Rejection: "Ha'Shoretz" - everywhere it creeps, it is Tamei. (This includes at sea, for it swims.)

Question: Perhaps we should expound this to say "ha'Mashritz (which breeds)," to exclude the Achbar that comes from earth!

Answer #1: Logic refutes this!

A Chuldah is Tamei, just like an Achbar. Just like everything called Chuldah is Tamei, also every Achbar, even one that comes from earth.

Objection: We can learn oppositely!

Just like a Chuldah procreates, also an Achbar. This excludes one that comes from earth.

Answer #2: "Ba'Sheretz" (is extra, to include it).

Question: Perhaps "ba'Sheretz" indeed includes the Achbar that comes from earth, and "ha'Shoretz" teaches that a sea mouse is Tamei at sea! ("Al ha'Aretz" would teach that all Achbarim are Tamei only on land.)

Answer (Rava): Either way, something at or from the sea is Tamei. Therefore, it is unreasonable to be Metamei an Achbar on land and be Metaher it at sea.

Question: We need "Al ha'Aretz" for a different teaching!

(R. Yitzchak bar Avodimi): "Al ha'Aretz" is Metaher cases of Safek floating Tum'ah (of Sheratzim).

Answer: Two verses say "Al ha'Aretz."

(Beraisa): "Veha'Tzav (frog or turtle) l'Minehu" includes Arod and Nefilim (types of lizards) and Salamandra;

R. Akiva: "How great are Your deeds, Hash-m" - You have great creatures at sea and at land. If either type would go to the other habitat, they would die immediately.

Hash-m made creatures that live in fire (Salamandra), others in air. If either type would go to the other habitat, they would die immediately.

(Beraisa): Every species on land has a corresponding species at sea, except for a Chuldah.

(R. Zeira): We learn from "hearken, all dwellers of Cheled (the dry land)." (This hints that Chuldos live only on land.)

Version #1 (Rashi) - (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Beavers of Narash do not dwell on land, rather in water.

Version #2 (Tosfos) - (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Residents of Narash are uncivilized. (end of Version #2)

(Rav Papa): Everyone in Narash should be excommunicated.

(Rav Papa): "Land, land, land, hear the word of Hash-m" - the people in Narash did not want to listen.

(Rav): If someone of Narash kisses you, he probably wants to steal your teeth;

If someone of Nahar Pekod escorts you, he probably wants to steal your garment.

If someone of Pumbadisa escorts you, he probably wants to steal from you at night. You should change your lodging.

(Rav Huna bar Tursa): I once went to a place where the people raise Kil'ayim. I saw a snake mate with a Tzav. An Arod was born (and killed people).

R. Shimon ha'Chasid: Since they brought new creations into the world, Hash-m did the same to them.

Question: Two species can have children together or nurse each other if and only if they have relations in the same position, and have the same gestation period! (Snakes are born after seven years, and Tzav after six months.)

Answer (Rav): It was a double miracle (that a child was born).

Question: This was a punishment!

Answer: It was a double miracle to bring punishment.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): Dangling limbs or flesh of an animal receive Tum'as Ochlim (while dangling). They require Hechsher;

If the animal is slaughtered, the blood is Machshir them;

R. Shimon says, it does not.

R. Meir says, if the animal dies, the meat requires Hechsher. The limb is (Tamei like) Ever Min ha'Chai, but not like a limb of a Nevelah;

R. Shimon is Metaher.

(Gemara) Inference: The dangling limb or meat has Tum'as Ochlim, but not Tum'as Nevelah.

Question: What is the case?

If the limb or meat can heal (resume to be a live part of the animal), it should not have Tum'as Ochlim;

If it cannot heal, it should have also Tum'as Nevelah!

Answer: Really, it cannot heal. Regarding Nevelah it says "when will fall (from their carcasses)" - it is not Tamei until it fully falls off.

Support (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps a limb or flesh of an animal that is dangling by a hair has Tum'as Nevelah!

Rejection: "When will fall" - it is not Tamei until it fully falls off;

Nevertheless, it receives Tum'as Ochlim.

This supports R. Chiya bar Ashi.

(R. Chiya bar Ashi): If figs dried up on the tree, they receive Tum'as Ochlim. One who picks them on Shabbos is liable. (This shows that even something considered attached can receive Tum'as Ochlim.)

Suggestion: The following also supports R. Chiya bar Ashi.

(Beraisa): If vegetables such as cabbage or gourd dried up while attached, they do not receive Tum'as Ochlim;

If they were detached and dried up, they receive Tum'as Ochlim.

Objection: That cannot be. If they dried up, they are like wood. They do not receive Tum'ah!

Answer (R. Yitzchak): The Beraisa means that if they were detached with intention to dry them, they receive Tum'as Ochlim.

Inference: Only vegetables such as cabbage or gourd, which dry up to the point of being inedible, do not receive Tum'as Ochlim (while attached). Other vegetation receives Tum'ah while attached.

Question: What is the case?

If the stems dried, it need not say that they are Tahor!

Answer: Rather, the stems are not dry. Even so, other vegetation receives Tum'ah while attached. (This supports R. Chiya bar Ashi.)

Rejection: Really, the stems are dry;

The Chidush of the Beraisa is the Seifa. If they were detached with intention to dry them, they receive Tum'as Ochlim.

Question (Beraisa): If a branch of a tree was cut off; fruits on the branch are considered detached;

If (attached) fruits dried up, they are considered attached.

Suggestion: Just like in the Reisha, they are considered detached in all respects, also in the Seifa, they are considered attached in all respects (unlike R. Chiya bar Ashi)!

Answer: No, the clauses are dissimilar. In the Seifa, they receive Tum'as Ochlim as if they were detached.

(Mishnah): If the animal was slaughtered (R. Meir says that Dam Shechitah is Machshir the limb or meat. R. Shimon says, it is not.)

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer #1 (Rabah): R. Meir holds that an animal can be considered a Yad for a single limb. R. Shimon holds that it cannot.

Answer #2 (Abaye): R. Meir considers semi-attached foods to be like one, even if when one holds the smaller food the larger one will break off. R. Shimon holds that they are not like one.