Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Joshua Waxman in loving memory of his father, Nachum Gedalya ben Yirmiyahu v’Feyga Minna on his 5th yahrzeit. “May his neshama have an aliya.”
Chullin 101
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר.
and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר – לִיחַיַּיב נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם גִּיד, אִי אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר – לִיחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה דִּקְדֵים, וְאִי אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – לִיחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם גִּיד.
The Gemara objects: But according to Rabbi Shimon, whichever way you look at it, it is difficult. If a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, let Rabbi Shimon deem one liable for eating non-kosher meat and also due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. Conversely, if a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, let Rabbi Shimon deem one liable due to the prohibition of eating meat from a non-kosher species, which preceded the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. And if Rabbi Shimon holds that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor, and therefore the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat does not apply, let him deem one liable due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve.
אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר אֵין בְּגִידִים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה״, מִי שֶׁגִּידוֹ אָסוּר וּבְשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁגִּידוֹ אָסוּר וּבְשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר.
Rava said in response: Actually Rabbi Shimon holds that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor, and therefore they are not subject to the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat. And the reason the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerves does not apply to non-kosher animals is that it is different there, because the verse states: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33). This teaches that the prohibition applies only to a species whose sciatic nerve is forbidden but whose meat is permitted, and excludes this case of a non-kosher animal, whose sciatic nerve would be forbidden and whose meat would also be forbidden.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: הָאוֹכֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב שְׁתַּיִם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.
§ Having discussed the status of the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal, the Gemara addresses the status of the sciatic nerve of a kosher animal that did not undergo a proper ritual slaughter. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered carcass, Rabbi Meir deems him liable to receive two sets of lashes, and the Rabbis say: He is liable to receive only one set of lashes.
וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאוֹכֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל עוֹלָה וְשֶׁל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, שֶׁחַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.
And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in a case where one eats the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering or of an ox that is stoned that he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. The prohibitions concerning a burnt offering and an ox that is stoned are more severe than that of the sciatic nerve, in that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from them, whereas the sciatic nerve is merely forbidden for consumption. Consequently, these prohibitions take effect even with regard to the sciatic nerve, despite the fact that the sciatic nerve was already forbidden before the animal was consecrated or before it gored a person and became liable to be stoned.
וּמַאן הַאי תַּנָּא, דִּבְאִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל – אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר לֵית לֵיהּ, אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל בְּאִיסּוּר חָמוּר – אִית לֵיהּ.
The Gemara challenges: And who is this tanna who does not hold that in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, the prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and consequently, according to his opinion the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered animal, which applies to the entire animal, does not take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve. Yet, he does hold that where the second prohibition is both a more inclusive prohibition and a more stringent prohibition, it does take effect, and therefore the prohibition of eating a burnt offering or an ox that is stoned does take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve.
אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל קֹדֶשׁ, בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ טָמֵא בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ טָהוֹר – חַיָּיב.
Rava said: It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili who holds that a more inclusive prohibition does not take effect where there is an already existing prohibition. As we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 106a): One who is ritually impure who ate sacrificial food, whether it was ritually impure sacrificial food or ritually pure sacrificial food, is liable to receive karet if he did so intentionally and to bring a sliding-scale offering if he did so unwittingly.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּהוֹר – חַיָּיב, טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא – פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא אֲכַל אֶלָּא דָּבָר טָמֵא.
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: An impure individual who ate pure sacrificial food is liable. But an impure individual who ate impure sacrificial food is exempt, as he merely ate an impure item, and the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while one is impure does not apply to impure sacrificial food.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אַף טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּהוֹר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ, טִמְּאָהוּ.
The Rabbis said to him: According to your logic, this halakha would apply even in a case of an impure individual who ate what had been pure sacrificial food, because once he has touched it, he has thereby rendered it impure. Yet, in such a case, he is certainly liable for eating it. So too, an impure individual who ate impure sacrificial food is liable.
שַׁפִּיר קָא אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, וְאָמַר רָבָא: בְּנִטְמָא הַגּוּף וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְמָא בָּשָׂר – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּחַיָּיב, דְּאִיסּוּר כָּרֵת קָדֵים.
