One who eats Basar (OHR SOMAYACH Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 4:17) Min ha'Chai of a Tereifah - R. Yosa said, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argued about this. R. Yochanan said that he is liable twice. Reish Lakish said that he is liable only once.

What is R. Yochanan's reason? He is liable for "Lo Sochlu Chol Neveilah" and "v'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh Im ha'Basar."

Question: What is Reish Lakish's reason?

Answer (Talmidim, in front of R. Yosi): Reish Lakish learns like R. Eliezer ben Yakov taught "u'Vasar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Sochelu" - do not detach and eat from a [live] animal the way you detach from the ground and eat. (Since both are included in one Lav, he is liable only once.)

Reish Lakish does not hold about Tereifah like R. Yochanan. If he held like him, he would say that he is liable twice!

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): Even if [Reish Lakish] holds like him, he is liable only once. There is different, for it returned and included [both in one verse].

Question: It says "Chelev Lo Sochlu" and "v'Dam Lo Sochlu", and it says "Kol Chelev v'Chol Dam Lo Sochlu." According to [your rejection], he should be liable only once [for Chelev and blood. Surely this is not so!]

Answer (R. Yosi): Had it written 'Chelev v'Dam', you would be correct. However, it is written "Kol Chelev v'Chol Dam", to obligate for this by itself and this by itself.

Question: It says "v'Chol Mishras Anavim Lo Yishteh", and it says "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag Lo Yochal." Since they were put in a Klal, he should be liable only once!

Answer (R. Yosi): Had it written 'me'Chartzanim v'Zag', you would be correct. However, it is written "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag", to obligate for this by itself and this by itself.

(R. Yosi, to Talmidim): You should know that R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argued [about Ever Min ha'Chai];

If an Ever Min ha'Chai was cut, and then one ate it, all agree that he is exempt. When do they argue? It is when he [put it whole in his mouth, and] divided it in his mouth. R. Yochanan considers his mouth like inside (it is as if he swallowed it whole, and it was divided in his stomach, so he is liable), and Reish Lakish considers his mouth like outside (it is as it was divided before he ate it, so he is exempt).

Talmidim (to R. Yosi): What do you say (whom does the Halachah follow)?

R. Yosi: Will I tell you [my opinion]?! Mountains (great Chachamim) of the world argue, and you say so (I should decide whom the Halachah follows)?!

R. Yosi: [I do not say that this is the Halachah, but] if so (you want my opinion), even if he divided it outside and ate it, he is liable. What is the reason? This is the way of eating (in any case it is destined to be cut before he swallows it. We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

If he divided an ant in his mouth, and ate it, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this.

Question (R. Maisha, to R. Ze'ira): If [a Nazir] divided a grape in his mouth, and ate it, do R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this?

Answer (R. Ze'ira): There (Ever Min ha'Chai), it is a matter with Isur and Tum'ah. When the Tum'ah is Batel (because it was divided), the Isur is Batel. Here (a grape), there is Isur and no Tum'ah. (All agree that he is liable.)

Question (R. Ba ben R. Mamal): If one divided a k'Zayis of Matzah in his mouth and ate it, do R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): In any case, did his palate not benefit from a k'Zayis?! (All agree that he was Yotzei.)

Question (Rabanan of Kisarin citing R. Nisa): If one divided a pomegranate seed in his mouth and ate it, do R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this?

Question: About what does he ask?

Suggestion: It is due to liquid (when he cuts the seed, liquid exudes. Can the liquid join to obligate him?)

Rejection: It was taught, [one is not lashed for any fruit juice, except for what comes from grapes and olives...] there is no Tum'as Mashkim, except for what comes from grapes and olives! (We explained this like PNEI MOSHE. It is difficult why the Gemara cited only the Seifa. The rejection is due to the Reisha! - PF)

Answer (Rabanan of Kisarin): The case is, he swallowed them. (Perhaps R. Yochanan obligates one who divided in his mouth only when one eats through chewing, for this is needed for chewing, but if he swallows without chewing, he agrees that one who divided in his mouth is exempt. We explained this like RIDVAZ.)