Answer: Surely, all of them discuss according to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur;

Levi can tell you that even though elsewhere, Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, here he agrees that Isur Chal Al Isur, for the Torah revealed about Neveilah;

It says "v'Chelev Neveilah... v'Achol Lo Sochluhu" - the Torah said that the Isur of Neveilah takes effect on the Isur of Chelev. Likewise, the Isur of Neveilah takes effect on Tum'ah.

Rav Asi says that Tehorim are by themselves, and Temei'im are by themselves.

Explanation #1: Some say that he argues with Rav, and holds that also regarding Tum'ah, [Tahor and Tamei] do not join.

Question: What is the reason? Granted, for eating [they do not join], for they are two Isurim. However, for Tum'ah, why don't they join? The Isur of Tehorah and Temei'ah are both due to Tum'ah!

Answer: He holds that since for eating they do not join, also for Tum'ah they do not join.

Question: Our Mishnah teaches "all Neveilos." This implies that they join, at least for Tum'ah!

Answer: It discusses Tehorah and Tehorah, e.g. a goat and a cow, or Temei'ah and Temei'ah, e.g. a camel and a donkey.

Question: Our Mishnah teaches, any case in which the Shi'ur and the Tum'ah are the same, they join. All Neveilos, whether of a Tamei or Tahor [species], the Tum'ah and Shi'ur are the same!

Answer: It says that they join only for Sheratzim, which are not divided regarding eating. However, animals, which are divided regarding eating, e.g. Tahor or Tamei, it did not say that they join.

Implied question: Why did he say that Tehorim are by themselves, and Temei'im are by themselves?

Answer: That is regarding eating, but regarding Tum'ah, he agrees with Rav.

Explanation #1: This is difficult for Rav Asi, according to the opinion that he argues with Rav;

However, we do not challenge Rav, for Rav establishes this regarding Tum'ah.

Support: It connotes like this below, since it says "Rav Asi can tell you..." This implies that we challenge Rav Asi.

Question: How can Rav establish it regarding Tum'ah? You are forced to say that what it says "a dead cow and a live camel do not join" is regarding eating, that if he ate a half-k'Zayis of a dead cow and a half-k'Zayis of a live camel they do not join to be liable, not for Neveilah and not for Tum'ah (a Tamei species);

It does not discuss Tum'ah, for no Tum'ah applies to a live camel, like it says in Chulin (128b), that flesh that separates from a living [animal] is not Metamei!

Answer: Here, a live camel is Ever Min ha'Chai, to which Tum'ah applies, like it says there and in Toras Kohanim, because it does not regenerate, and it is like a Neveilah.

Question: If so, why do we need to join? It says there that it has no Shi'ur (any amount is Metamei)!

Answer: In any case, we require that it has flesh, sinews and bones. Here we discuss when it has sinews and bones, but no flesh, and therefore it must join before it is Metamei.

Question: In any case, how do we reject "if it was alive, both would join"? We say in Chulin (103b) that even a full limb, if one divided it outside [his mouth, and then ate it], he does not transgress for it;

Inference: If he divided the limb into two, and ate all of it, he is exempt, and all the more so a k'Zayis from two limbs, half from this limb and half from this, he is exempt!

Conclusion: This shows that you are forced to say that here we discuss regarding eating. If so, why don't we ask according to Rav, like according to Rav Asi?

Explanation #2: Indeed, he challenges even Rav.

Implied question: Why does it say "Rav Asi can tell you..."? (It should say "Rav and Rav Asi can tell you..."!)

Answer #1: The Gemara holds that he does not argue with Rav. Just like it is fine for Rav Asi, for this reason it is fine for Rav.

Answer #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): According to the version that he does not argue with Rav, Rav and Rav Asi are one [opinion]. Rav Asi said in the name of Rav, for he was his Talmid.

Explanation: It says in Chulin (101b) that Ever Min ha'Chai applies to Tamei and Tahor [species], and likewise Basar Min ha'Chai applies to Tamei and Tahor animals;

Therefore, they join in the life of both of them to be liable for eating, and due to Basar Min ha'Chai.

Explanation: [We ask,] why does it discuss a dead cow and a live camel? The wording in Maseches Me'ilah is different than elsewhere.

Citation: However, a half-k'Zayis of a cow [and a half-k'Zayis of a camel, if both are dead or both are alive,] join. The Reisha contradicts the Seifa! This shows that if both are dead, they join.

Explanation: Even if what the Seifa of this Beraisa says "both in their death and in their lifetimes" means in the life of the camel and the cow is dead, or vice-versa, that they join, [even] if so, the Reisha contradicts the Seifa! Rather, it means that both are dead or both are alive. This shows that when both are dead, they join.

Observation: We do not say so merely to resolve the Beraisa, and we will not ask that the text is mistaken, for if "whether they are dead or alive" means that one is alive and one is dead, in any case it is proven properly [that they join] when both are dead.

Explanation: Rav Asi can tell you that this Tana holds that Isur Chal Al Isur, and I hold like the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, like we explained above, that all the Amora'im argue according to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur.

Explanation: Stam Achilah is a k'Zayis.

Explanation: It says "v'Hivdaltem Bein ha'Behemah ha'Tehorah la'Temei'ah... v'Lo Teshaktzu Es Nafshoseichem ba'Behemah uva'Of uv'Chol Asher Tirmosh ha'Adamah" - the verse began with eating, for making the Nefesh repulsive applies to eating...

And it says "Asher Hivdalti Lachem Letamei", i.e. to be Metamei others through touching, i.e. it concluded with Tum'ah, to teach that just like Tum'ah is k'Adashah (the size of a lentil)...

