Taking the life of a Behema Tehorah and the Halachot learned

on the Amud as well as those in the Rambam we have:

a. Prior to birth:

* Shalil - Isur of Bishul/Achilah

b. At birth:

* Shilyah - no Isur for Bilshul/Achilah

c. Before the kosher Shechitah of the Behema:

* Nevelah - Isur for Bishul, no extra Isur for Achilah; here the

Rambam disagrees w/ Shmuel.

* Aver Min Hachai - ???

d. Kosher Shechita:

* Chelev - Isur for Bishul, no extra Isur for Achilah; here the

Rambam disagrees w/ Shmuel)

* Skin, sinews, bones, horns, hooves - no Issur for Bishul/Achilah

according to Rambam.

* Blood - no extra Isur for Achilah according to Shmuel, probably

has an Isur Bishul

* Gid Hanasheh - ???? Basically we have a question regarding Aver Min Hachai (AMH) and Gid

Hanasheh (GHN). We tried to build the Shaklah ve'Tariah using the arguments on Chullin 100b and 101b which deal with GNH and AMH respectively in the context of EICA"I. Certainly according to one who holds Isur Chal Al Isur (i.e. R' Akiva on 117a) the answer is clearer: Yes, you are liable for both Basar be'Chalav on top of *any* existing Isur ... and no pasuk is necessary. But it's clear that almost everyone holds EICA"I and there would have to be good reasons to apply Basar be'Chalav on top of these other Isurim. Using the language of the Rambam in Halacha 6 we concluded that unless it was Mosif, Kollel or be'Vat Achat it could not be applied and thus the conclusion can be drawn. Our question is: Are there sources that talk specifically of these two cases in the context of Basar be'Chalav, and if so what are the Halachot?

2. A more specific question. At the bottom of 113b we learn that all agree

that for Achilat Chelev be'Chalav you're not liable for Basar be'Chalav

because of EICA"I (i.e. we assume that you are already Chayav for Chelev so

no extra malkut are applied). Then the very last line of the amud and the

first of the next amud 114a propose:

Since the Torah uses Bishul to imply Achilah we apply the same rule

of Achilah to Bishul - since you're not Loki for Achilah, the same is

true for Bishul. At this point we asked (quite logically):

But the only reason you were not Chayav in Achilah was because you were *already* Chayav (for eating Chelev), but for Bishul you're saying not Chayav at all for anything (according to this Amorah and this proposal).

We couldn't resolve this without trying to "ignore the reason" why you're

not Chayav for Achilah of Chelev be'Chalav. If we ignore the reason we get

the desired result of this proposal (... but it's hard to ignore the reason).

Tosafot, at the top of 114a helps us ignore even our question by implying

"amazement" at the use of the more "circular" logic of this proposal of the

Machloket. Using the "Teimah" of Tosafot we ignore the qestion and move on

to the next proposal - which appears to be more straightforward.

So, is our question above a valid question, or is the whole ciruclar proposal being replaced by the more straightforward proposal of the Machloket, and we can ignore the question completely?