The Gemara asks: The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili; why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagree? And Rava said in elaboration of the dispute: In a case where the person’s body became impure and then afterward the sacrificial meat became impure, everyone agrees that he is liable if he eats the meat, as the prohibition of eating sacrificial meat while impure, which carries the punishment of karet, preceded the prohibition of eating impure sacrificial meat.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּנִטְמָא בָּשָׂר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְמָא הַגּוּף. רַבָּנַן אִית לְהוּ אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל, דְּמִגּוֹ דְּמִיחַיַּיב אַחֲתִיכוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא, מִיחַיַּיב נָמֵי אַחֲתִיכָה טְמֵאָה.
They disagree when the meat became impure and then afterward the person’s body became impure. The Rabbis hold that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect even where there is an already existing prohibition. Consequently, since the prohibition for an impure person to eat sacrificial meat is more inclusive than the prohibition for a pure person to eat impure sacrificial meat, as an impure person is liable for eating even pure pieces of sacrificial meat that are permitted to the rest of the world, he is also liable for this prohibition when he eats an impure piece of sacrificial meat.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי לֵית לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל, דְּמִגּוֹ לָא אָמְרִינַן.
And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not accept the principle that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect even where there is an already existing prohibition, as he holds that we do not say that since it applies to cases that were not yet prohibited it applies to all cases.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, נְהִי דְּאִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל לֵית לֵיהּ, בְּאִיסּוּר קַל יָבֹא אִיסּוּר חָמוּר יָחוּל עַל אִיסּוּר קַל, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף, שֶׁהֲרֵי טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף בְּכָרֵת.
The Gemara objects: But even according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, granted that he does not hold that a more inclusive prohibition always takes effect where there is an already existing prohibition. But in the case of an already existing lenient prohibition, a more stringent prohibition should come and take effect on the more lenient prohibition. And what is the more stringent prohibition? The prohibition due to the impurity of a person’s body, as one who eats sacrificial food when he has impurity of the body is liable to karet, whereas a pure person who eats impure sacrificial food is merely liable to be flogged. Consequently, the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while impure should apply even though the meat became impure before the person became impure.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף חֲמוּרָה, דִּלְמָא טוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר חֲמוּרָה, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ טׇהֳרָה בְּמִקְוֶה.
Rav Ashi said: Who can say to us that the prohibition due to the impurity of a person’s body is more stringent? Perhaps the prohibition due to the impurity of the meat is more stringent, as impure meat does not have the possibility of restoring its state of purity via immersion in a ritual bath, whereas a ritually impure person can become pure in this manner.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי לֵית לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל?
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili not hold that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect where there is an already existing prohibition?
וְהָתַנְיָא: שַׁבָּת וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שָׁגַג וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה, מִנַּיִן שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שַׁבָּת הִיא״, ״יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הוּא״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When Shabbat and Yom Kippur occur on the same day, if one acted unwittingly and performed prohibited labor, from where is it derived that he is liable for this by itself and for that by itself, i.e., he is liable to bring two sin offerings, for having transgressed both Shabbat and Yom Kippur? The verse states: “You shall do no manner of work; it is a Shabbat for the Lord in all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:3), and another verse states: “It is Yom Kippur” (Leviticus 23:27). The term “it is” in each verse teaches that each of these days is considered independently even when it occurs together with another holy day. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: He is liable to bring only one sin offering because a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.
שְׁלַח רָבִין מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כָּךְ הַצָּעָה שֶׁל מִשְׁנָה, וְאֵיפוֹךְ.
The Gemara answers that on this topic Ravin sent a letter citing a statement in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: This is the correct presentation of this teaching [hatza’a shel mishna], i.e., the opinions in this baraita are accurate, but one must reverse the attributions of each opinion so that the first opinion is that of Rabbi Akiva and the second opinion is that of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Consequently, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that two prohibitions do not take effect at the same time even if one is more inclusive or stringent than the other.
שְׁלַח רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יַעֲקֹב בַּר גִּיּוֹרֵי מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, לְמַאי דַּאֲפַכַן, שָׁגַג בְּשַׁבָּת וְהֵזִיד בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – חַיָּיב, הֵזִיד בְּשַׁבָּת וְשָׁגַג בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – פָּטוּר.
The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rav Yitzḥak bar Ya’akov bar Giyorei sent a letter citing a statement in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as stated in the baraita once the attributions have been reversed, if one unwittingly performed a forbidden labor on a Yom Kippur that occurred on Shabbat, he is obligated to bring one sin offering. If he acted unwittingly with regard to the fact that it was Shabbat, i.e., he forgot that it was Shabbat, but acted intentionally with regard to Yom Kippur, he is obligated to bring a sin offering. But if he acted intentionally with regard to Shabbat but unwittingly with regard to Yom Kippur, he is exempt from bringing any offering.
מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שַׁבָּת קְבִיעָא וְקַיְימָא, יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – בֵּי דִינָא דְּקָא קָבְעִי לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement? Abaye said: Shabbat is established and permanent, i.e., it always occurs on the seventh day of the week, whereas in the case of Yom Kippur, it is the court that establishes it, as the Sages determine the New Moon. Consequently, Shabbat is considered to have preceded Yom Kippur, and the prohibition to perform labor on Yom Kippur does not apply, due to the fact that labor is already prohibited because it is Shabbat. Since one brings a sin offering only due to unwitting transgression, he is obligated to bring a sin offering only if he performed labor without realizing it was Shabbat.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: סוֹף סוֹף, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתוּ. אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁמָדָא הֲוָה, וּשְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם דְּיוֹמָא דְּכִפּוּרֵי דְּהָא שַׁתָּא שַׁבְּתָא הוּא. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין וְכֹל נָחוֹתֵי אַמְרוּהָ כְּרָבָא.
Rava said to Abaye: Ultimately both of them, i.e., Shabbat and Yom Kippur, come into effect at the same time. Since both take effect at the beginning of the calendar day, it cannot be said that Shabbat precedes Yom Kippur. Rather Rava said a different explanation. It was a time of religious persecution, and they sent from there, i.e., from Eretz Yisrael, a directive stating that Yom Kippur of this year will not be observed on its proper day but rather on Shabbat. Rabbi Yoḥanan was merely stating that on that particular year one who would unwittingly transgress Yom Kippur would be exempt from bringing a sin offering. And similarly, when Ravin and all those who descended from Eretz Yisrael came to Babylonia, they said that the true explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rava.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וַהֲלֹא מִבְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב [וְכוּ׳].
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda said in explanation: Wasn’t the sciatic nerve forbidden for the children of Jacob, as it is written: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33), yet the meat of a non-kosher animal was still permitted to them? Since the sciatic nerve of non-kosher animals became forbidden at that time, it remains forbidden now.
תַּנְיָא, אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב״? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְלֹא נִקְרְאוּ ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ עַד סִינַי! אֶלָּא בְּסִינַי נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לֵידַע מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם נֶאֱסַר לָהֶם.
It is taught in a baraita that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But is it stated in the verse: Therefore the children of Jacob do not eat the sciatic nerve? Isn’t it true that it is stated only that: “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve?” And the Jewish people were not called “the children of Israel” until they received the Torah at Mount Sinai. Rather, this terminology indicates that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was stated to the Jewish people at Sinai, but was written in its place, after the incident of Jacob wrestling with the angel, to allow the Jewish people to know the reason the sciatic nerve was forbidden to them. Since the prohibition came into effect only at Sinai, there is no proof that it ever applied with regard to non-kosher animals.
מֵתִיב רָבָא: ״וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת יַעֲקֹב אֲבִיהֶם״, לְאַחַר מַעֲשֶׂה.
Rava raises an objection to this baraita: The verse states: “And Jacob rose up from Beersheba; and the children of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives in the wagons that Pharaoh had sent to carry him” (Genesis 46:5). This occurred before the Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore proves that the title “the children of Israel” was in use before the Torah was given. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, this occurred after the incident, i.e., after Jacob wrestled with the angel and after the prophetic vision in which God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Genesis 35:10).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מֵהָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא לִיתְּסַר.
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: In that case, the sciatic nerve should be understood as having become forbidden to them from that time when they were first called the children of Israel. Since this was before the giving of the Torah, this would be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not that of the Rabbis.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי תוֹרָה פְּעָמִים פְּעָמִים נִיתְּנָה? הָהוּא שַׁעְתָּא לָאו שְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה הֲוַאי, וְלָא שְׁעַת מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הֲוַאי.
Rav Ashi said to him: Was the Torah given piecemeal, on numerous different occasions? It was given at Sinai. Rather, that time when the title “children of Israel” was first used was not the time when the incident of Jacob wrestling with the angel occurred and also was not the time of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the prohibition took effect at that time.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּין טְמֵאִין וּבֵין טְהוֹרִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּטְהוֹרִין.
