Explanation #1 (Rashi): Rashi explains that, because he Darshens 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut', he needs the first "Tochlu" to permit Boros, Shichin and Me'aros, which we would otherwise forbid due to the Ribuy and Miy'ut ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... because if we were to Darshen K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal, we would not include Boros ... , in which case we would not need the extra word "Tochlu" ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... since Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael holds that the first K'lal is always Davka, and the second K'lal only comes to include something that is similar to the P'rat in all ways (in this case, 'that it flows').

Inference: We must therefore say that the Sugya earlier, which Darshens K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal, and which nevertheless needs "Tochlu" to permit Boros, Shichin and Me'aros,, holds that 'the last K'lal is Davka', in which case we would have included them - even though they are similar only in one detail (namely, that the water rises above the ground ...

Implied Question: ... and when the Gemara asks that maybe we should say that, just as the P'rat is explicit - water that rises above the ground, to include even Boros, Shichin and Me'aros, in the prohibition, it might well have answered that the first K'lal is Davka, and we therefore need it to be similar to the K'lal in all regards ...

Answer: ... only the Gemara answers according to the Emes, since it already Darshened them earlier in the Beraisa from "Tochlu".

Clarification: According to this explanation it transpires that the earlier Sugya and Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael here do not argue.

Question: When the Gemara will shortly ask that we ought to switch the D'rashos - to which it answers that we include Boros, Shichin and Me'aros in the Heter, seeing as they are closed in (Atzurin) like Keilim', why does it need to mention 'Atzurin'? What it should have said was that it is more logical to include Charitzin and Ne'itzin (various types of ditches) in the prohibition, seeing as they flow like seas and rivers?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that the Charitzin and Ne'itzin mentioned here do not flow, which is why the Gemara asks that, seeing as they do not flow, what is the difference between Boros, Shichin and Me'aros on the one hand and Charitzin and Ne'itzin on the other ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... to which it answers that, although Charitzin and Ne'itzin do not flow, they are nevertheless more similar to seas and rivers, since they are not closed in like Keilim are, whereas Boros, Shichin and Me'aros are, which is why it is logical to permit them.

Conclusion: It now transpires that those who Darshen Ribuy and Miy'ut, include Charitzin and Ne'itzin which don't flow, in the Isur; and the Heter of "Tochlu" they establish by Boros, Shichin and Me'aros ...

Conclusion (cont.): ... whereas those who Darshen earlier K'lal u'P'rat u'Kelal include from the Heter of Tochlu even Charitzin and Ne'itzin, since they are not closed like Keilim, seeing as they do not flow.

Inference #1: Rabeinu Shmuel and the Riva learn from here that the Halachah is not like Shmuel, who says that a cucumber that became wormy whilst still attached is forbidden.

Inference #2: The Halachos Gedolos and the She'iltos of R. Acha'i however, Paskem like Sh'muel, based on Rav Papa who said earlier in the Perek (58a) 'We learn from Rav Huna, that in spite of Sh'muel's ruling forbidding a cucumber that became wormy whilst still attached, dates that have been in a jar for twelve months are permitted ...

Reconciling that with Our Sugya: ... and even though the Gemara here extrapolates from the Beraisa a ruling that does not concur with Shmuel, that is only at first glance ...

Reconciling that with Our Sugya (cont.): ... since it is possible to resolve the Beraisa even according to Shmuel and to explain the worms in the actual olives with reference to olives that are still attached to the tree.

Halachah: Even according to Sh'muel however, one cannot forbid those beans ... , and peas ... , in which one finds Yavchushin (a species of red gnat).

Halachah (cont.): When the gnats are first born, the shell turns black from the outside; then, when one removes the shell, the gnats underneath it remain. Those one cannot declare Asur on account of the Pasuk "ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz", as long as they have not begun to crawl.

Support: Also Rashi explained above (regarding the Din of a cucumber that became wormy whilst it was still attached to the ground being Asur) that the moment the worm begins to walk inside the cucumber whilst it is still attached to the ground, it is as if it has walked on the ground.

Rashi's Explanation: Rashi interprets it as worms in the liver and in the lungs.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks that, according to the second Lashon which permits them, there is a Kashya from the Beraisa that we will quote shortly "And their corpses you shall abhor" - to include the worms inside the animal, even though they grow from the animals themselves?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore interprets it as worms that one finds inside fish ...

Implied Question: ... and that what the Gemara says that whilst it is asleep, they enter via its nostrils ...

Answer: ... we have a precedent for this in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah' (Bava Basra 73b), where Rabah bar bar Chanah relates that he saw a fish that was static, and how a mud-eating insect entered its nostrils.

Question: Why is it not Asur anyway, like the case where someone Shechts an animal and finds inside it the likeness of a dove, which is Asur because it has neither Parsah nor P'rasos (hoofs)?

Answer: A fetus is different, because its basic Heter is learned from "ve'Chol Beheimah", in which case one can only permit an animal with hoofs, since the Pasuk of "ve'Chol Beheimah" contains the word "Parsah" ...

Answer (cont.): ... as opposed to D'ranim (the larva of a horse-fly) which are created from the flesh itself, and we ought therefore to say that it is considered part of the flesh.

Implied Question: Neither is it comparable to cutting of a piece of the spleen or of the kidneys ...

Answer: ... since that constitutes a Chesaron (part of the animal is missing), which the Gemara declares Asur later (on Daf 69a) from the word "Osah" - 'complete and not lacking'.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas in our case there is nothing missing.