Previous daf

1)

(a) In another statement, Rebbi Yochanan sentences someone who eats Eiver min ha'Chai from a Tereifah, to two sets of Malkos. Resh Lakish sentences him to only one ...

(b) ... contradicting his previous ruling, where he (as well as Rebbi Yochanan) learns Eiver min ha'Chai and Basar min ha'Tereifah from two different Pesukim.

(c) Rav Yosef draws a distinction between two animals - where he is indeed Chayav two sets of Malkos, and one - where he receives only one (as we will now explain).

(d) To explain the Machlokes, Abaye establishes the case by a baby that became a Tereifah just as Rov leaves its mother's womb. Consequently - according to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Beheimah be'Chayehah le'Evarim Omedes', the Isur Tereifah and the Isur Eiver min ha'Chai take effect simultaneously; whereas according to Resh Lakish - who holds 'Beheimah be'Chayehah La'av le'Evarim Omedes', the Isur Eiver min ha'Chai will not take effect on that of Tereifah.

(a) Alternatively, both opinions might hold 'Beheimah be'Chayehah La'av le'Evarim Omedes', in which case, Rebbi Yochanan will hold - that Eiver min ha'Chai takes effect on a Tereifah, because it already applied to the B'nei No'ach (like the S'vara of Rebbi Yehudah, in the previous Mishnah).

(b) Or they might both hold 'Beheimah be'Chayehah le'Evarim Omedes' - only the animal become a Tereifah afterwards. Rebbi Yochanan now holds 'Isur (Tereifah) Chal al Isur' (Eiver min ha'Chai), whereas Resh Lakish holds 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur'.

(c) Rava establishes the case where someone cut off an Eiver, rendering the animal a Tereifah at the same time - if for example, he cut off the legs from above the knee.

(d) Assuming that both opinions hold 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan holds - 'Beheimah be'Chayehah La'av le'Evarim Omedes', in which case the La'av of Eiver min ha'Chai and that of Tereifah take effect simultaneously (assuming that we hold of 'Isur Bas Achas'). Whereas ...
2. ... Resh Lakish holds 'Beheimah be'Chayehah le'Evarim Omedes' - in which case the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai came first, and that of Tereifah cannot take effect.

(a) When Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan sentenced whoever eats the Cheilev of a limb from a Tereifah animal to two sets of Malkos - Rebbi Ami asked him why he did not sentence him to three, which is what he maintained.

(b) Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan - corroborates Rebbi Ami.

(c) Assuming that the animal became a Tereifah during birth as Rov emerged - they will then argue over whether 'Beheimah be'Chayehah le'Evarim Omedes' (Rebbi Ami), and all three La'avin took effect simultaneously, or not (Rebbi Chiya bar Aba), in which case Eiver min ha'Chai will not take effect (as we explained earlier).

(d) Assuming, on the other hand, that both opinions hold 'Beheimah be'Chayehah La'av le'Evarim Omedes' - they will argue over whether 'Isur Chal al Isur' (Rebbi Ami) or nor (Rebbi Chiya bar Aba).

(a) Finally, we suggest that both opinions hold 'Beheimah be'Chayehah le'Evarim Omedes', and the problem begins with the fact - that it became a Tereifah only later, and the question is whether the Isur of Tereifah is Chal on that of Eiver min ha'Chai, as well as on Cheilev, or not?

(b) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Cheilev of Neveilah and Tereifah) "Ve'achol Lo Sochluhu" - that Neveilah and Tereifah are Chal on Cheilev (which precedes them).

(c) The problem here is - whether they are also Chal on Eiver min ha'Chai, which does not have a Heter like Cheilev ('Hutar mi'Chelalo' in the case of a Chayah) does.

(d) Rebbi Ami holds that just as Neveilah and Tereifah are Chal on Cheilev, so too are they Chal on Eiver min ha'Chai; whereas Rebbi Chiya bar Aba confines the above D'rashah to Cheilev, which is Hutar mi'Chelalu, as we explained, but does not apply to Eiver min ha'Chai, on which Neveilah and Tereifah do not take effect.

5)

(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Resh Lakish, who asked Rebbi Yochanan whether someone is Chayav if he divides a k'Zayis of Eiver min ha'Chai into two, before placing them one by one into his mouth and eating them one at a time. If he did the same thing with a 'k'Zayis of Cheilev for example - he would be Chayav, because whatever one eats within the Shi'ur of K'dei Achilas P'ras (approximately four minutes) combines.

