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)";

R. Yehudah and R. Elazar hold that the verse discusses everything whose blood is forbidden. This includes Teme'im;

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.

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 Bnei No'ach. Such an Isur is Chal Al Isur (like he holds about Gid ha'Nasheh)!

Answer: Indeed, he does not need a verse. R. Yochanan explains R. Elazar's source that the Isur applies to Teme'im.

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" applies to Behemos, Chayos and birds, both Tehorim and Teme'im, i.e. everything whose blood is forbidden;

Chachamim expound "do not eat the soul with the flesh", rather, eat the flesh alone. The verse discusses things whose flesh is permitted, i.e. Tehorim;

R. Meir says, it applies only to Behemos Tehoros.

(Rabah bar Shmuel): R. Meir learns from a previous verse "from your cattle and flock" that this applies only to Behemos.

(Rav Gidal): The Tana'im argue only about Yisrael, but all agree that Bnei No'ach are commanded also about Teme'im.

Support #1 (Beraisa): Bnei No'ach are commanded about Ever Min ha'Chai of Teme'im just like of Tehorim;

Bnei Yisrael are commanded only about Tehorim.

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.

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.

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

One who eats Ever Min ha'Chai is not lashed. Shechitah does not permit it.

Question: To whom does this apply?

It cannot apply to a Yisrael. Obviously, slaughtering it does not permit it!

Answer #1: It applies to a Ben No'ach (Shechitah does not permit it while it is still quivering. It is forbidden like (limbs of) a living animal until it dies. Kesef Mishneh - 'the Mishnah says 'he is not lashed', i.e. Beis Din does not punish (kill) him. The Mishnah used the expression we normally use to teach this regarding Yisrael. A Nochri is never lashed!)

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!

Answer (Rav Mani bar Patish): The Reisha applies to Yisraelim. The Seifa applies to Bnei No'ach.

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

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

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

According to Rav, it is a Chidush (that he is not lashed for a Tamei bird) only if he eats a k'Zayis. If he ate a k'Zayis, he is lashed for eating a Tamei bird!

Answer: We answer like Rav Nachman said (elsewhere). He ate a limb that is a k'Zayis. The amount of flesh was less than a k'Zayis. (The rest was bones and sinews, which are not forbidden in Tamei species.)

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

If it was dead (Nevelah), he is liable only for a k'Zayis;

Regarding a Tamei bird, whether alive or dead, he is liable no matter how small it is.

Answer: Here also (in Rav's first law), the entire bird was a k'Zayis. The flesh was less than a k'Zayis.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): If one eats a (whole) live bird less than a k'Zayis, he is exempt;

R. Elazar bar Shimon obligates.

R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon: One is liable for eating one limb. All the more so, he is liable for the whole bird!

If he choked it and ate it, all agree that he is liable only for a k'Zayis.

Question (against Rav): They argue only about whether a living being l'Evarim Omedes (since it will ultimately be dissected into limbs, Ever Min ha'Chai already applies):

R. Elazar holds that l'Evarim Omedes. Rebbi does not;

When Ever Min ha'Chai applies, both obligate for less than a k'Zayis!

Answer (Rav Nachman): The whole bird was a k'Zayis. The flesh was less than a k'Zayis.

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?!

Answer (Rav Sharbiya): Yes! He discusses a Kalanisa (a very lean bird).

Objection (Seifa): If he choked it and ate it, all agree that he is liable only for a k'Zayis.

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

Correction: Rather, he discusses a Tahor bird that resembles a Kalanisa.

(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.

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?!

Answer (Rava): Yes! The law of each person depends on his intention.

(Rava): If R. Elazar b'Ribi 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;

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?!

Answer (Rava): Yes! The law of each depends on his intention.

(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 Terefah.

(Reish Lakish): "Do not eat the soul with the flesh" forbids Ever Min ha'Chai and Basar Min ha'Chai. "Do not eat torn meat in the field" forbids Basar Terefah.

If one ate Ever Min ha'Chai and Basar Min ha'Chai, R. Yochanan is Mechayav twice, and Reish Lakish is Mechayav once;

If he ate Basar Min ha'Chai and Basar Terefah, R. Yochanan is Mechayav once, and Reish Lakish is Mechayav twice;

If he ate Ever Min ha'Chai and Basar Terefah, both are Mechayav twice.

Question: If one ate Ever Min ha'Chai of a Terefah, R. Yochanan is Mechayav twice, and Reish Lakish is Mechayav once;

All agree that these are learned from different verses. Why is Reish Lakish Mechayav only once?

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

They argue about Ever Min ha'Chai of a Terefah.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, it became Terefah during birth (or before);

R. Yochanan holds that l'Evarim Omedes, so both Isurim take effect simultaneously (at birth);

Reish Lakish holds that Lav l'Evarim Omedes, so only the Isur Terefah takes effect at birth;

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

Answer #2: Neither holds that l'Evarim Omedes. They argue about whether Ever Min ha'Chai is Chal on Terefah:

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

Answer #3: Both hold that l'Evarim Omedes. The case is, it became Terefah after birth;

They argue about whether or not the Terefah is Chal on Ever Min ha'Chai.

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

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

R. Yochanan holds Lav l'Evarim Omedes (so Ever Min ha'Chai and Terefah are Chal simultaneously);

Reish Lakish holds l'Evarim Omedes, so Ever Min ha'Chai applied from birth. The Isur Terefah is not Chal when the limb is torn off.