Question: Why do we need the Pasuk, "amongst the Sheretz?" Since we can compare it either leniently or stringently, we should compare it stringently!

Proof: Earlier (126b), if not for the Pasuk of "on the land" that excludes the sea mouse, we would have said it is impure!

Answer: Rabeinu Yitzchak says that we require "amongst the Sheretz" for a mouse that is half flesh and half earth because "that crawls" strongly implies that it has to reproduce to be included.

Implied Question: We still require the teaching from "that crawls" to teach anywhere it crawls. (Why?)

Answer: This is in order that we should not exclude from "on the land" both a land mouse that goes into the sea and a sea mouse.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that this refers to "Bivronash." One does not receive lashes for eating them due to "Sheretz ha'Shoretz" because they grow in the water.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that our text is "Bivri v'Narsh" (instead of Bivri d'Narsh). This refers to cities, one called Bivri and one called Narsh.

Proof #1: This is evident from the Gemara in Eiruvin (56a) which states, "These steep ascents and descents (i.e. steep paths) of Bivri and Narsh cause damage (to people)."

Proof #2: Similarly, in Sotah (10a) regarding the Pesukim, "And Shimshon went down to Timnah" and "And Yehudah went up to Timnah," Rav Papa states that the Pesukim are discussing one place called Timnah. People go up from one side and go down from another. This is just like Vardina, Bivri, and the markets of Narsh.

Explanation: The Gemara here is referring to the Pasuk stated earlier, "Listen all those who sit in Chaled." It is saying that these cities are not civilized. In other words, they are not included in the dwellers of Chaled because they (the people of Bivri and Narsh) are evil.

Proof: Similarly, the Gemara says in Kidushin (40b) that any person who is not versed in Torah, Mishnah, and Derech Eretz is not civilized. This is what Rav Papa means there when he says, "Narsh should be shunned etc."

Question #1: This is difficult. What does the Pasuk, "For it will fall" imply regarding a limb that is hanging off an animal?

Question #2: Additionally, this Pasuk is stated regarding Sheratzim! (How can we apply it regarding animals?)

Answer: It appears that the Gemara derives as follows. "For it will fall" means it will fall from them when they die. The Gemara earlier (74a) states that this teaches that death causes the limb to fall (before death, giving it the status of Aiver Min ha'Chai).

Answer (cont.): If so, we see that before death the limb is not considered to have fallen off the animal. The Gemara earlier (ibid.) clearly derives that this refers to an animal (and not a Sheretz), as it says that "death causes the limb to fall and slaughtering does not cause it to fall" (slaughtering is only relative to an animal, not a Sheretz).

Answer (cont.): Rashi explains that we derive this from the fact that this (Pasuk regarding Sheratzim) is an extra Pasuk. If it is not required to teach us a law regarding Sheratzim, we should use it to teach us a law regarding an animal which can be slaughtered.

Explanation: The impurity of Neveilah mentioned here by the Gemara is not accurate, but rather it is referring to the impurity of Aiver Min ha'Chai.

Question: Why does the Gemara bring this Beraisa as proof? If it is merely to support Shmuel's law that figs that dry up while on the tree still can have impurity of food, a better proof could have been brought from our Mishnah!

Answer: It seems that the Gemara is using the Beraisa as proof to Shmuel's law that a person who accidentally harvests these figs on Shabbos is liable to bring a Chatas.

Answer (cont.): This is because the Beraisa implies that the limb is not considered detached regarding everything, since it excludes it from impurity of Neveilah, meaning impurity of Aiver Min ha'Chai. The Beraisa excludes this from a Pasuk, while our Mishnah does not explicitly state this, and only implies that it applies regarding impurity of food but not that of Neveilos.

Explanation: This is even a good proof regarding the law of impurity of food, and is proof regarding the fact that if they dry up they are considered like they are hanging.

Question: The Beraisa should say that cabbage and gourd that was cut in order to dry it out can have impurity of food. Why does it say in the beginning of the Beraisa that they dried up where they grew?

Answer: It is better for the Beraisa to first state that cabbage and gourd that dried out etc. (cannot become impure). However, if they did not dry out but rather were cut in order to dry out etc. (they do become impure). (The Maharam explains that Tosfos means it is better to first show a similar case where it is not impure and then a case where it is impure anyway, than to just state the second case where it can become impure, which is what we would naturally assume.)

Opinion: It appears that Rabah can hold that according to Rebbi Shimon slaughtering causes the animal to be able to become impure, not the blood. When he says that the animal does not become a Yad for the limb, he means that if it would be a Yad for the limb it would become able to be impure due to the slaughtering of the animal, even though it is forbidden to be eaten according to Rabbinic law.

Opinion (cont.): This is what all of the Amoraim who explain the Mishnah say, aside from Rav Acha who says that the argument is when the blood was wiped off between the slaughtering of one Siman and the next. According to him, it is clear that the blood causes the ability to become impure according to Rebbi Shimon.

Observation: It must be that Rav Acha did not know the Beraisa quoted earlier (36a) from which we see that according to Rebbi Shimon the slaughtering causes it to be able to become impure, not the blood.

Observation (cont.): However, the other Amoraim in our Gemara did know this Beraisa.

Proof: This is evident from the fact that Rav Papa explains their argument both here and earlier (ibid.), as Rav Papa says regarding the Beraisa that everyone admits that when there is blood etc. This shows that he clearly knew about the Beraisa.