§ The mishna taught a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. The Gemara now cites a similar dispute between them with regard to eating a limb from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies whether the limb comes from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and whether it is from a non-kosher species or from a kosher species; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar. But the Rabbis say: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only to a limb from a kosher species.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both of them, i.e., the Rabbis as well as Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, derived their opinions from one verse: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood is the life;
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
Ontario, Canada
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
Chullin 101
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר.
and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר – לִיחַיַּיב נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם גִּיד, אִי אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר – לִיחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה דִּקְדֵים, וְאִי אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – לִיחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם גִּיד.
The Gemara objects: But according to Rabbi Shimon, whichever way you look at it, it is difficult. If a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, let Rabbi Shimon deem one liable for eating non-kosher meat and also due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. Conversely, if a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, let Rabbi Shimon deem one liable due to the prohibition of eating meat from a non-kosher species, which preceded the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. And if Rabbi Shimon holds that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor, and therefore the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat does not apply, let him deem one liable due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve.
אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר אֵין בְּגִידִים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה״, מִי שֶׁגִּידוֹ אָסוּר וּבְשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁגִּידוֹ אָסוּר וּבְשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר.
Rava said in response: Actually Rabbi Shimon holds that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor, and therefore they are not subject to the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat. And the reason the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerves does not apply to non-kosher animals is that it is different there, because the verse states: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33). This teaches that the prohibition applies only to a species whose sciatic nerve is forbidden but whose meat is permitted, and excludes this case of a non-kosher animal, whose sciatic nerve would be forbidden and whose meat would also be forbidden.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: הָאוֹכֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב שְׁתַּיִם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.
§ Having discussed the status of the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal, the Gemara addresses the status of the sciatic nerve of a kosher animal that did not undergo a proper ritual slaughter. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered carcass, Rabbi Meir deems him liable to receive two sets of lashes, and the Rabbis say: He is liable to receive only one set of lashes.
וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאוֹכֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל עוֹלָה וְשֶׁל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, שֶׁחַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.
And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in a case where one eats the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering or of an ox that is stoned that he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. The prohibitions concerning a burnt offering and an ox that is stoned are more severe than that of the sciatic nerve, in that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from them, whereas the sciatic nerve is merely forbidden for consumption. Consequently, these prohibitions take effect even with regard to the sciatic nerve, despite the fact that the sciatic nerve was already forbidden before the animal was consecrated or before it gored a person and became liable to be stoned.
וּמַאן הַאי תַּנָּא, דִּבְאִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל – אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר לֵית לֵיהּ, אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל בְּאִיסּוּר חָמוּר – אִית לֵיהּ.
The Gemara challenges: And who is this tanna who does not hold that in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, the prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and consequently, according to his opinion the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered animal, which applies to the entire animal, does not take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve. Yet, he does hold that where the second prohibition is both a more inclusive prohibition and a more stringent prohibition, it does take effect, and therefore the prohibition of eating a burnt offering or an ox that is stoned does take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve.
אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל קֹדֶשׁ, בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ טָמֵא בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ טָהוֹר – חַיָּיב.
Rava said: It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili who holds that a more inclusive prohibition does not take effect where there is an already existing prohibition. As we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 106a): One who is ritually impure who ate sacrificial food, whether it was ritually impure sacrificial food or ritually pure sacrificial food, is liable to receive karet if he did so intentionally and to bring a sliding-scale offering if he did so unwittingly.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּהוֹר – חַיָּיב, טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא – פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא אֲכַל אֶלָּא דָּבָר טָמֵא.
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: An impure individual who ate pure sacrificial food is liable. But an impure individual who ate impure sacrificial food is exempt, as he merely ate an impure item, and the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while one is impure does not apply to impure sacrificial food.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אַף טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּהוֹר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ, טִמְּאָהוּ.
The Rabbis said to him: According to your logic, this halakha would apply even in a case of an impure individual who ate what had been pure sacrificial food, because once he has touched it, he has thereby rendered it impure. Yet, in such a case, he is certainly liable for eating it. So too, an impure individual who ate impure sacrificial food is liable.
שַׁפִּיר קָא אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, וְאָמַר רָבָא: בְּנִטְמָא הַגּוּף וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְמָא בָּשָׂר – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּחַיָּיב, דְּאִיסּוּר כָּרֵת קָדֵים.
The Gemara asks: The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili; why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagree? And Rava said in elaboration of the dispute: In a case where the person’s body became impure and then afterward the sacrificial meat became impure, everyone agrees that he is liable if he eats the meat, as the prohibition of eating sacrificial meat while impure, which carries the punishment of karet, preceded the prohibition of eating impure sacrificial meat.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּנִטְמָא בָּשָׂר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְמָא הַגּוּף. רַבָּנַן אִית לְהוּ אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל, דְּמִגּוֹ דְּמִיחַיַּיב אַחֲתִיכוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא, מִיחַיַּיב נָמֵי אַחֲתִיכָה טְמֵאָה.
