1. גיד הנשה of עולה or שור נסקל: Tanna who holds איסור כולל is not חל, but an איסור חמור is

Rav says that if one eats the גיד הנשה of a neveilah, Rebbe Meir holds he receives two sets of malkus, because the neveilah prohibition is an איסור כולל – an inclusive prohibition, i.e., it prohibits the rest of the animal in consumption, and therefore also takes effect on the גיד הנשה. The Chochomim disagree and say he only receives one set of malkus. They agree, however, regarding the גיד הנשה of an עולה, or ofשור הנסקל – an ox condemned to stoning, that the second prohibition of kodashim or שור הנסקל does take effect on the גיד הנשה. The Gemara seeks to identify this Tanna (the Chochomim), דבאיסור כולל איסור חל על איסור לית ליה – who, in the case of an inclusive prohibition, does not hold a prohibition takes effect upon a preexisting prohibition, איסור כולל באיסור חמור אית ליה – but regarding an inclusive prohibition which is also a more stringent prohibition (e.g., עולה or שור נסקל, which prohibit the meat in any benefit), he does hold the second prohibition takes effect.

1. איסור כולל: one who became tamei after kodashim meat became tamei, and ate it

Rava identifies Rav’s Tanna as Rebbe Yose HaGlili, who holds an איסור כולל does not take effect on a preexisting איסור: in a Mishnah, the Tanna Kamma says a טמא person who ate kodashim meat is liable (for a חטאת), whether it was tamei or tahor. Rebbe Yose HaGlili exempts one who ate tamei kodashim, since he only ate something tamei. The Rabbonon object that even one who ate tahor meat, as soon as he touches it, it becomes tamei!? Rava explains Rebbe Yose HaGlili’s position: if he was tamei before the meat became tamei, everyone agrees he is liable as a tamei person eating kodashim (since that prohibition took effect first). Their machlokes is בנטמא בשר ואח"כ נטמא הגוף – where the meat became tamei first, and the person became tamei afterwards, prohibiting him from eating any kodashim meat. The Rabbonon hold an איסור כולל takes effect, דמגו דמיחייב אחתיכות טהורות דעלמא – for since he becomes liable for eating tahor pieces (of kodashim), מיחייב נמי אחתיכה טמאה – he also becomes liable for eating a tamei piece. Rebbe Yose HaGlili does not hold איסור כולל takes effect on a preexisting איסור.

1. Machlokes if גיד הנשה was prohibited before סיני

The Mishnah on the previous Daf recorded a machlokes in which Rebbe Yehudah said the גיד הנשה prohibition applied to Yaakov’s descendants, even before the Torah was given. In a Baraisa, the Chochomim reply that the passuk does not say: “Therefore, the children of Yaakov shall not eat [the גיד הנשה],” but “the children of Yisroel,” and they were not called "בני ישראל" until סיני!? Rather, it became prohibited at Sinai, אלא שנכתב במקומו – but it was written in the appropriate place, לידע מאיזה טעם נאסר להם – for the Jews to know the reason [the גיד הנשה] was forbidden to them. Rava objects that a passuk says the “בני ישראל” transported Yaakov their father (when descending to מצרים, long before סיני!? The Gemara answers that this took place after Yaakov’s struggle with the מלאך, when Hashem gave him the name Yisroel. The prohibition did not take effect at that time, because וכי תורה פעמים פעמים ניתנה – was the Torah given at different times? That point in time was neither the time of the incident, nor the time the Torah was given.