Explanation: This was explained earlier (72b, DH "b'Sha'as").

Implied Question: The phraseology here does not seem accurate, as it should not have said more than "here it is not able to accept impurity" (see Maharam).

Question: This is difficult. Why doesn't the Gemara ask that we do not have to say the Beraisa is like Rebbi Meir because it should have stringent impurity due to its "father?" It does not require coming in contact with water or a Sheretz, as stated in Nidah (50b).

Explanation: This means that while it was given the name of a stringent impurity, meaning Aiver Min ha'Chai, it is no longer Aiver Min ha'Chai as it only has flesh which means it is no longer called a limb.

Implied Question: It is incomparable to the Neveilah of a kosher bird and the Parim ha'Nisrafim.

Answer: This is because when the Parim have stringent impurity it is because they were burned as bulls and they are still meat of a bull. This what the Gemara means. When it was used, it was used like a piece of wood, and not as its current status of food.

Question: Even though it acted like wood, it should still be deemed impure, as we should derive from seeds that are not supposed to be stringently impure!

Answer: Seeds also end up having stringent impurity through being used like wood, as stated later that a person who designated a bunch of yeast as a chair has indeed nullified it (as a chair), and makes it capable to become impure through sitting on it.

Question: This is difficult, as if it is not nullified according to Torah law, why is it permitted to put it in his house?

Question: There is a question from our Gemara on Rabeinu Shmuel's explanation in Sukah (13b). The Gemara there says that vegetables that a person can fulfill his obligation of Maror with on Pesach do not stop impurity. However, they do bring impurity and cause a Sukah to be invalid because of the air. This means that it is not invalid because it is unfit Sechach, as this would mean there would have to be four Tefachim of unfit Sechach, while we know that for there to be too much airspace only three Tefachim are necessary.

Question (cont.): The Gemara asks, what is the reason? It answers that since when it dries it falls, it is as if it has already fallen away.

Question (cont.): Rabeinu Shmuel explains that when the Gemara asks for the reason it is not regarding it not stopping impurity, since it is food and therefore it only accepts impurity and does not stop impurity. Rather, it is asking why it makes a Sukah unfit.

Question (cont.): There is difficulty with his explanation. Our Gemara implies that it is nullified to the house and it no longer becomes impure! (This conflicts with Rabeinu Shmuel's explanation that it is still considered food.)

Answer: However, it is possible to answer according to Rabeinu Shmuel that the part of the statement that "it does not stop impurity" was not referring to when they are Sechach, but rather in general (when they are still considered food).

Observation: However, he still should not have given this explanation, as it is possible to explain that the case is when he used them as Sechach and they did not accept impurity. The reason they do not interrupt impurity is because when they dry out they fall down. This is indeed the explanation of Rashi in Sukah (ibid.).

Explanation: It seemingly appears that a limb from a live person is derived from a Binyan Av from Sheratzim and animals.

Implied Question: However, the Mishnah does not imply this, as they told Rebbi Eliezer that he should rule the same regarding both. He gave his reasoning regarding why he included flesh and excluded bone (implying this is not due to a Binyan Av). (What is the source that a limb from a live person is impure?)

Answer: It must be that this law is derived from one Pasuk, which one opinion says is referring to flesh and one says it is referring to bone, with each giving his reasoning. A third opinion uses the Pasuk for a different teaching entirely. However, if we would derive this from a Binyan Av using Sheratzim and animals, why did they ask Rebbi Eliezer why he included meat and excluded bone?

Explanation: This means that "or" a bone the size of a barley. This is because we cannot say that both are impure according to the Tana Kama. If they would be, what would be the difference between a limb from a dead person and a limb from a live person?