מִכְּלָלוֹ. אֲבָל אֵבָר, דְּלָא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ – לָא.

to its general prohibition, as the fat of an undomesticated animal is permitted. But with regard to a limb from a living animal, where there are no permitted circumstances to its general prohibition, the prohibition of consuming a tereifa does not take effect.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר, בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חִלְּקוֹ מִבַּחוּץ מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פָּטוּר.

§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish inquired of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one took from a living animal a limb that was an olive-bulk and divided it into two pieces when it was outside his mouth and ate each piece separately, what is the halakha ? said to him: He is exempt.

מִבִּפְנִים מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַיָּיב.

Reish Lakish then asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: If he placed an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal inside his mouth and then divided it and swallowed the two parts separately, what is the halakha ? said to him: He is liable to receive lashes.

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אֲמַר, חִלְּקוֹ מִבַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. מִבִּפְנִים – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פָּטוּר.

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said an alternative version of this discussion. If one took from a living animal a limb that was an olive-bulk and divided it into two pieces when it was outside his mouth, and he then ate each piece separately, he is exempt. If he divided the limb into two parts inside his mouth, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that he is liable, and Reish Lakish says that he is exempt.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר חַיָּיב – הֲרֵי נֶהֱנָה גְּרוֹנוֹ בְּכַזַּיִת. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּטוּר – אֲכִילָה בְּמֵעָיו בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא!

Rabbi Yoḥanan says he is liable because his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal. And Reish Lakish says that he is exempt because in order to be liable we require an act of eating that contains the requisite amount, i.e., an olive-bulk, when it enters his stomach, and in this case there is not a full olive-bulk that enters his stomach at one time.

אֶלָּא, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ דִּמְחַיַּיב? אֲמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: בִּגְרוֹמִיתָא זְעֵירְתָא.

The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan it is clear how one can be liable for eating an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal. But according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, how can you find a case where one will be liable for eating a limb from a living animal, since the food is generally broken up before he swallows it? Rav Kahana said: One would be liable in a case where he eats a small bone that contains an olive-bulk of meat, bone and sinew all together, and that he can swallow whole.

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חִלְּקוֹ מִבַּחוּץ – נַמִי חַיָּיב, מְחוּסַּר קְרִיבָה, לָאו כִּמְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי.

As quoted above, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish agree that if one divides a limb from a living animal before placing it in his mouth, he is not liable for eating it. The Gemara adds: But Rabbi Elazar says: Even if one divided the limb outside his mouth he is liable. This is because the fact that the two pieces are lacking in proximity to each other as they are placed in one’s mouth is not comparable to lacking an action, i.e., it is not comparable to a case where he ate only half an olive-bulk. Since he ate an entire olive-bulk, he is liable.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כַּזַּיִת שֶׁאָמְרוּ – חוּץ מִשֶּׁל בֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִם. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף עִם בֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִם.

§ The Gemara cites another dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish pertaining to the measure of an olive-bulk with regard to prohibitions involving eating. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The olive-bulk of which the Sages spoke with regard to prohibitions involving eating is measured by the food one actually swallows, aside from the food that remains stuck between the teeth. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it includes even the food that remains stuck between the teeth.

אָמַר רַב פַּפָּא: בְּשֶׁל בֵּין שִׁינַּיִם – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בֵּין הַחֲנִיכַיִים. מָר סָבַר – הֲרֵי נֶהֱנָה גְּרוֹנוֹ בְּכַזַּיִת, וּמָר סָבַר – אֲכִילָה בְּמֵעָיו בָּעֵינַן.

