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.
What does Resh Lakish say?

(b) What Kashya does this pose on Resh Lakish's previous ruling?

(c) Rav Yosef draws a distinction between two animals and one animal. What does this mean?

(d) To explain the Machlokes, Abaye establishes the case by a baby that became a Tereifah just as Rov leaves the mother's womb.
How does he then go on to explain the Machlokes?

(a) Alternatively, both opinions might hold 'Beheimah be'Chayehah La'av le'Evarim Omedes'.
In that case, how will we explain Rebbi Yochanan? What is his reason?

(b) Or they might both hold 'Beheimah be'Chayehah le'Evarim Omedes'. What is then the basis of their Machlokes? When did the animal become a Tereifah?

(c) Rava establishes the case where someone cut off an Eiver, rendering the animal a Tereifah at the same time.
What might the case then be?

(d) Assuming that both opinions hold 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur', what is then the basis of the Machlokes? What does ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan hold?
2. ... Resh Lakish say?

(a) What objection did Rebbi Ami raise, when Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan sentenced a whoever eats the Cheilev of a limb from a Tereifah animal to two sets of Malkos?

(b) What does Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan say?

(c) Assuming that the animal became a Tereifah during birth just as Rov emerged, what is the basis of the Machlokes?

(d) And what will be the basis of their Machlokes assuming that both opinions hold 'Beheimah be'Chayehah La'av le'Evarim Omedes'?

(a) Finally, we suggest that both opinions hold 'Beheimah be'Chayehah le'Evarim Omedes'.
Then what is the problem?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Cheilev of Neveilah and Tereifah) "Ve'achol Lo Sochluhu"?

(c) Then what is the problem here? If Neveilah and Tereifah are Chal on Cheilev, why might they not be Chal on Eiver min ha'Chai?

(d) So what is then the Machlokes here?

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.
What would the Din be if he did the same thing with a k'Zayis of Cheilev for example?

(b) Then why might Eiver min ha'Chai be different?

(c) What did Rebbi Yochanan reply?

(d) And what did he reply 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?

(a) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he agreed with Rav Dimi's version of the first case.
How did he cite the second one?

(b) What is the basis of the Machlokes, according to Ravin?

(c) What do we mean when we ask how, according to Resh Lakish, it is possible to be Chayav?

(d) Rav Kahana answers 'bi'Gerumisa Ze'erta'.
What is 'G'rumisa Ze'erta'?

(a) Rebbi Elazar disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.
What does he say in the first case, where someone divides the k'Zayis Gid into two and eats them separately?

(b) What reason does he give for that?

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

(b) How does Rav Papa qualify this? To which teeth are the disputants referring?

(c) Why does Rebbi Yochanan agree in the case of meat that is stuck between the front teeth?

(d) What is then Resh Lakish's reason?

(a) What does Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about someone who eats half a k'Zayis of Isur and then vomits it before eating another half k'Zayis?

(b) But did we not cite Rebbi Yochanan earlier as saying that someone who eats two half-k'Zeisim separately is Patur?

(c) What would Rebbi Asi have held had Rebbi Yochanan required Hana'as Me'av (and not Hana'as G'rono)?

(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.
Why do we initially think that he might not be Chayav?

(b) Then what do we mean when we ask 've'Tiba'i Leih k'Zayis'?

(c) So how do we reinterpret the reasoning behind the She'eilah? Why might one not be Chayav in the case of half a k'Zayis?

(a) What do we mean when we ask why we cannot resolve Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah from Rebbi Asi?

(b) What do we answer?

(c) What would have been the advantage in presenting the case where he sicked up and ate the full k'Zayis, as Rebbi Elazar points out?

(d) What did Rebbi Elazar declare when Rebbi Asi remained silent? Why did he refer to him as 'Mofes ha'Dor'?

Next daf