Previous daf

1)

(a) We just quoted Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar, who learn from the Pasuk "Rak Chazak Levilti Achol ha'Dam ... " that the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai takes effect even on a Beheimah Teme'ah. The problem with the insertion of Rebbi Yehudah in this statement is - that he already knows this from the fact that Eiver min ha'Chai is Chamur because it applied to the B'nei No'ach. So why does he now need to learn it from a Pasuk?

(b) We solve the problem - by establishing the D'rashah according to Rebbi Elazar exclusively.

(c) We prove it from the Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar cites the Pasuk "Rak Chazak Levilti Achol ha'Dam" and the Rabbanan, "ve'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar" - that Rebbi Yochanan was right when he said that they both learned their respective D'rashos from the same Pasuk (though it is unclear why it does not also prove the previous statement [that it is only Rebbi Elazar who requires the Pasuk, and not Rebbi Yehudah]).

(a) According to Rav Chisda ... or Rav Yosef, Rebbi Meir's statement in the Beraisa is based on the fact that the Pasuk places "Ve'zavachta mi'Bekorcha u'mi'Tzoncha" immediately before the Pasuk of Eiver min ha'Chai. Rebbi Meir states there - 'Eino Noheg Ela bi'Veheimah Tehorah Bilevad', but not to Chayos or Ofos ...

(b) ... in which case, he comes to argue both with Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar and with the Chachamim in the previous Beraisa.

(c) Rav Gidal Amar Rav establishes the above Machlokes by a Yisrael. But as far as a ben No'ach is concerned - there is no difference between Eiver min ha'Chai of Teme'im and of Tehorim.

(d) This has the support of a Beraisa, which continues 've'Yisrael Eino Muzhar Ela al ha'Tehorim Bilevad' - which is either taken literally, and goes like the Rabbanan, or changed to 'Tehorah', like Rebbi Meir.

(a) Rav Shizbi proves Rav Gidal Amar Rav's statement from a Mishah in Taharos, which rules in connection with a Tamei bird 've'Ein Shechitasah Metaharasah'. This cannot be referring to ...

1. ... a Yisrael eating from it - since that would be obvious (for who would ever dream that a non-Kasher bird would become permitted through Shechitah?).
2. ... the bird becoming Tahor (in the literal sense of the word) - since a 'Tamei' bird is not Tamei to begin with.

(b) The Tana must therefore be coming to teach us - that Shechitah does not permit the Tamei bird to a Nochri, until it is completely dead (i.e. it is no longer convulsing).

(c) He would not be Chayav in the same case, if it was a Tahor bird (which a Nochri may eat immediately after it has been Shechted) - because generally, there is nothing which is permitted to a Yisrael, that is forbidden to a Nochri.

(d) Rav Mani bar Patish reconciles the current ruling with the Reisha of the Mishnah (which speaks about the same Tamei bird) 'Achal Eiver min ha'Chai Mimenah, Eino Sofeg es ha'Arba'im' - by establishing the Reisha with regard to a Yisrael (like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar).

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that Eiver min ha'Chai requires a k'Zayis. We might have thought otherwise - because if Basar min ha'Chai requires a k'Zayis, we would have thought that Eiver min ha'Chai, which is a separate La'av, is Chayav even for a Kol she'Hu (seeing as it is a Beryah) Note, that both Pesukim will be discussed at the end of the Daf.

(b) Rav Yehudah's reason for this is - because even the Pasuk of Basar min ha'Chai mentions "Achilah" (see top of Amud), and Achilah always implies a k'Zayis.

(a) Rav Amram quotes another ruling from the above Mishnah in Taharos 'Achal Eiver min ha'Chai Mimenah Eino Sofeg es ha'Arba'im', posing a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - because if the sinner ate a k'Zayis, why he is he not Chayav for transgressing the La'av of "Lo Yochlu ki Sheketz Heim"?

(b) We cannot answer by establishing the Mishnah when he ate less that the Shi'ur - because then, he would not be Chayav even if was the Gid of a Tahor bird, and the Tana is currently listing the distinctions between the two.

(c) And we answer with a statement by Rav Nachman (elsewhere) - who said 'be'Mashehu Basar, Gidin va'Atzamos' (meaning that the k'Zayis that he ate was made up of Basar, Gidin and bones), which is sufficient as regards the Shi'ur Gid ha'Nasheh, but not as regards that of Of Tamei (since Gidin and Atzamos are not edible). Note, that this is the Chidush of Eiver min ha'Chai (over Basar min ha'Chai to which we just alluded)

6)

(a) We query Rav Yehudah Amar Rav from a Beraisa, where the Tana rules that someone who eats a Tahor bird that consists of a 'Kol she'Hu, alive - is Chayav ...

