Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "EVER MIN HA'CHAI"

(a) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah and R. Elazar): The Isur of Ever Min ha'Chai (a limb of a living animal) applies to Behemos, Chayos and birds, both Tehorim and Teme'im;

1. Chachamim say, it applies only to Tehorim.

(b) R. Yochanan: They both learn from "Do not eat the blood, for the blood is the soul; do not eat the soul with the flesh (i.e. do not eat the flesh while it still has its soul)".

1. R. Yehudah and R. Elazar say, the verse discusses everything whose blood is forbidden - this includes Teme'im;
2. Chachamim expound, "Do not eat the soul with the flesh" - rather, eat the flesh alone (after its soul departed) - the verse discusses animals whose flesh is permitted, i.e. Tehorim.

(c) Question: Why does R. Yehudah need a verse to teach that the Isur applies to Teme'im -Ever Min ha'Chai is forbidden even to Benei No'ach, such an Isur is Chal Al Isur (like he holds about Gid ha'Nasheh)!
(d) Answer: Indeed, he does not need a verse; R. Yochanan explains R. Elazar's source that the Isur applies to Teme'im.
(e) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa - R. Elazar): "Do not eat the blood, for the blood is the soul; do not eat the soul with the flesh" - the verse discusses everything whose blood is forbidden - this includes Teme'im;

1. Chachamim expound, "do not eat the soul with the flesh" - rather, eat the flesh alone - the verse discusses animals whose flesh is permitted, i.e. Tehorim;
2. R. Meir says, it applies only to Behemos Tehoros.

(f) (Rabah bar Shmuel): R. Meir learns from a previous verse "From your cattle and flock" that this applies only to Behemos.
(g) (Rav Gidal): The Tana'im only argue regarding Yisrael, but all agree that Benei No'ach are also commanded about Teme'im.
(h) Support #1 (Beraisa): Benei No'ach are commanded about Ever Min ha'Chai of Teme'im just like of Tehorim;

1. Benei Yisrael are commanded only about Tehorim.
2. Version #1: The correct text of the Beraisa says *Teme'ah* and *Tehorah*; the singular form indicates that these apply only to a Behemah - this is like R. Meir.
3. Version #2: The correct text of the Beraisa says *Teme'im* and *Tehorim*; the plural form indicates that this applies to Behemos, Chayos and birds - this is like Chachamim.

(i) Support #2 (Rav Shizbi - Mishnah): The following apply to a Tamei bird:

1. One who eats Ever Min ha'Chai is not lashed; slaughtering it does not permit it.

(j) Question: To whom does this apply?

1. It cannot apply to a Yisrael - obviously, slaughtering it does not permit it!

(k) Answer: It applies to a Ben No'ach (slaughter does not permit it while it is still quivering - it is forbidden like (limbs of) a living animal until it dies).
(l) Question (Rav Mani bar Patish): The Reisha says that Ever Min ha'Chai does not apply to a Tamei bird (it exempts from lashes), the Seifa says that it does apply!
(m) Answer (Rav Mani bar Patish): The Reisha applies to Yisraelim, the Seifa to Benei No'ach.

(a) (Rav): To be liable for eating Ever Min ha'Chai, one must eat a k'Zayis.

1. This is because the Torah forbids 'eating' it, this always connotes a k'Zayis.

(b) Question (Rav Amram - Mishnah): One who eats Ever Min ha'Chai (of a Tamei bird) is not lashed; slaughtering it does not permit it.

1. According to Rav, the Chidush (that he is not lashed) is only if he eats a k'Zayis - but then he would be lashed for eating a k'Zayis of a Tamei bird!

(c) Answer: We answer like Rav Nachman said (elsewhere) - he ate a limb that was a k'Zayis, but that k'Zayis was comprised of less than a k'Zayis of flesh, together with bones and sinews (the Isur against eating a Tamei species does not apply to bones and sinews).

(d) Contradiction: But Rav taught, if one eats a (whole) live Tahor bird he is liable, no matter how small it is;

1. If it was dead (Neveilah), he is only liable for a k'Zayis;
2. Regarding a Tamei bird, whether alive or dead, he is liable now matter how small it is.

(e) Answer: Here also, the case (of Rav's first law) is, the entire bird was a k'Zayis, the flesh was less.
(f) (Beraisa - Rebbi): If one eats a (whole) live bird less than a k'Zayis, he is exempt;

1. R. Elazar bar Shimon is Mechayav.
2. R. Elazar bar Shimon: One is liable for eating one limb - all the more so, he is liable for the whole bird!
3. If he strangled it and ate it, all agree he is liable only for a k'Zayis (for eating Neveilah).