They disagree when the meat became impure and then afterward the person’s body became impure. The Rabbis hold that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect even where there is an already existing prohibition. Consequently, since the prohibition for an impure person to eat sacrificial meat is more inclusive than the prohibition for a pure person to eat impure sacrificial meat, as an impure person is liable for eating even pure pieces of sacrificial meat that are permitted to the rest of the world, he is also liable for this prohibition when he eats an impure piece of sacrificial meat.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי לֵית לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל, דְּמִגּוֹ לָא אָמְרִינַן.
And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not accept the principle that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect even where there is an already existing prohibition, as he holds that we do not say that since it applies to cases that were not yet prohibited it applies to all cases.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, נְהִי דְּאִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל לֵית לֵיהּ, בְּאִיסּוּר קַל יָבֹא אִיסּוּר חָמוּר יָחוּל עַל אִיסּוּר קַל, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף, שֶׁהֲרֵי טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף בְּכָרֵת.
The Gemara objects: But even according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, granted that he does not hold that a more inclusive prohibition always takes effect where there is an already existing prohibition. But in the case of an already existing lenient prohibition, a more stringent prohibition should come and take effect on the more lenient prohibition. And what is the more stringent prohibition? The prohibition due to the impurity of a person’s body, as one who eats sacrificial food when he has impurity of the body is liable to karet, whereas a pure person who eats impure sacrificial food is merely liable to be flogged. Consequently, the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while impure should apply even though the meat became impure before the person became impure.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף חֲמוּרָה, דִּלְמָא טוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר חֲמוּרָה, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ טׇהֳרָה בְּמִקְוֶה.
Rav Ashi said: Who can say to us that the prohibition due to the impurity of a person’s body is more stringent? Perhaps the prohibition due to the impurity of the meat is more stringent, as impure meat does not have the possibility of restoring its state of purity via immersion in a ritual bath, whereas a ritually impure person can become pure in this manner.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי לֵית לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל?
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili not hold that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect where there is an already existing prohibition?
וְהָתַנְיָא: שַׁבָּת וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שָׁגַג וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה, מִנַּיִן שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שַׁבָּת הִיא״, ״יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הוּא״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When Shabbat and Yom Kippur occur on the same day, if one acted unwittingly and performed prohibited labor, from where is it derived that he is liable for this by itself and for that by itself, i.e., he is liable to bring two sin offerings, for having transgressed both Shabbat and Yom Kippur? The verse states: “You shall do no manner of work; it is a Shabbat for the Lord in all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:3), and another verse states: “It is Yom Kippur” (Leviticus 23:27). The term “it is” in each verse teaches that each of these days is considered independently even when it occurs together with another holy day. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: He is liable to bring only one sin offering because a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.
שְׁלַח רָבִין מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כָּךְ הַצָּעָה שֶׁל מִשְׁנָה, וְאֵיפוֹךְ.
The Gemara answers that on this topic Ravin sent a letter citing a statement in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: This is the correct presentation of this teaching [hatza’a shel mishna], i.e., the opinions in this baraita are accurate, but one must reverse the attributions of each opinion so that the first opinion is that of Rabbi Akiva and the second opinion is that of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Consequently, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that two prohibitions do not take effect at the same time even if one is more inclusive or stringent than the other.
שְׁלַח רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יַעֲקֹב בַּר גִּיּוֹרֵי מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, לְמַאי דַּאֲפַכַן, שָׁגַג בְּשַׁבָּת וְהֵזִיד בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – חַיָּיב, הֵזִיד בְּשַׁבָּת וְשָׁגַג בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – פָּטוּר.
The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rav Yitzḥak bar Ya’akov bar Giyorei sent a letter citing a statement in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as stated in the baraita once the attributions have been reversed, if one unwittingly performed a forbidden labor on a Yom Kippur that occurred on Shabbat, he is obligated to bring one sin offering. If he acted unwittingly with regard to the fact that it was Shabbat, i.e., he forgot that it was Shabbat, but acted intentionally with regard to Yom Kippur, he is obligated to bring a sin offering. But if he acted intentionally with regard to Shabbat but unwittingly with regard to Yom Kippur, he is exempt from bringing any offering.
מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שַׁבָּת קְבִיעָא וְקַיְימָא, יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – בֵּי דִינָא דְּקָא קָבְעִי לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement? Abaye said: Shabbat is established and permanent, i.e., it always occurs on the seventh day of the week, whereas in the case of Yom Kippur, it is the court that establishes it, as the Sages determine the New Moon. Consequently, Shabbat is considered to have preceded Yom Kippur, and the prohibition to perform labor on Yom Kippur does not apply, due to the fact that labor is already prohibited because it is Shabbat. Since one brings a sin offering only due to unwitting transgression, he is obligated to bring a sin offering only if he performed labor without realizing it was Shabbat.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: סוֹף סוֹף, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתוּ. אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁמָדָא הֲוָה, וּשְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם דְּיוֹמָא דְּכִפּוּרֵי דְּהָא שַׁתָּא שַׁבְּתָא הוּא. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין וְכֹל נָחוֹתֵי אַמְרוּהָ כְּרָבָא.
Rava said to Abaye: Ultimately both of them, i.e., Shabbat and Yom Kippur, come into effect at the same time. Since both take effect at the beginning of the calendar day, it cannot be said that Shabbat precedes Yom Kippur. Rather Rava said a different explanation. It was a time of religious persecution, and they sent from there, i.e., from Eretz Yisrael, a directive stating that Yom Kippur of this year will not be observed on its proper day but rather on Shabbat. Rabbi Yoḥanan was merely stating that on that particular year one who would unwittingly transgress Yom Kippur would be exempt from bringing a sin offering. And similarly, when Ravin and all those who descended from Eretz Yisrael came to Babylonia, they said that the true explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rava.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וַהֲלֹא מִבְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב [וְכוּ׳].
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda said in explanation: Wasn’t the sciatic nerve forbidden for the children of Jacob, as it is written: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33), yet the meat of a non-kosher animal was still permitted to them? Since the sciatic nerve of non-kosher animals became forbidden at that time, it remains forbidden now.
תַּנְיָא, אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב״? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְלֹא נִקְרְאוּ ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ עַד סִינַי! אֶלָּא בְּסִינַי נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לֵידַע מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם נֶאֱסַר לָהֶם.
It is taught in a baraita that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But is it stated in the verse: Therefore the children of Jacob do not eat the sciatic nerve? Isn’t it true that it is stated only that: “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve?” And the Jewish people were not called “the children of Israel” until they received the Torah at Mount Sinai. Rather, this terminology indicates that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was stated to the Jewish people at Sinai, but was written in its place, after the incident of Jacob wrestling with the angel, to allow the Jewish people to know the reason the sciatic nerve was forbidden to them. Since the prohibition came into effect only at Sinai, there is no proof that it ever applied with regard to non-kosher animals.
מֵתִיב רָבָא: ״וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת יַעֲקֹב אֲבִיהֶם״, לְאַחַר מַעֲשֶׂה.
Rava raises an objection to this baraita: The verse states: “And Jacob rose up from Beersheba; and the children of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives in the wagons that Pharaoh had sent to carry him” (Genesis 46:5). This occurred before the Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore proves that the title “the children of Israel” was in use before the Torah was given. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, this occurred after the incident, i.e., after Jacob wrestled with the angel and after the prophetic vision in which God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Genesis 35:10).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מֵהָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא לִיתְּסַר.
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: In that case, the sciatic nerve should be understood as having become forbidden to them from that time when they were first called the children of Israel. Since this was before the giving of the Torah, this would be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not that of the Rabbis.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי תוֹרָה פְּעָמִים פְּעָמִים נִיתְּנָה? הָהוּא שַׁעְתָּא לָאו שְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה הֲוַאי, וְלָא שְׁעַת מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הֲוַאי.
Rav Ashi said to him: Was the Torah given piecemeal, on numerous different occasions? It was given at Sinai. Rather, that time when the title “children of Israel” was first used was not the time when the incident of Jacob wrestling with the angel occurred and also was not the time of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the prohibition took effect at that time.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּין טְמֵאִין וּבֵין טְהוֹרִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּטְהוֹרִין.
§ The mishna taught a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. The Gemara now cites a similar dispute between them with regard to eating a limb from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies whether the limb comes from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and whether it is from a non-kosher species or from a kosher species; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar. But the Rabbis say: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only to a limb from a kosher species.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both of them, i.e., the Rabbis as well as Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, derived their opinions from one verse: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood is the life;
