If a Tereifah became Neveilah - R. Yosah the grandson of R. Yosah, citing R. Yirmeyah, said that R. Yochanan and Reish (Lakish argued about this. R. Yochanan said that he is liable twice. Reish Lakish said, he is liable only once.

Support (for R. Yochanan - R. Elazar bei R. Yosi, to R. Yosi - Beraisa): "V'Chol Nefesh Asher Tochal Neveilah" - why does it say "u'Tereifah"?

If the Tereifah is alive (and he ate meat that he detached from it), it says "Neveilah" (and this is not Neveilah)!

If the Tereifah died, it is included in "Neveilah"!

[According to Reish Lakish, one is liable only once, for Neveilah. If so, why does the Beraisa say 'it is included in Neveilah'? It should say 'it is Neveilah'! (Rather, it is Tereifah, and it is also included in Neveilah - PNEI MOSHE.)

Question (R. Avahu citing R. Yosi ben Chaninah, in front of R. Yochanan): "V'Lo Seshaktzu Es Nafshoseichem ba'Behemah uva'Of [uv'Chol Asher Tirmos ha'Adamah... Letamei]" - are not the eight Sheratzim [listed in the Torah] the only ones that are Tamei? (Is it permitted to eat the others?!)

Answer (R. Avahu): (The verse does not say that the Isur Achilah depends on Tum'ah.) Rather, like the Shi'ur of their Tum'ah, so is the size of eating (to be liable).

Question (R. Elazar): Ever [Min ha'Chai] of a Tahor animal of any size is Metamei, but the Shi'ur [for liability] of eating is k'Zayis!

He (R. Avahu) accepted this.

Answer: What does it mean 'he accepted this'? It is like one whose opponent said a claim, and he took it (he was not concerned to answer him; the following teaching shows why);

(R. Chiya bar Ba): "Lo Sochlu Chol Neveilah" - the Torah equated all consumptions in the Torah like one. (For any species, the Shi'ur is always the same.)

Question (R. Chaninah, against R. Yosi ben Chaninah): The eight Sheratzim, [when dead the Shi'ur of] their Tum'ah is ka'Adashah, and [the Shi'ur of] their eating [to be liable] is k'Zayis, both for blood and for meat from a Chai!

Question #1 (R. Shmuel bar Susarti): (The Beraisa that R. Elazar bei R. Yosi brought above to support R. Yochanan said that if one detached meat from a live Tereifah and ate it, he is liable for Neveilah.) If so, one who eats Ever Min ha'Chai of Tahor species should be liable twice, due to "Lo Sochlu Chol Neveilah" and "v'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh Im ha'Basar"!

Question #2: If so, one who eats Ever Min ha'Chai of Temei'im should be liable three times, due to "Lo Sochlu Chol Neveilah" and "v'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh Im ha'Basar", and "mi'Besaram Lo Sochlu"!

Question: Do we challenge [through applying a law of] Tehorim against Temei'im?! (The Beraisa discusses only Tehorim!)

Answer: Did R. Eliezer not challenge Tehorim against Temei'im?! (We explained this Sugya like KEHILAS YAKOV Nazir 18/19).

(R. Avahu citing R. Yosi ben Chaninah): If one ate five ants at once, in one Hasra'ah (KEHILAS YAKOV Nazir 18/19), he is liable for each one, due to a Beriyah.

If he crushed them and ate them, he is liable only once. This is if they are a k'Zayis [in all];

If he ate from the pieces a k'Zayis, he is liable. If he ate from the pieces a k'Zayis and a [whole] ant, he is liable twice.

Consequence: If so, if he ate from the pieces less than a k'Zayis, and a [whole] ant completed [the Shi'ur of a k'Zayis], he is liable twice.

Consequence: If so, if he ate a [whole] ant that has a k'Zayis, he is liable twice.

Also for joining [Isurei] Nazir it is so - if he ate matters [from vines] that join, and they are a k'Zayis, he is liable;

If he ate a k'Zayis of matters that join, and a [whole] grape, he is liable twice.

Consequence: If so, if he ate a [whole] grape that has a k'Zayis, he is liable twice.

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): All Isurim (for which the Shi'ur is a k'Zayis), they join to be lashed for them [due to "Lo Sochal Kol To'evah." If one ate] a k'Zayis [of Isur] and an ant, he is liable twice.