(b) ... because of Eiver min ha'Chai.

(c) The Tana rule that if he ate ...

1. ... it after its death - he is only Chayav if it consists of a k'Zayis - because (based on the fact that the Torah writes Achilah by Neveilah), Neveilah requires a k'Zayis.
2. ... a Tamei bird, either way, he is Chayav even if it consists of a Kol she'Hu - because it is a Beryah, and a Beryah never requires a k'Zayis (as we learned in Makos).

(d) Neveilah consisting of a Kol she'Hu however, is not considered a Beryah -because when the bird was created, it was not yet called a Neveilah.

(a) We reconcile Rav Yehudah Amar Rav with the first ruling in this Beraisa, which sentences the eater to Malkos for a Kol she'Hu of Eiver min ha'Chai - by establishing the case where the Gidin and the bones make up the k'Zayis, as we explained earlier.

(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi exempts from Malkos, someone who eats a Tahor bird that consists of less than a k'Zayis, whereas - Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon renders him Chayav ...

(c) .... 'Kal va'Chomer' from one limb (and there is no more pronounced case of Eiver than the whole bird.

(d) And the Tana concludes - 'Chankah ve'Achlah, Divrei ha'Kol bi'K'zayis', seeing as Neveilah requires a k'Zayis, as we just explained.

(a) Rebbi counters Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's Kal va'Chomer - with the argument that a whole bird is not a limb ...

(b) ... neither does it stand do be cut up into limbs (as long as it has not been Shechted); whereas according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, it does, in which case he is anyway Chayav for each limb (and receives no more than one set of Malkos only because he received only one warning).

(c) If someone eats a limb that is less than a k'Zayis, whilst the bird is still alive - even Rebbi will agree that he is Chayav.

(d) Rav Nachman now reconciles Rav Yehudah Amar Rav with the Seifa - by establishing the latter when he supplemented the Basar with Gidin and bones, to make up a k'Zayis.

(a) In connection with the previous Beraisa, we ask whether it is possible for an entire bird to consist of less than a k'Zayis Basar, yet it possesses a limb that comprises a k'Zayis, albeit together with the Gidin and the bones. Rav Sh'ravya replies - that indeed it is, in the case of a particularly skinny bird called a 'Kalnisa'.

(b) Bearing in mind that a Kalnisa is a Tamei bird, this answer creates a problem with the Seifa 'Chankah ve'Achalah, Divrei ha'Kol bi'K'zayis' - which then contradicts another ruling of Rav, that the Shi'ur of a Tamei bird, alive or dead, is a Mashehu?

(c) So we amend Rav Sh'ravya's answer to - 'a skinny Tahor bird that resembles the Kalnisa (which was well-known for its skinniness).

(a) Rava declares that, assuming that he holds Machsheves Ochlin Sh'mah Machshavah, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi, a person who eats a Tamei bird of less than a k'Zayis, alive, will be Chayav - in the event that he decides to eat it limb by limb.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, someone who eats a Tamei bird of less than a k'Zayis, alive, will be Patur - in the event that he decided to eat it after it was dead, but went on to eat it alive (in which case it is no longer considered 'Omedes le'Evarim' [though it is unclear why his actions do not negate his intention]).

(b) Rava dismissed Abaye's query on both rulings, how it is possible for Reuven to be Chayav for eating something for which Shimon would be Patur (or vice-versa) - on the grounds that indeed he is, since the Machshavah of each one determines the status of the article in question as far as he is concerned.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, "Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar" (in Re'ei) teaches us the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai. The Torah refers to a limb from a live animal as "Nefesh" - because it is an intrinsic part of the animal which will not re-grow once it is removed.

(b) We then learn from "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu" - the Isur of Basar min ha'Chai and of Basar min ha'Tereifah.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan interprets "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu" to mean that he is Chayav for Basar that moved from its location and for Tereifah, and "Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar" to mean - that one may not eat a limb that comes from live flesh.

(a) Resh Lakish learns Eiver min ha'Chai and Basar min ha'Chai from "Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar", whereas from "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu", he learns - Basar min ha'Tereifah.

(b) Resh Lakish interprets "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu" to mean that it is forbidden to eat Basar that comes from a Tereifah, and "Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar" - that one may eat neither a live Eiver nor flesh, as long as they are together.

(c) Consequently, someone who eats in one sitting ...

1. ... Eiver min ha'Chai and Basar min ha'Chai - is Chayav two sets of Malkos according to Rebbi Yochanan, one according to Resh Lakish.
2. ... Basar min ha'Chai and Basar min ha'Tereifah - is Chayav one set of Malkos according to Rebbi Yochanan, two according to Resh Lakish.
3. ... Eiver min ha'Chai and Basar min ha'Tereifah - is Chayav two sets of Malkos, according to both opinions.