to its general [restriction], but it cannot [be superimposed] upon the prohibition of the ‘limb’ inasmuch as there is no exception to its general [restriction]. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported that R. Simeon b. Lakish put the following question to R. Johanan: What is the law if he divided it outside? and he replied: He is not liable. And what if he divided it inside [his mouth]? and he replied: He is liable. When Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported as follows: If he divided it outside he is not liable. If he divided it inside [his mouth], R. Johanan says, he is liable; R. Simeon b. Lakish says, he is not liable. ‘R. Johanan says he is liable’, because his gullet has derived enjoyment from an olive's bulk. ‘R. Simeon b. Lakish says he is not liable’, because there must enter in his stomach [at one time] the full amount that constitutes ‘eating’, and this is not the case here. (But [it will be asked], according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, how can it ever happen that one [who eats an olive's bulk of the limb] should be liable? — R. Kahana suggested: In the case [where he ate] a small bone.) R. Eleazar however said: Even if he divided it outside he is also liable, because the fact that it is not consumed in one whole does not render it an incomplete act. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The quantity of an olive's bulk of which they [the Rabbis] have spoken does not include that which is between the teeth. R. Johanan said: It includes even that which remains between the teeth. Said R. Papa: As to that which remains between the teeth they certainly do not disagree, they disagree only as to that which remains in the palate and tongue. One [R. Johanan] maintains [that he is liable], since his gullet has derived enjoyment from a whole olive's bulk; the other [R. Simeon b. Lakish] maintains [that he is not liable, because] there must enter his stomach the full amount which constitutes ‘eating’. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If a person ate one half-olive's bulk [of a forbidden substance] and vomited it forth, and then ate another half-olive's bulk, he is liable. Why? Because his gullet has derived enjoyment from an olive's bulk. R. Eleazar enquired of R. Assi: What is the law if a person ate one half-olive's bulk [of a forbidden substance], vomited it forth and then ate it once again? [Let us see], what was his real question? If the question was whether it [sc. what has been vomited forth] is considered as digested food or not, then he might have put the question with regard to a complete olive's bulk; and if the question was whether we regard [eating from the enjoyment of] the gullet or [from the enjoyment of] the stomach, then he might have solved this himself from R. Assi's statement above? — R. Assi had forgotten the tradition [he had received from R. Johanan], and R. Eleazar came and reminded him of it in the following manner: ‘Why speak of another half-olive's bulk? The Master could have dealt with the same [half-olive's bulk], by which two results would have been established, viz., we would have learnt from if that it [sc. what is vomited forth] was not considered as digested food, and we would also have learnt from it that [one is liable if only] the gullet had derived enjoyment from an olive's bulk’. He remained silent and made no reply at all. Thereupon he [R. Eleazar] said to him, ‘O wonder of the generation! Did you not often say this before R. Johanan and he agreed with you saying: "His gullet has in fact derived enjoyment from an olive's bulk"’? MISHNAH. EVERY KIND OF FLESH IS FORBIDDEN TO BE COOKED IN MILK, EXCEPTING THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS; AND IT IS ALSO FORBIDDEN TO PLACE UPON THE TABLE [FLESH] WITH CHEESE, EXCEPTING THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS.ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