POINT BY POINT OUTLINE
in memory of Reb David ben Aharon Ha'Levi Rosenwald z"l
prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) OTHER ISURIM THAT TAKE EFFECT ON CHELEV
(a) (R. Chiya bar Aba, citing R. Yochanan): If one ate Chelev of a living Terefah Behemah, he is Chayav (lashes) twice;
(b) (R. Ami (and R. Avahu), citing R. Yochanan): He is Chayav three times.
(c) Question: What do they argue about?
(d) Answer #1: The case is, the animal became Terefah during birth (or before);
1. R. Ami holds that l'Evarim Omedes, so all three Isurim (Chelev, Ever Min ha'Chai, and Terefah) take effect simultaneously (at birth);
2. R. Chiya bar Aba holds that Lav l'Evarim Omedes, so only Chelev and Terefah take effect at birth;
i. When the Chelev is later removed, the Isur Ever does not take effect, since it is already forbidden.
(e) Answer #2: All hold that Lav l'Evarim Omedes. They argue about whether the Isur Ever is Chal on the Isurim of Chelev and Terefah:
1. R. Ami holds that it is. R. Chiya bar Aba holds that it is not.
(f) Answer #3: All hold that l'Evarim Omedes; the case is, it became Terefah after birth;
1. They argue about whether the Isur Terefah is Chal on the Isur Ever Min ha'Chai.
2. R. Ami says that it is, just like it is Chal on the Isur Chelev;
i. The Torah teaches that the Isurim of Nevelah and Terefah are Chal on Chelev (even though it is already forbidden).
3. R. Chiya bar Aba disagrees. They are Chal on Chelev, for Chelev has a leniency, i.e. the Chelev of a Chayah is permitted;
i. Ever Min ha'Chai is never permitted, so the Isur Terefah is not Chal on it.
2) EVER MIN HA'CHAI THAT WAS DIVIDED
(a) Version #1 (Rav Dimi) Question (Reish Lakish): If an Ever Min ha'Chai was cut, and then one ate it, is he liable?
(b) Answer (R. Yochanan): No.
(c) Question (Reish Lakish): If he put it whole in his mouth, and then divided it (he did not swallow it whole), what is the law?
(d) Answer (R. Yochanan): He is liable.
(e) Version #2 (Ravin): If Ever Min ha'Chai was cut, and then one ate it, he is exempt;
(f) If he put it whole in his mouth, and then divided it, R. Yochanan is Mechayev, and Reish Lakish exempts.
1. R. Yochanan is Mechayev, because he enjoyed swallowing a k'Zayis (the Shi'ur to be liable);
2. Reish Lakish exempts. To be liable, a k'Zayis must enter his stomach together.
(g) Question: According to Reish Lakish, how is one ever liable? (Surely, he chews before swallowing!)
(h) Answer (Rav Kahana): A small bone (of the upper joint of the leg) can be swallowed whole.
(i) (R. Elazar): Even if he divided it before putting it in his mouth, he is liable;
1. Even though it was not connected, we do not consider it as if he only ate half.
(j) Version #1 (Reish Lakish): When one must eat a k'Zayis to be liable, food stuck between the teeth is not included;
(k) (R. Yochanan): It is included.
(l) Version #2 (Rav Papa): Both agree that food stuck between the teeth is not included;
1. They argue about food stuck in the palate. R. Yochanan includes it, for his throat tasted the food;
2. Reish Lakish excludes it, for his stomach did not benefit.
3) FOOD THAT WAS REGURGITATED
(a) (R. Asi, citing R. Yochanan): If one ate half a k'Zayis of forbidden food (Rashi - Ever Min ha'Chai), regurgitated it, and ate a different half k'Zayis, he is liable;
1. This is because he had the pleasure of swallowing a k'Zayis (in all.)
(b) Question (R. Elazar, of R. Asi): If he ate half a k'Zayis of forbidden food, regurgitated it, and ate it again, what is the law?
1. Question: What was R. Elazar unsure about?
i. If he was unsure whether regurgitated food is considered digested (and is no longer forbidden), he should have asked about eating a k'Zayis of regurgitated food!
ii. If he was unsure whether liability depends on swallowing or benefit of the stomach, he should have known this from R. Asi's law (above)!
2. Answer: R. Elazar had no doubt. R. Asi had forgotten his learning, and R. Elazar was helping him to remember.
i. He asked, why do you discuss eating a different half k'Zayis? You should teach about eating the same half k'Zayis again, to teach two laws!
ii. We would hear that regurgitated food is not considered digested, and that the criterion is pleasure of swallowing.
(c) R. Asi did not respond.
(d) R. Elazar: Chacham of the generation! You yourself said in front of R. Yochanan 'he enjoyed swallowing a k'Zayis' (and he is liable for this).
PEREK KOL HA'BASAR
4) WHICH MEAT IS FORBIDDEN WITH MILK?
(a) (Mishnah): One may not cook any kind of meat with milk, except for meat of fish and grasshoppers;
(b) Cheese may not be brought on the same table with any kind of meat, except for meat of fish and grasshoppers.