With regard to one who ate a limb from a living animal that is a tereifa, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is liable to receive two sets of lashes, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He is liable to receive only one set of lashes.

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, this works out well because the prohibitions of eating a limb from a living animal and of eating flesh severed from a tereifa are derived from two different verses. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, it is difficult; why does he hold that the individual receives only one set of lashes?

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. Here it is referring to one animal, but there it is referring to two animals. Rav Yosef clarifies: In a case of two animals, e.g., where one ate a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from a different animal that was a tereifa, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. But in a case where he ate from one animal, e.g., he ate a limb severed from a live tereifa animal, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagree.

The Gemara asks: With regard to the case of one animal, in what case do they disagree? Abaye said: They disagree, for example, in a case where the animal became a tereifa as the majority of it emerged from its mother’s womb. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that an animal, even during its life, stands to be divided into limbs, and therefore each of its limbs is considered a separate entity; and here the prohibition of eating a tereifa and the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal come into effect at the same time. Consequently, both prohibitions apply.

And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, holds that during its life an animal does not stand to be divided into limbs. Consequently, although the prohibition of eating a tereifa comes into effect when it is born, the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal does not take effect until the limb is actually severed from the animal, and at that point the prohibition of a limb from a living animal does not come and take effect upon the already existing prohibition of a tereifa.

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that during its life an animal does not stand to be divided into limbs, and they disagree with regard to whether the prohibition of a limb from a living animal comes and takes effect upon the already existing prohibition of a tereifa. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, which applies to gentiles as well as to Jews, comes and takes effect upon the already existing prohibition of eating a tereifa. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, holds that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal does not come and take effect upon the already existing prohibition of eating a tereifa.

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that an animal, even during its life, stands to be divided into limbs, and the dispute is about a case where the animal became a tereifa afterward, i.e., after it was born, and they disagree with regard to whether the prohibition of a tereifa comes and takes effect upon the already existing prohibition of a limb from a living animal.

One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the prohibition of eating a tereifa comes and takes effect in addition to the already existing prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, holds that the prohibition of eating a tereifa does not come and take effect in addition to the already existing prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal.

Rava says an alternative explanation: This is referring to a case where he severed a limb from the animal and thereby rendered the animal a tereifa. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that during its life, an animal does not stand to be divided into limbs. Consequently, the prohibition of a limb from a living animal and the prohibition of a tereifa come into effect at the same time.

And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, holds that even during its life, an animal stands to be divided into limbs, and therefore the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal takes effect when the animal is born. Consequently, the prohibition of a tereifa does not come and take effect upon the already existing prohibition of a limb from a living animal.

§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one ate forbidden fat from a living animal that is a tereifa he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. Rabbi Ami said to him: But let the Master say that he is liable to three sets of lashes, because I say that the correct version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is that he is liable to three sets of lashes. It was also stated: Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one ate forbidden fat from a living animal that is a tereifa he is liable to three sets of lashes.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Ami disagree? They disagree in a case where the animal became a tereifa as the majority of it emerged from its mother’s womb; the one who said that he is liable to three sets of lashes holds that even during its life an animal stands to be divided into limbs, and each of its limbs is considered as a separate entity, so that the prohibition of eating forbidden fat, the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, and the prohibition of eating a tereifa come into effect at the same time.

And the one who said that he is liable to two sets of lashes holds that during its life, an animal does not stand to be divided into limbs, i.e., its limbs are not considered separate entities while the animal is alive. Consequently, the prohibition of eating forbidden fat and the prohibition of eating a tereifa animal apply, as they came into effect at the same time, when the animal was born. By contrast, the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal does not come and take effect, due to the fact that other prohibitions already apply.

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that during its life an animal does not stand to be divided into limbs, and each of its limbs is not considered as a separate entity. But they disagree with regard to whether the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal comes and takes effect upon the already existing prohibition of eating forbidden fat and the already existing prohibition of eating a tereifa. One Sage, Rabbi Ami, holds that it does come and take effect, and one Sage, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, holds that it does not come and take effect.

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that during its life an animal stands to be divided into limbs, and it is a case where the animal became a tereifa afterward, i.e., after it was born; and they disagree with regard to whether the prohibition of eating a tereifa comes and takes effect upon the already existing prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal.

One Sage, Rabbi Ami, holds that it does come and take effect, just as is the halakha with forbidden fat. As the Master said that in the verse: “And the fat of a carcass, and the fat of a tereifa may be used for any other service; but you shall in no way eat of it” (Leviticus 7:24), the Torah said: Let the prohibition of eating a carcass come and take effect upon the prohibition of eating forbidden fat, despite the fact that the prohibition of forbidden fat came into effect first. And similarly, the word “tereifa” teaches: Let the prohibition of eating a tereifa come and take effect upon the prohibition of eating forbidden fat. Consequently, one who eats forbidden fat from a tereifa is liable to receive two sets of lashes. Rabbi Ami holds that just as the prohibition of eating a tereifa takes effect in addition to the prohibition of eating forbidden fat, it also takes effect in addition to the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal.

And the other Sage, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, holds that it is only the prohibition of eating forbidden fat for which he is liable in addition to being liable for the prohibition of eating a tereifa. The prohibition of eating a tereifa takes effect in addition to the prohibition of eating forbidden fat because with regard to the latter, there are permitted circumstances that serve as exceptions