Consequence: If so, if he ate less than a k'Zayis of [any] Isurim, and an ant completed [the Shi'ur of a k'Zayis], he is liable twice.

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): For Isur [that fell into Heter Min b'Mino, we are stringent, and] we estimate as if an onion or leek [the size of the Isur fell into the Heter. If it would give taste, the mixture is forbidden.]

This is like R. Avahu cited R. Yosi ben Chaninah to say, that Neveilah that became Batel in Shechutah, its [Tum'as] Maga (through touching) is Batel mid'Oraisa. (We hold that mid'Oraisa, Min b'Mino is Batel, unlike R. Yehudah. SEFER NIR - the Seifa said, its Tum'as Heset is not Batel, for one moves also the Neveilah. I.e. even when the Isur is not sensed, it is as if it is still there.)

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): All Nosenei Ta'am (Isurim that give taste to Heter), one is not lashed of them unless he tastes the actual Isur itself.

Question (R. Chiya bar Yosef, to R. Yochanan): Meat and milk, he does not taste the actual Isur, and you say that he is lashed!

He (R. Yochanan) accepted this.

Explanation (R. Bun bar Chiyah, in front of R. Ze'ira): What does it mean 'he accepted this'? It is like one whose opponent said a claim, and he took it (he was not concerned to answer him, for meat and milk is a Chidush).

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): All Nosenei Ta'am, one is not lashed of them, except for Nosenei Ta'am of Nazir. (He did not explain this. R. Zeira and R. Aba bar Mamal argue about what he meant, and resolve it with R. Avahu's teaching above.)

Explanation #1 (R. Ze'ira): All Nosenei Ta'am, one is not lashed of them unless he tastes the actual Isur itself. For Nazir, [he is lashed] even if he does not taste the actual Isur itself.

Explanation #2 (R. Ba bar Mamal): All Nosenei Ta'am, Isur and Heter do not join [to a Shi'ur to be liable]. For Nazir, Isur and Heter join.

A Beraisa supports this one (R. Ze'ira), and A Beraisa supports this one (R. Ba bar Mamal).

Support (for R. Ze'ira - Beraisa #1): If a k'Zayis of wine fell into a pot, and [a Nazir] ate a k'Zayis of [the food inside], he is exempt, until he eats all of it (for then, he consumed the entire k'Zayis of wine).

According to R. Ba bar Mamal, once he ate a k'Zayis of it, he is liable (for the Heter joins to the Isur)!

Support (for R. Ba bar Mamal - Beraisa #2) Question: Since it says "v'Chol Mishras Anavim Lo Yishteh va'Anavim Lachim vi'Yveshim Lo Yochal" - what did the Torah omit (that it needed to say v'Chol Mishras Anavim)?

Answer: Rather, because it says ""mi'Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag Lo Yochal", and it says "mi'Yayin umi'Shechar Yazir" - why does it say "v'Chol Mishras Anavim Lo Yishteh"? Rather, [this teaches that] if he soaked grapes in water, or similarly if he soaked his bread in [wine], and there is enough to join to a k'Zayis (i.e. the grapes and the water they absorbed, or the bread and the wine it absorbed), he is liable.

From here you learn to all Isurim in the Torah. What comes from the vine, it is not a permanent Isur (it is permitted after he finishes Nezirus), and it is not an Isur Hana'ah, and there is a Heter after its Isur (even during the term the accepted, through Heter Chacham), and Ta'am k'Ikur (what absorbed the taste of the Isur is forbidden like the Isur itself)...

Other Isurim in the Torah, their Isur is permanent, it is an Isur Hana'ah, and there is no Heter after its Isur, all the more so we should say that Ta'am k'Ikur! From here Chachamim learned to all Nosenei Ta'am, that they are forbidden.

Note: If another Isur has even one of these three stringencies, there is a Kal v'Chomer. The Bavli (Kidushin 38a) says that Chadash has all three leniencies. Rishonim argue about the Heter after its Isur. Perhaps the Yerushalmi argues, and holds that Chadash has no Heter after its Isur. Alternatively, we do not learn to all other Isurim. (PF)

This is difficult for R. Ze'ira [who says that] everywhere [else] one is liable only if he tastes [the actual Isur itself], and here (Nazir) even if he did not taste it. (We explained this like BI'UR HA'GRA, Orlah 2:5.)