This teaches that the Shi'ur for Achilah is like the Shi'ur for Tum'ah, like we expound in Chagigah (11a. It says) "Mehem" (which connotes a partial Sheretz), and it says "Bahem" (which connotes full Sheratzim). Chachamim gauged that the initial creation of a Chomet (snail or chameleon) is k'Adashah.

Explanation: He praised R. Yosi ben Chaninah, who arranged the Beraisa in front of him. If so, it is difficult for Rav, who said that the Shi'ur is k'Zayis.

We do not say "do you challenge a person (Amora) from [another] person?!", for R. Yochanan's reason is plausible, for no one argues with him, and also, he derives his matter from a verse.

Explanation: In their death, there is Tum'ah for k'Adashah. We say that its Shi'ur is like the Shi'ur of Tum'ah. However, in their lives, there is no Tum'ah. We say that he is lashed for eating for a k'Zayis.

Abaye told him "Rav discusses our Mishnah!" I.e. Rav said his teaching about our Mishnah of all Sheratzim, which discusses dead and alive.

Rav Yosef said to him "that is yours." This is an expression of provoking, i.e. this inference is yours, and I have nothing to do with it. Rav taught a Stam teaching, i.e. a teaching by itself. He does not refer to our Mishnah.

Abaye thought that he refers to our Mishnah, similar to the case above, which was learned only for Tum'ah.

Explanation: This is said in astonishment. We challenge this [from a Mishnah] "limbs [have no Shi'ur...]" I.e. did R. Yochanan praise this? There is a rebuttal of this, for R. Yochanan contradicts himself!

Limbs have no Shi'ur. Even though we require k'Zayis of a Neveilah for lashes, and k'Adashah of a Sheretz, in any case for limbs we do not require any Shi'ur, and R. Yochanan said that one is lashed for them only for a k'Zayis. Above he said that k'Adashah suffices!

Question: We should answer here "this is when they are dead, and this is when they are alive"!

Answer: You are forced to say that also here we discuss when they are dead, for it refers to the Beraisa of limbs, which discusses in death, since it says that they are Metamei.

Explanation #1: R. Yochanan said that the Isur is like the Tum'ah, i.e. the separated ones in the Parshah, i.e. the eight Sheratzim whose Tum'ah is k'Adashah;

And R. Yochanan said that one is lashed only for a k'Zayis - he discusses other Sheratzim, which are Tahor from being Metamei, and it is not applicable to say "the Isur is like the Tum'ah." (They are called "Tamei" only because one may not eat them.)

Question: When we answered above "this is when they are alive, and this is when they are dead", we should [rather] answer "these are the separated ones, and these are not the separated ones", like here!

Answer: If Rav's teaching above discusses the not separated ones, what is Rav's Chidush? Obviously we require a k'Zayis, just like all Isurei Achilah in the Torah!

Question #1: If so, also R. Yochanan, what is his Chidush, since he discusses other Sheratzim, to which Tum'ah does not apply?

Question #2: If so, that this teaching of R. Yochanan discusses other Sheratzim, if so he does not refer to what the Beraisa discusses, i.e. the eight Sheratzim that are separated, since it taught that they are Metamei!

Explanation #2: "The Torah discusses separated", i.e. the verse equated eating to Tum'ah only regarding Sheratzim, in which separation applies, i.e. the eight Sheratzim separated from the others;

However, an animal, eating it is not equated to its Tum'ah, and in an animal R. Yochanan said that we require a k'Zayis. He does not refer to all matters in the Beraisa, and he does not refer to less than k'Adashah of a Sheretz, rather, to limbs of a Neveilah;

His Chidush is that even though regarding Tum'ah, a limb less than a k'Zayis helps (is Metamei), in any case for eating, we require a k'Zayis [to be liable].

On this the Gemara asks that also an animal, we should distinguish between separated and not separated, just like regarding Sheratzim we distinguish between separated and not separated, and regarding separated we equate eating to Tum'ah...

Likewise regarding an animal, we should equate eating to Tum'ah, for an animal is equated to Sheratzim in this verse, for it is written "Behemah", and it refers to a Tamei Behemah, i.e. a separated Behemah;

We should equate eating to Tum'ah, to be liable for Ever Min ha'Chai, even though there is not a k'Zayis, that its Isur should be like its Tum'ah, i.e. for any amount, like it taught "there is no Shi'ur for limbs";

We do not find that one is lashed for Ever Min ha'Chai for eating it, even in a Tamei animal, when there is not a k'Zayis.

The Torah equated them for Bal Teshaktzu. I.e. we equate eating to Tum'ah for Sheratzim, about which it says "Asher Hivdalti Lachem Letamei";

However, the verse Asher Hivdalti does not discuss an animal, for we cannot distinguish between separated and not separated, for all animals, both Taharos and Temei'os, are Metamei in their death;

Therefore, since distinction does not apply to them, the end of the verse does not discuss animals. If so, we cannot equate eating to Tum'ah for animals. Behemah is equated to Sheratzim for Bal Teshaktzu.

Objection: This Perush is very difficult. What was the Havah Amina? Did he not know that we can equate eating to Tum'ah only for Sheratzim, to which distinction applies?!

Explanation #3: It seems that also from the beginning, it means as follows. Also animals, we should distinguish between separated and not separated;

I.e. surely we cannot equate Achilah to Tum'ah through the Hekesh of Sheratzim, for regarding animals separation does not apply;

However, in any case, since regarding Sheratzim, eating is equated to Tum'ah, because separation applies to them, also regarding animals, we should say that the Isur of eating it is like its Tum'ah, and for limbs, we should not require a k'Zayis, for animals and Sheratzim are equated to each other in this verse.

It answers that the Torah equated Behemah to Sheratzim only for Bal Teshaktzu, that both of them have the Lav of Bal Teshaktzu, but to make eating like Tum'ah, an animal is not like a Sheretz.