In explanation of this dispute, Rav Pappa says: With regard to food that remains stuck between the teeth, everyone agrees that it is not included in measuring an olive-bulk that would render one liable to receive lashes. When they disagree it is with regard to food that remains on the palate, which one tastes but does not swallow. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that since his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk, i.e., he tastes the full olive-bulk, he is liable. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that in order to be liable, we require an act of eating that contains the requisite amount, i.e., an olive-bulk, when it enters his stomach.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת וֶהֱקִיאוֹ, וְחָזַר וְאָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת אַחֵר – חַיָּיב. מַאי טַעֲמָא? הֲרֵי נֶהֱנָה גְּרוֹנוֹ בְּכַזַּיִת.

§ The Gemara quotes another related ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one ate half an olive-bulk of a forbidden food and vomited it, and then ate another half an olive-bulk, he is liable. What is the reason? It is because his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk of the forbidden food, even though the full olive-bulk did not actually enter his stomach.

בְּעָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵרַבִּי אַסִי: אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת וֶהֱקִיאוֹ, וְחָזַר וַאֲכָלוֹ, מַהוּ? מַאי קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לֵיהּ? אִי הָוֵי עִיכּוּל אִי לָא הָוֵי עִיכּוּל, וְתִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ כַּזַּיִת!

Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: If one ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden food and vomited it, and then ate it again, what is the halakha ? The Gemara clarifies: What is the dilemma he is raising? If it is about whether the half-olive-bulk that he ate and vomited up is considered to have been digested, in which case it is no longer considered food, or whether it is not considered to have been digested, let him raise the dilemma with regard to an entire olive-bulk. If one eats an entire olive-bulk and vomits it and then eats it again, if the food is considered not to have been digested the first time, he is liable to be flogged twice.

אֶלָּא, אִי בָּתַר גְּרוֹנוֹ אָזְלִינַן אִי בָּתַר מֵעָיו אָזְלִינַן. וְתִפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי אַסִי!

Rather, his dilemma must be about whether we follow the throat or whether we follow the stomach in measuring how much forbidden food one has swallowed. That being the case, let him resolve the dilemma from that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, which indicates that we follow the throat.

רַבִּי אַסִי גְּמָרֵיהּ אִיעֲקַר לֵיהּ, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְאַדְכּוּרֵיהּ, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: לָמָּה לִי חֲצִי זַיִת אַחֵר, לֵימָא מָר בְּדִידֵיהּ, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ תַּרְתֵּי, שָׁמְעִינַן מִינָּהּ – דְּלָא הָוֵי עִיכּוּל, וְשָׁמְעִינַן מִינָּהּ – דַּהֲרֵי נֶהֱנָה גְּרוֹנוֹ בְּכַזַּיִת!

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar knew the answer to his question, but Rabbi Asi forgot the statement that he had learned from Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rabbi Elazar came to remind him of what he had known previously. And this is what Rabbi Elazar was saying to him: Why do I need the case where he swallows another half an olive-bulk? Let the Master teach this ruling in a case where he swallows the same half-olive-bulk he had swallowed previously and vomited, as two principles can be derived from the ruling in that case: We can learn from it that the food was not considered to have been digested the first time he swallowed it, and we can learn from it that since his throat derives pleasure from a full olive-bulk, he is liable.

אִישְׁתִּיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹפֵת הַדּוֹר, לָא זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין אָמְרַתְּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וַאֲמַר לָךְ: הֲרֵי נֶהֱנָה גְּרוֹנוֹ בְּכַזַּיִת. הדרן עלך גיד הנשה

Rabbi Asi was silent and did not say anything. Rabbi Elazar said to him: Wonder of the generation, did you not say this case many times before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he said to you: This person is liable because his throat derives pleasure from a full olive-bulk?

מתני׳ כָּל הַבָּשָׂר אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בְּחָלָב – חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים. וְאָסוּר לְהַעֲלוֹת עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן – חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים.

It is prohibited to cook any meat of domesticated and undomesticated animals and birds in milk, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, whose halakhic status is not that of meat. And likewise, the Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to place any meat together with milk products, e.g., cheese, on one table. The reason for this prohibition is that one might come to eat them after they absorb substances from each other. This prohibition applies to all types of meat, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers.