (if rubbed in the skin).

(b)When Rebbi Akiva came to the Pasuk in Borchi Nafshi "Mah Rabu Ma'asecha Hash-m", he exclaimed how Hash-m created ...

1. ... creatures that live on land and creatures that live in the sea ...

2. ... creatures that live in fire and creatures that live in the air - and that if any of them would switch their habitats, they would immediately die.

(c)Rebbi Akiva's statement is cited here - because the Beraisa just mentioned the salamander, which presumably, is the only creature that) lives in fire.

(d)The Beraisa states that - the only land creature that has no equivalent in the sea is the weasel, and Rebbi Zeira supports this with the Pasuk in Tehilim "Ha'azinu Kol Yoshvei Chaled" (which means both dry land and a weasel [Chuldah]).

2)

(a)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua stated that the beavers of Neiresh - live only in the water.

(b)Rav Papa said that - the residents of Neiresh were wicked and deserved to be placed in Cheirem ...

(c)... 'Tarbeih, Mashcheih ve'Iliseih' (its Cheilev, its skin and its fat-tail), meaning - every single one of them.

(d)And based on the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Eretz, Eretz, Eretz Shim'i D'var Hash-m", he commented - they did not listen to the word of Hash-m.

3)

(a)Rav Gidal Amar Rav advised a person who was kissed by someone from Neiresh - to count his teeth.

(b)And he advised a traveler who was joined by someone from ...

1. ... N'har Pakud - to watch his coat.

2. ... Pumbedisa - to change his hotel (because they were expert thieves).

(c)When Rav Huna bar Tursa once went to Va'ad, he saw - a snake constantly wrapping itself round a Tzav. Eventually, the latter gave birth to an Arod.

(d)Rebbi Shimon he'Chasid commented that - it was because the people of Va'ad (see Shitah Mekubetzes) used to interbreed animals (forming species that Hash-m did not create) that Hash-m did likewise ('Midah k'Neged Midah') and mixed breeds, to bring into the world an Arod (which He did not create), whose bite is lethal, to punish them.

4)

(a)Mar said that - when different species are intimate, they can only become pregnant from each other if 1. they are intimate in the same position (either face to face [like humans] or face to back [like animals]), and 2. their period of pregnancy is the same.

(b)And by the same token - they are incapable of feeding each other's babies.

(c)The problem with the snake and the Tzav then is that - the former's pregnancy period is nine years, whereas the latter's is six months.

(d)We resolve it - by ascribing it to a miracle, and a miracle for the bad, to boot.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a loose limb or loose flesh of a live animal are Metamei Tum'as Ochlin bi'Mekoman - but only if the owner has in mind to feed it to a Nochri, which would not be necessary in a case where the Eiver or the flesh was severed.

(b)The Tana also rules that they require Hechsher. They are not Tamei Tum'as Ochlin even without Hechsher (ostensibly because they are destined to be Mitamei Tum'ah Chamurah when the animal dies) - because maybe they will Shecht it.

(c)The Tana that according to Rebbi Meir, once the animal is Shechted, they become Huchsher Lekabel Tum'ah via the blood of the Shechitah. In spite of the fact that they are Asur anyway (because of "u'Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah ... ", as we learned in the fourth Perek), they are not Tamei Neveilah - because of the principle Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul (when one Shechts, loose limbs are not considered detached).

(d)Rebbi Shimon says - Lo Huchsh'ru.

6)

(a)If the animal dies, the Basar requires Hechsher. It is not Tamei Neveilah however - because we hold Misah Osah Nipul (even though Shechitah does not).

(b)It needs Hechsher - in order to receive Tum'ah from a Sheretz.

(c)According to Rebbi Meir, the Eiver is Metamei because of Eiver min ha'Chai - because 'Ein Misah Osah Nipul', as we just explained.

(d)Rebbi Shimon rules that - it is Tahor (as will be explained in the Sugya).

7)

(a)Our Mishnah ascribes Tum'as Ochlin to a loose limb or flesh, but not Tum'as Neveilos. The problem with that is mi'Mah Nafshach - if it is destined to heal, then it should not be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin either, whereas if it is not, then why is not Metamei Tum'as Neveilos too?

(b)We conclude that the Tana is speaking when it will not heal, and it is not Metamei Tum'as Neveilos - because Tum'as Neveilos only applies when it is actually detached ...

(c)... as the Torah writes in Shemini "Ki Yipol".

(d)Even though this Pasuk is written in connection with Sheratzim - we know that the same applies to animals, because "Ki Yipol" is written twice by Sheratzim, once for Sheratzim and once for animals.

8)

(a)The Beraisa that we cite to support this, also serves to support a statement of Rav Chiya bar Ashi, who, quoting Shmuel, said that if figs dry-up on a tree ...

1. ... they are Metamei Tum'as Ochlin.

2. ... one is Chayav for picking them on Shabbos.

(b)He will be Patur regarding Shabbos however - if the stalk hasdried up as well as the fruit (since the fruit will then be considered completely detached).

(c)The above Beraisa proves Shmuel's ruling in that - similar to the Beraisa, Shmuel declares the fruit Tamei Tum'as Ochlin, even though they are considered attached in certain respects (in Shmuel's case, regarding breaking Shabbos, in the Beraisa, regarding Neveilah).

9)

(a)We try to bring an additional proof from another Beraisa, where the Tana rules that vegetables such as cabbages and pumpkins that withered on their stems are not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. But where they withered after being detached - they are.

(b)The problem with this latter ruling is that - once cabbages and pumpkins have withered, they are no longer considered food, so how can they be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin?

10)

(a)Rebbi Yitzchak therefore establishes Katz'tzan ve'Yavshan to mean that - one cut them in order to dry them (to make a K'li out of them or to use them as firewood).

(b)We infer from the fact that the Tana mentions specifically cabbages and pumpkins that - in the Reisha, other fruit, that is still fit to eat even after it has withered, will be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin.

(c)Assuming that the Tana must be speaking where the stalks have not withered (because otherwise, what would the Tana be coming to teach us), we now try to prove from here that - fruit that has dried up, is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin (like Shmuel).

(d)And we conclude that he may well be speaking where they have withered, and the Chidush lies in the Seifa (in the actual ruling itself, rather than in the inference) - to teach us that even though the owner cut the cabbages and the pumpkin in order to dry them, as long as they have not dried, they remain food and are subject to Tum'ah.

11)

(a)Another Beraisa rules that if a branch containing fresh fruit breaks loose from a tree, the fruit is considered detached. On the other hand, he rules that dry fruit that is still attached - retains the Din of attached fruit.

(b)On the assumption that we compare the Seifa to the Reisha, this poses a Kashya on Shmuel - in that just as the fruit in the Reisha is considered detached in all respects (both as regards Shabbos and as regards Tum'ah), so too, is the fruit in the Seifa considered attached in all respects.

(c)To reconcile Shmuel with the Beraisa, we therefore explain the Beraisa - Ha k'de'Isa, ve'Ha k'de'Isa (the Reisha speaks with respect to both Shabbos and Tum'ah, whereas the Seifa speaks with respect to Shabbos exclusively; but as far as Tum'ah is concerned, the fruit is in fact, considered detached).

12)

(a)Our Mishnah cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir, who considers the loosed limb and Basar Huchshar in the blood of its own Shechitah and Rebbi Shimon, who doesn't. Rabah attributes the basis of their Machlokes to whether an animal is considered a Yad for a limb or not. In general however - both Tana'im will agree that a Yad that becomes wet will transmit Hechsher to food.

(b)Abaye disagrees. According to him, there is no such thing as a Yad le'Hechsher, and the question is whether the animal and the limb are considered one entity or not - whether a small and a large article which are in fact joined, are considered joined, even though, if one were to pick up the small section, the large one would break off (Rebbi Meir), or not (Rebbi Shimon).