(b) Eiver min ha'Chai might be different - because, bearing in mind that by other Isurim one is not Chayav for eating Gidin and bones, it is a Chidush. Consequently, one must eat it in the way that one normally eats it in order to be Chayav, and people do not tend to divide a k'Zayis of meat in this way and to eat them seperately (see Tosfos DH 'Chalko mi'ba'Chutz').

(c) Rebbi Yochanan replied - that he is indeed Patur.

(d) And when Resh Lakish asked him whether he will also be Patur if he divided it into two in his mouth and swallowed the two halves one after the other - he replied that in such a case, he would be Chayav.

(a) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael he agreed with Rav Dimi's version of the first case. The second one however - was not presented as a She'eilah, but as a Machlokes; Rebbi Yochanan ruled Chayav, and Resh Lakish, Patur.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan ruled Chayav - because the Hana'ah of the throat determines the Chiyuv; whereas Resh Lakish ruled Patur - because the Hana'ah of the stomach determines the Isur.

(c) When we ask how, according to Resh Lakish, it is possible to be Chayav, we mean - that it impossible (see Tosfos ibid.) to chew a k'Zayis in the mouth and then swallow it in one go.

(d) Rav Kahana answers 'bi'Gerumisa Ze'erta' - a small bone attached to the thigh-bone, which makes up a k'Zayis together with the bit of meat and Gid which are attached to it, and which one normally swallows whole.

(a) Rebbi Elazar disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. He maintains that - even someone who divides the k'Zayis Gid into two and eats them separately, is Chayav ...

(b) ... because 'Mechusar K'reivah La'av ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh Dami' (the location of the parts of the k'Zayis is not crucial for the Chiyuv. What is important, is that one eats it within the Shi'ur of 'K'dei Achilas P'ras'.

(a) According to Resh Lakish, the k'Zayis for which one is Chayav does not include whatever remains stuck between the teeth. Rebbi Yochanan says - that it does.

(b) Rav Papa qualifies this - by confining the Machlokes to the back upper teeth (that are close to the palate), but if meat is stuck to the front teeth, he concedes that it is not included in the Shi'ur k'Zayis ...

(c) ... because the throat derives no benefit from it.

(d) Resh Lakish does not count the meat that is stuck between the back upper teeth either, since the stomach derives no benefit from it (and it is Hana'as Me'av that is crucial according to him, as we just learned).

(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that someone who eats half a k'Zayis of Isur and then vomits it before eating another half k'Zayis - is Chayav, because his throat after all, did benefit from a k'Zayis.

(b) Rebbi Asi disagrees with Rav Dimi and Ravin who cites Rebbi Yochanan earlier as saying that someone who ate two half-k'Zeisim separately, is Patur?

(c) Had Rebbi Yochanan required Hana'as Me'av (and not Hana'as G'rono), Rebbi Asi would have ruled - that he is Patur, since the stomach only derives benefit if there is a full k'Zayis there at the same time.

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked Rebbi Asi whether a person will be Chayav for eating half a k'Zayis of Isur, vomiting it and eating it again. Initially, we think that he might not be Chayav - because the half k'Zayis was digested and therefore is no longer considered edible.

(b) When we ask 've'Tiba'i Leih k'Zayis', we mean - that he could just as well have asked whether, if someone ate a full k'Zayis, vomited it and ate it again, he is Chayav two sets of Malkos or not.

(c) So we reinterpret the reasoning behind the She'eilah - attributing the reason that he may be Patur to the possibility that we go after Hana'as Me'av (and not Hana'as G'rono).

(a) When we ask why we cannot resolve Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah from Rebbi Asi, we mean - that from the fact that he refers to a case of a second half k'Zayis (rather than the same one), it is clear that, according to him, Rebbi Yochanan requires Hana'as G'rono (and not Hana'as Me'av, as we already explained).

(b) And we answer - that Rebbi Asi, in fact, made a mistake by citing a case of two half k'Zeisim, when in reality, Rebbi Yochanan said his Din by the same k'Zayis (as we explained in the Kashya).

(c) The advantage in presenting the case where he sicked up and ate the full k'Zayis, as Rebbi Elazar points out is - that besides teaching us the Chidush of Hana'as G'rono, it would also teach us that food that one vomits immediately after eating it is not considered digested.

(d) When Rebbi Asi remained silent, Rebbi Elazar, referring to him as 'Mofes ha'Dor' (meaning Gadol ha'Dor) -commented how many a time he (Rebbi Asi) himself had cited the case with regard to a complete k'Zayis before Rebbi Yochanan, who commented 'Harei Neheneh G'rono bi'k'Zayis'.

Next daf