(g) Question (against Rav): They only argue whether or not a living being is l'Evarim Omedes (perhaps since it eventually will be cut into limbs, Ever Min ha'Chai already applies):

1. R. Elazar holds that l'Evarim Omedes, Rebbi does not;
2. When Ever Min ha'Chai applies, both Mechayav for less than a k'Zayis!

(h) Answer (Rav Nachman): The whole bird was a k'Zayis, the flesh was less than a k'Zayis.
(i) Question: Would we ever find a bird without a k'Zayis of flesh, but one limb alone has a k'Zayis of flesh, bones and sinews?!
(j) Answer (Rav Sharbiya): Yes, he discusses a Kalanisa (a very lean bird.)
(k) Objection (Seifa): If he choked it and ate it, all agree that he is liable only for a k'Zayis.

1. A Kalanisa is Tamei - Rav is Mechayav for a Tamei bird of any size, dead or alive!

(l) Correction: Rather, he discusses a Tahor bird that resembles a Kalanisa
(m) (Rava): If Rebbi holds that intention to eat makes a difference, if one intended to dissect and eat the limbs of a bird less than a k'Zayis, but then ate it whole, he would be liable;
(n) Question (Abaye): Do we ever find that Reuven is liable for eating something (i.e. if he had such intent, but ate it whole), but Shimon (who had no such intent) would be exempt for it?!
(o) Answer (Rava): Yes - the law of each person depends on his intention.
(p) (Rava): If R. Elazar bar Shimon holds that intention to eat makes a difference - if one intended to eat a bird (less than a k'Zayis) after it dies, and ate it alive, he is exempt;
(q) Question (Abaye): Do we ever find that Reuven is exempt for eating something (i.e. if he had such intent, but ate it alive), but Shimon (who had no such intent) would be liable for it?!
(r) Answer (Rava): Yes - the law of each depends on his intention.

(a) (R. Yochanan): "Do not eat the soul with the flesh" forbids Ever Min ha'Chai; "Do not eat torn meat in the field" forbids Basar Min ha'Chai (flesh of a living animal) and Basar Tereifah.
(b) (Reish Lakish): "Do not eat the soul with the flesh" - this forbids Ever Min ha'Chai and Basar Min ha'Chai; "Do not eat torn meat in the field" forbids Basar Tereifah.

1. If one ate Ever Min ha'Chai and Basar Min ha'Chai, R. Yochanan is Mechayav twice, Reish Lakish is Mechayav once;
2. If he ate Basar Min ha'Chai and Basar Tereifah, R. Yochanan is Mechayav once, Reish Lakish is Mechayav twice;
3. If he ate Ever Min ha'Chai and Basar Tereifah, both Mechayav twice.

(c) Question: If one ate Ever Min ha'Chai of a Tereifah, R. Yochanan is Mechayav twice, Reish Lakish is Mechayav once;

1. All agree that these are learned from different verses - why does Reish Lakish Mechayav only once?

(d) Answer (Rav Yosef): Both Mechayav twice if he eats Ever Min ha'Chai and Basar of a different Tereifah animal;

1. They argue about Ever Min ha'Chai of a Tereifah.

(e) Question: Why do they argue?
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, it became Tereifah during birth (or before);

1. R. Yochanan holds l'Evarim Omedes, so both Isurim take effect simultaneously (At birth);
2. Reish Lakish holds Lav l'Evarim Omedes, so only the Isur Tereifah takes effect at birth;

i. When a limb separates later, the Isur of Ever Min ha'Chai does not take effect, since the animal is already forbidden.

(g) Answer #2: Neither holds l'Evarim Omedes; they argue whether or not Ever Min ha'Chai is Chal on Tereifah:

1. R. Yochanan says that it is, Reish Lakish says that it is not.

(h) Answer #3: Both hold l'Evarim Omedes; the case is, it became Tereifah after birth;

1. They argue whether or not the Tereifah is Chal on Ever Min ha'Chai.
2. R. Yochanan says that it is, Reish Lakish says that it is not.

(i) Answer #4 (Rava): The case is, a limb was torn off the animal, making it Tereifah;

1. R. Yochanan holds Lav l'Evarim Omedes (so Ever Min ha'Chai and Tereifah are Chal simultaneously);
2. Reish Lakish holds l'Evarim Omedes, so Ever Min ha'Chai applied from birth; the Isur Tereifah is not Chal when the limb is torn off.