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.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
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.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Chullin 102
לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבְרִי: כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל דָּמוֹ אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו, וְהָנֵי טְמֵאִין נָמֵי, הוֹאִיל וְאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל דָּמָן אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָין.
and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar hold that with regard to any animal whose blood you are commanded not to eat, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. Consequently, with regard to these non-kosher species also, since you are commanded not to eat their blood, you are commanded with regard to their limbs.
וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״, אֶלָּא בָּשָׂר לְחוֹדֵיהּ, כֹּל שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר – אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר – אִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו.
And the Rabbis hold that the verse indicates: “And you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23), but rather you shall eat the flesh alone, i.e., when the animal is no longer alive. Consequently, with regard to any animal whose flesh is permitted when it is slaughtered, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. But with regard to any animal whose flesh is not permitted when it is slaughtered, you are not commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., the prohibition of eating limbs that were severed while it was still alive does not apply.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לְמָה לֵיהּ קְרָא? לֵיתֵי אִיסּוּר אֵבֶר לֵיחוּל עַל אִיסּוּר טוּמְאָה, שֶׁכֵּן אִיסּוּרוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ!
The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a prohibition takes effect upon an already existing, less stringent prohibition, why does he need to derive this from a verse? Let the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal come and take effect on the prohibition of eating meat from a non-kosher animal, as it is more stringent since its prohibition applies also to descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וְכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.
The Gemara responds: Yes, that is indeed so. Rabbi Yehuda does not need to derive this halakha from a verse, and the verse was necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that a prohibition does not take effect where there is an already existing prohibition, even if the second prohibition is more stringent.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם״.
This fact that it is Rabbi Elazar who derives this halakha from the verse, as opposed to Rabbi Yehuda, is also taught in a baraita: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies with regard to a limb from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and whether it is from a non-kosher species or a kosher species, as it is stated: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23).
כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל דָּמוֹ – אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו, וְכֹל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל דָּמוֹ – אִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.
This verse indicates that with regard to any species whose blood you are commanded not to eat, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. And any species about whose blood you are not commanded, i.e., with regard to which the prohibition of eating blood does not apply, you are not commanded with regard to their limbs. Since the prohibition of eating blood applies even with regard to non-kosher species, the prohibition of eating limbs severed from a living animal also applies; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּטְהוֹרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״, אֶלָּא בָּשָׂר לְחוֹדֵיהּ, כֹּל שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר – אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר – אֵין אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו.
And the Rabbis say: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only to kosher species, as it is stated in the verse: “And you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23), but rather you shall eat the flesh alone, i.e., when the animal is no longer alive. Consequently, with regard to any animal whose flesh is permitted when it is slaughtered, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. But with regard to any animal whose flesh is not permitted when it is slaughtered, you are not commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., the prohibition of eating limbs that were severed while it was still alive does not apply.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד.
Rabbi Meir says that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only with regard to a kosher species of domesticated animal, but not with regard to undomesticated animals or fowl, even if they are kosher.
(סִימָן: שְׁמוּאֵל, שֵׁילָא, שִׁימִי).
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the different opinions with regard to the name of one of the Sages cited in the upcoming discussion: Shmuel, Sheila, Shimi.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יוֹסֵף, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יוֹסֵף, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבָּה בַּר שִׁימִי אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר?
Rabba bar Shmuel said that Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said the following statement. And some say the attributions as follows: Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said; and some say the attributions as follows: Rabba bar Shimi said that Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only with regard to a kosher species of domesticated animal?
אָמַר קְרָא ״וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ״.
It is that the verse states: “Then you shall slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep” (Deuteronomy 12:21). This verse is closely followed by the verse that serves as the source of the prohibition to eat a limb severed from a living animal (Deuteronomy 12:23), indicating that the prohibition applies only to kosher domesticated animals.
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל בְּבֶן נֹחַ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּזְהָר עַל הַטְּמֵאִין כַּטְּהוֹרִין.
Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer about whether the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a living animal applies with regard to non-kosher species is only with regard to Jews. But with regard to descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles, everyone agrees that they are prohibited from eating a limb from a living non-kosher species of animal just like they are prohibited from eating a limb from a living kosher species.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי – בֶּן נֹחַ מוּזְהָר עָלָיו עַל הַטְּמֵאִים כַּטְּהוֹרִים, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ מוּזְהָר אֶלָּא עַל הַטְּהוֹרִין בִּלְבַד.
The Gemara comments that this is also taught in a baraita: A descendant of Noah is prohibited from eating a limb from a living animal from non-kosher species just as from kosher species. But a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from a living animal of kosher species only.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי ״טְהוֹרָה״, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי ״טְהוֹרִים״, וְרַבָּנַן.
There are those who say that the correct wording of the baraita is that a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from a living kosher species, in singular, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the prohibition is limited to kosher domestic animals. And there are those who say that the correct wording of the baraita is that a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from living kosher species, in plural, and it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the prohibition also applies to a limb from a living bird or a living undomesticated animal of kosher species.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, אָכַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי מִמֶּנָּה אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אַרְבָּעִים, וְאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מְטַהַרְתָּהּ.
Rav Sheizvi said: We learn in the mishna as well that a gentile is prohibited from eating a limb from a living being even with regard to non-kosher species (Teharot 1:3): If one ate a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, he does not incur forty lashes, and slaughter does not purify it, i.e., cause it to become permitted for consumption.
בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל – פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מְטַהַרְתָּהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ, מִכְּלָל דְּאָסוּר.
Rav Sheizvi clarifies: With regard to what case does the mishna issue this ruling? If we say that it is referring to a Jew who ate the limb, it is obvious that slaughter does not purify it, because it is a non-kosher species and cannot be made kosher. Rather is it not referring to descendants of Noah and teaching that even after the bird is slaughtered the limb severed while it was alive remains forbidden? By inference, it is clear from the mishna that it is prohibited for a gentile to eat a limb severed from a living being even from a non-kosher species.
רַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ רָמֵי רֵישָׁא אַסֵּיפָא, וּמְשַׁנֵּי: רֵישָׁא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְסֵיפָא בְּבֶן נֹחַ.
Rabbi Mani bar Pattish raises a contradiction between the first clause of that mishna, which states that one does not receive lashes for eating a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, and the latter clause of the mishna, which states that a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird remains forbidden after the bird is slaughtered. The first clause indicates that the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a living creature applies only to kosher species, while the latter clause indicates that it applies also to non-kosher species. And he answers this contradiction by explaining that the first clause is referring to a Jew and the latter clause is referring to a descendant of Noah.
אָמַר רַב: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי צָרִיךְ כְּזַיִת, מַאי טַעְמָא? אֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָה בֵּיהּ.
§ The Gemara continues discussing the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a living creature. Rav says: A limb severed from a living animal requires an olive-bulk in order to render one who eats it liable to receive lashes. What is the reason for this? It is because the term: Eating, is written with regard to the prohibition of a limb severed from a living animal, and the definition of eating is the consumption of at least one olive-bulk.
מֵתִיב רַב עַמְרָם: אָכַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי מִמֶּנָּה – אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, וְאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מְטַהַרְתָּהּ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בָּעֵינַן כְּזַיִת – תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּקָאָכֵל כְּזַיִת.
Rav Amram raises an objection from the mishna cited above (Teharot 1:3): If one ate a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, he does not incur the forty lashes, and slaughter does not purify it, i.e., cause it to become permitted. But if it enters your mind that we require an olive-bulk in order for one to receive lashes for eating a limb severed from a living creature, that mishna must be referring to such a case; therefore, it should emerge that he is liable to receive lashes because he ate an olive-bulk of a non-kosher bird.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת.
The Gemara answers: This can be explained as Rav Naḥman said with regard to another issue, that it is referring to a case of eating a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones and the total volume is an olive-bulk. Here also, the mishna is referring to a case of eating a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב:
The Gemara raises another challenge to Rav’s statement that one receives lashes for eating a limb severed from a living animal only if he eats an olive-bulk: Come and hear a proof in this regard, as Rav said:
אָכַל צִפּוֹר טְהוֹרָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ – בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, בְּמִיתָתָהּ – בִּכְזַיִת, וּטְמֵאָה בֵּין בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין בְּמִיתָתָהּ – בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת.
If one ate a kosher bird alive, one is punished with lashes for any amount, i.e., even if he ate less than an olive-bulk. If the bird was dead and was not ritually slaughtered, one is punished with lashes only if he ate an olive-bulk. And if one ate a whole bird of a non-kosher species, whether he ate it when it was alive or dead, he is punished with lashes for any amount, i.e., even if the bird contained less than an olive-bulk of meat. The Gemara answers: Here also explain that Rav’s statement is referring to a case of eating a small amount of meat along with sinews and bones, and the total volume is an olive-bulk.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נָטַל צִפּוֹר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ – רַבִּי פּוֹטֵר, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַיֵּיב. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, עַל אֵבֶר מִמֶּנָּה חַיָּיב, עַל כּוּלָּהּ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן! חֲנָקָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּכְזַיִת.
Come and hear another challenge based upon a baraita: With regard to one who took a live bird of a kosher species that did not have a volume of an olive-bulk and ate it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi exempts him from lashes and Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon deems him liable for lashes. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: He should be liable based upon an a fortiori inference: If one is liable to receive lashes for eating a limb of a living animal, all the more so is it not clear that one is liable to receive lashes for eating all of it? The baraita concludes: With regard to one who strangled the bird and ate it, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive lashes only if it had the volume of an olive-bulk.
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: בְּחַיֶּיהָ לְאֵבָרִים עוֹמֶדֶת, וּמָר סָבַר: בְּחַיֶּיהָ לָאו לְאֵבָרִים עוֹמֶדֶת.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, disagree only with regard to one who ate an entire live bird, as one Sage, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that even during its life all creatures stand to be divided into limbs, i.e., they will ultimately be cut into pieces. Consequently, each of its limbs is considered a separate entity, and even if one eats a limb without first separating it from the rest of the body, one violates the prohibition of eating a limb from a living being. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that during its life it does not stand to be divided into limbs. Therefore, one does not violate the prohibition of eating a limb from a living being unless he severs a limb from the body.
דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא לָא בָּעֵינַן כְּזַיִת, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר, גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת.
But in any event, everyone agrees that we do not require one to eat an olive-bulk of meat in order to be liable for lashes for eating a limb from a living being, which is the basis of the a fortiori inference of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Naḥman says in response: Explain that the baraita is referring to a case where one ate a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones, making a total of an olive-bulk.
וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דִּבְכוּלֵּיהּ לֵית בֵּיהּ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, וּבְחַד אֵבֶר אִית כְּזַיִת בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת? אָמַר רַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא: אִין, בִּקְלָנִיתָא.
The Gemara challenges this answer: But is there any bird that does not have an olive-bulk of meat in its whole body, but in one limb it has an olive-bulk of the combination of a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones? Rav Sherevya said: Yes, this is the case with regard to the kelanita, a bird that is very small and scrawny.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: חֲנָקָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּכְזַיִת, וְהָא קְלָנִיתָא עוֹף טָמֵא הוּא, וְאָמַר רַב: טְמֵאָה, בֵּין בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין בְּמִיתָתָהּ, בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ! אֶלָּא כְּעֵין קְלָנִיתָא.
The Gemara challenges this answer that the baraita is referring to a kelanita. Say the latter clause: With regard to one who strangled the bird and ate it, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive lashes only if it had the volume of an olive-bulk. But a kelanita is a non-kosher bird, and Rav says: If one eats a whole non-kosher bird, whether he eats it when it is alive or dead, he is punished with lashes for eating any amount. The Gemara answers: The baraita is not referring to an actual kelanita, but rather to a kosher species of bird similar to a kelanita in that it is small and scrawny.
אָמַר רָבָא: אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר סָבַר רַבִּי מַחְשְׁבֶת אֳכָלִין שְׁמָהּ מַחְשָׁבָה, חִישֵּׁב לְאוֹכְלָהּ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר, וַאֲכָלָהּ כּוּלָּהּ – חַיָּיב.
§ The Gemara above cited a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, with regard to one who eats an entire live kosher bird that is less than an olive-bulk. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that an entire bird is not considered to be a limb and is therefore not included in the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, Rava said: If you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that thought with regard to food is considered thought, i.e., one’s thoughts have halakhic significance in determining a food’s status, then in a case where one thought to eat the bird limb by limb, and instead ate it all at once, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hold that he is liable for transgressing the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּאִילּוּ אָכֵיל לֵיהּ אַחֵר – לָא מִיחַיַּיב, וְאָכֵיל לֵיהּ הַאי – מִיחַיַּיב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ, וְזֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ.
Abaye said to Rava: But is there anything with regard to which if another person ate it he would not be liable, but if this person ate it he is liable? Rava said to Abaye: There can be different outcomes for different people who perform the same act, as this individual’s action is judged according to his thought and that individual’s action is judged according to his thought.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר סָבַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַחְשְׁבֶת אֳכָלִין שְׁמָהּ מַחְשָׁבָה, חִישֵּׁב לְאוֹכְלָהּ מֵתָה, וַאֲכָלָהּ חַיָּה – פָּטוּר.
And Rava also said: If you say that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon holds that thought with regard to food is considered thought, then in a case where one at first intended to eat the entire bird after it had died, but ultimately he ate it alive, Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon would hold that he is exempt from lashes, as according to his thought it does not stand to be divided into limbs while alive.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּאִילּוּ אָכֵיל לֵיהּ אַחֵר מִחַיַּיב, וְאָכֵיל לֵיהּ הַאי פָּטוּר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ, וְזֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ.
Abaye said to Rava: But is there anything that if another person ate it he would be liable, but if this person ate it he is exempt? Rava said to Abaye: This individual’s action is judged according to his thought and that individual’s action is judged according to his thought.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״ – זֶה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – זֶה בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה.
§ The Gemara discusses the source of the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: “You shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23); this is the source for the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal. And the verse: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30); this is the source for the prohibition of eating flesh severed from the living and flesh severed from a tereifa, even if it is not an entire limb.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״ – זֶה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַחַי, ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – זֶה בָּשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה.
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: “You shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23); this is the source for the prohibitions of eating a limb from a living animal and of eating flesh severed from the living. And the verse: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30); this is the source for the prohibition of eating flesh severed from a tereifa.
אָכַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַחַי – לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָכַל בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה – לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָכַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.
The Gemara clarifies the difference between these two opinions. If one ate a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from the living, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan he is liable to receive two sets of lashes but according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. Conversely, if one ate flesh severed from the living and flesh severed from a tereifa, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish he is liable to receive two sets of lashes but according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If one ate a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from a tereifa, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive two sets of lashes.
וּרְמִינְהוּ:
And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the claim that everyone agrees that one who eats both a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from a tereifa is liable to receive two sets of lashes, based upon the following statement:
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.
Hullin 102: The Noahides and a Limb from a Live Animal
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.
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
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
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Berlin, Germany
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Richmond, CA, United States
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
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Long Island, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
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
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
Chullin 102
לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבְרִי: כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל דָּמוֹ אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו, וְהָנֵי טְמֵאִין נָמֵי, הוֹאִיל וְאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל דָּמָן אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָין.
and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar hold that with regard to any animal whose blood you are commanded not to eat, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. Consequently, with regard to these non-kosher species also, since you are commanded not to eat their blood, you are commanded with regard to their limbs.
וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״, אֶלָּא בָּשָׂר לְחוֹדֵיהּ, כֹּל שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר – אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר – אִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו.
And the Rabbis hold that the verse indicates: “And you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23), but rather you shall eat the flesh alone, i.e., when the animal is no longer alive. Consequently, with regard to any animal whose flesh is permitted when it is slaughtered, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. But with regard to any animal whose flesh is not permitted when it is slaughtered, you are not commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., the prohibition of eating limbs that were severed while it was still alive does not apply.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לְמָה לֵיהּ קְרָא? לֵיתֵי אִיסּוּר אֵבֶר לֵיחוּל עַל אִיסּוּר טוּמְאָה, שֶׁכֵּן אִיסּוּרוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ!
The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a prohibition takes effect upon an already existing, less stringent prohibition, why does he need to derive this from a verse? Let the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal come and take effect on the prohibition of eating meat from a non-kosher animal, as it is more stringent since its prohibition applies also to descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וְכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.
The Gemara responds: Yes, that is indeed so. Rabbi Yehuda does not need to derive this halakha from a verse, and the verse was necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that a prohibition does not take effect where there is an already existing prohibition, even if the second prohibition is more stringent.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם״.
This fact that it is Rabbi Elazar who derives this halakha from the verse, as opposed to Rabbi Yehuda, is also taught in a baraita: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies with regard to a limb from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and whether it is from a non-kosher species or a kosher species, as it is stated: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23).
כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל דָּמוֹ – אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו, וְכֹל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל דָּמוֹ – אִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.
This verse indicates that with regard to any species whose blood you are commanded not to eat, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. And any species about whose blood you are not commanded, i.e., with regard to which the prohibition of eating blood does not apply, you are not commanded with regard to their limbs. Since the prohibition of eating blood applies even with regard to non-kosher species, the prohibition of eating limbs severed from a living animal also applies; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּטְהוֹרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״, אֶלָּא בָּשָׂר לְחוֹדֵיהּ, כֹּל שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר – אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר – אֵין אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה עַל אֵבָרָיו.
And the Rabbis say: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only to kosher species, as it is stated in the verse: “And you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23), but rather you shall eat the flesh alone, i.e., when the animal is no longer alive. Consequently, with regard to any animal whose flesh is permitted when it is slaughtered, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. But with regard to any animal whose flesh is not permitted when it is slaughtered, you are not commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., the prohibition of eating limbs that were severed while it was still alive does not apply.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד.
Rabbi Meir says that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only with regard to a kosher species of domesticated animal, but not with regard to undomesticated animals or fowl, even if they are kosher.
(סִימָן: שְׁמוּאֵל, שֵׁילָא, שִׁימִי).
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the different opinions with regard to the name of one of the Sages cited in the upcoming discussion: Shmuel, Sheila, Shimi.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יוֹסֵף, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יוֹסֵף, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבָּה בַּר שִׁימִי אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר?
Rabba bar Shmuel said that Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said the following statement. And some say the attributions as follows: Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said; and some say the attributions as follows: Rabba bar Shimi said that Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only with regard to a kosher species of domesticated animal?
אָמַר קְרָא ״וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ״.
It is that the verse states: “Then you shall slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep” (Deuteronomy 12:21). This verse is closely followed by the verse that serves as the source of the prohibition to eat a limb severed from a living animal (Deuteronomy 12:23), indicating that the prohibition applies only to kosher domesticated animals.
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל בְּבֶן נֹחַ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּזְהָר עַל הַטְּמֵאִין כַּטְּהוֹרִין.
Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer about whether the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a living animal applies with regard to non-kosher species is only with regard to Jews. But with regard to descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles, everyone agrees that they are prohibited from eating a limb from a living non-kosher species of animal just like they are prohibited from eating a limb from a living kosher species.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי – בֶּן נֹחַ מוּזְהָר עָלָיו עַל הַטְּמֵאִים כַּטְּהוֹרִים, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ מוּזְהָר אֶלָּא עַל הַטְּהוֹרִין בִּלְבַד.
The Gemara comments that this is also taught in a baraita: A descendant of Noah is prohibited from eating a limb from a living animal from non-kosher species just as from kosher species. But a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from a living animal of kosher species only.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי ״טְהוֹרָה״, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי ״טְהוֹרִים״, וְרַבָּנַן.
There are those who say that the correct wording of the baraita is that a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from a living kosher species, in singular, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the prohibition is limited to kosher domestic animals. And there are those who say that the correct wording of the baraita is that a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from living kosher species, in plural, and it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the prohibition also applies to a limb from a living bird or a living undomesticated animal of kosher species.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, אָכַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי מִמֶּנָּה אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אַרְבָּעִים, וְאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מְטַהַרְתָּהּ.
Rav Sheizvi said: We learn in the mishna as well that a gentile is prohibited from eating a limb from a living being even with regard to non-kosher species (Teharot 1:3): If one ate a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, he does not incur forty lashes, and slaughter does not purify it, i.e., cause it to become permitted for consumption.
בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל – פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מְטַהַרְתָּהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ, מִכְּלָל דְּאָסוּר.
Rav Sheizvi clarifies: With regard to what case does the mishna issue this ruling? If we say that it is referring to a Jew who ate the limb, it is obvious that slaughter does not purify it, because it is a non-kosher species and cannot be made kosher. Rather is it not referring to descendants of Noah and teaching that even after the bird is slaughtered the limb severed while it was alive remains forbidden? By inference, it is clear from the mishna that it is prohibited for a gentile to eat a limb severed from a living being even from a non-kosher species.
רַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ רָמֵי רֵישָׁא אַסֵּיפָא, וּמְשַׁנֵּי: רֵישָׁא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְסֵיפָא בְּבֶן נֹחַ.
Rabbi Mani bar Pattish raises a contradiction between the first clause of that mishna, which states that one does not receive lashes for eating a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, and the latter clause of the mishna, which states that a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird remains forbidden after the bird is slaughtered. The first clause indicates that the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a living creature applies only to kosher species, while the latter clause indicates that it applies also to non-kosher species. And he answers this contradiction by explaining that the first clause is referring to a Jew and the latter clause is referring to a descendant of Noah.
אָמַר רַב: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי צָרִיךְ כְּזַיִת, מַאי טַעְמָא? אֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָה בֵּיהּ.
§ The Gemara continues discussing the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a living creature. Rav says: A limb severed from a living animal requires an olive-bulk in order to render one who eats it liable to receive lashes. What is the reason for this? It is because the term: Eating, is written with regard to the prohibition of a limb severed from a living animal, and the definition of eating is the consumption of at least one olive-bulk.
מֵתִיב רַב עַמְרָם: אָכַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי מִמֶּנָּה – אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, וְאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מְטַהַרְתָּהּ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בָּעֵינַן כְּזַיִת – תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּקָאָכֵל כְּזַיִת.
Rav Amram raises an objection from the mishna cited above (Teharot 1:3): If one ate a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, he does not incur the forty lashes, and slaughter does not purify it, i.e., cause it to become permitted. But if it enters your mind that we require an olive-bulk in order for one to receive lashes for eating a limb severed from a living creature, that mishna must be referring to such a case; therefore, it should emerge that he is liable to receive lashes because he ate an olive-bulk of a non-kosher bird.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת.
The Gemara answers: This can be explained as Rav Naḥman said with regard to another issue, that it is referring to a case of eating a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones and the total volume is an olive-bulk. Here also, the mishna is referring to a case of eating a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב:
The Gemara raises another challenge to Rav’s statement that one receives lashes for eating a limb severed from a living animal only if he eats an olive-bulk: Come and hear a proof in this regard, as Rav said:
אָכַל צִפּוֹר טְהוֹרָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ – בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, בְּמִיתָתָהּ – בִּכְזַיִת, וּטְמֵאָה בֵּין בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין בְּמִיתָתָהּ – בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת.
If one ate a kosher bird alive, one is punished with lashes for any amount, i.e., even if he ate less than an olive-bulk. If the bird was dead and was not ritually slaughtered, one is punished with lashes only if he ate an olive-bulk. And if one ate a whole bird of a non-kosher species, whether he ate it when it was alive or dead, he is punished with lashes for any amount, i.e., even if the bird contained less than an olive-bulk of meat. The Gemara answers: Here also explain that Rav’s statement is referring to a case of eating a small amount of meat along with sinews and bones, and the total volume is an olive-bulk.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נָטַל צִפּוֹר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ – רַבִּי פּוֹטֵר, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַיֵּיב. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, עַל אֵבֶר מִמֶּנָּה חַיָּיב, עַל כּוּלָּהּ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן! חֲנָקָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּכְזַיִת.
Come and hear another challenge based upon a baraita: With regard to one who took a live bird of a kosher species that did not have a volume of an olive-bulk and ate it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi exempts him from lashes and Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon deems him liable for lashes. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: He should be liable based upon an a fortiori inference: If one is liable to receive lashes for eating a limb of a living animal, all the more so is it not clear that one is liable to receive lashes for eating all of it? The baraita concludes: With regard to one who strangled the bird and ate it, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive lashes only if it had the volume of an olive-bulk.
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: בְּחַיֶּיהָ לְאֵבָרִים עוֹמֶדֶת, וּמָר סָבַר: בְּחַיֶּיהָ לָאו לְאֵבָרִים עוֹמֶדֶת.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, disagree only with regard to one who ate an entire live bird, as one Sage, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that even during its life all creatures stand to be divided into limbs, i.e., they will ultimately be cut into pieces. Consequently, each of its limbs is considered a separate entity, and even if one eats a limb without first separating it from the rest of the body, one violates the prohibition of eating a limb from a living being. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that during its life it does not stand to be divided into limbs. Therefore, one does not violate the prohibition of eating a limb from a living being unless he severs a limb from the body.
דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא לָא בָּעֵינַן כְּזַיִת, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר, גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת.
But in any event, everyone agrees that we do not require one to eat an olive-bulk of meat in order to be liable for lashes for eating a limb from a living being, which is the basis of the a fortiori inference of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Naḥman says in response: Explain that the baraita is referring to a case where one ate a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones, making a total of an olive-bulk.
וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דִּבְכוּלֵּיהּ לֵית בֵּיהּ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, וּבְחַד אֵבֶר אִית כְּזַיִת בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת? אָמַר רַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא: אִין, בִּקְלָנִיתָא.
The Gemara challenges this answer: But is there any bird that does not have an olive-bulk of meat in its whole body, but in one limb it has an olive-bulk of the combination of a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones? Rav Sherevya said: Yes, this is the case with regard to the kelanita, a bird that is very small and scrawny.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: חֲנָקָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּכְזַיִת, וְהָא קְלָנִיתָא עוֹף טָמֵא הוּא, וְאָמַר רַב: טְמֵאָה, בֵּין בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין בְּמִיתָתָהּ, בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ! אֶלָּא כְּעֵין קְלָנִיתָא.
The Gemara challenges this answer that the baraita is referring to a kelanita. Say the latter clause: With regard to one who strangled the bird and ate it, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive lashes only if it had the volume of an olive-bulk. But a kelanita is a non-kosher bird, and Rav says: If one eats a whole non-kosher bird, whether he eats it when it is alive or dead, he is punished with lashes for eating any amount. The Gemara answers: The baraita is not referring to an actual kelanita, but rather to a kosher species of bird similar to a kelanita in that it is small and scrawny.
אָמַר רָבָא: אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר סָבַר רַבִּי מַחְשְׁבֶת אֳכָלִין שְׁמָהּ מַחְשָׁבָה, חִישֵּׁב לְאוֹכְלָהּ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר, וַאֲכָלָהּ כּוּלָּהּ – חַיָּיב.
§ The Gemara above cited a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, with regard to one who eats an entire live kosher bird that is less than an olive-bulk. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that an entire bird is not considered to be a limb and is therefore not included in the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, Rava said: If you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that thought with regard to food is considered thought, i.e., one’s thoughts have halakhic significance in determining a food’s status, then in a case where one thought to eat the bird limb by limb, and instead ate it all at once, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hold that he is liable for transgressing the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּאִילּוּ אָכֵיל לֵיהּ אַחֵר – לָא מִיחַיַּיב, וְאָכֵיל לֵיהּ הַאי – מִיחַיַּיב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ, וְזֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ.
Abaye said to Rava: But is there anything with regard to which if another person ate it he would not be liable, but if this person ate it he is liable? Rava said to Abaye: There can be different outcomes for different people who perform the same act, as this individual’s action is judged according to his thought and that individual’s action is judged according to his thought.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר סָבַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַחְשְׁבֶת אֳכָלִין שְׁמָהּ מַחְשָׁבָה, חִישֵּׁב לְאוֹכְלָהּ מֵתָה, וַאֲכָלָהּ חַיָּה – פָּטוּר.
And Rava also said: If you say that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon holds that thought with regard to food is considered thought, then in a case where one at first intended to eat the entire bird after it had died, but ultimately he ate it alive, Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon would hold that he is exempt from lashes, as according to his thought it does not stand to be divided into limbs while alive.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּאִילּוּ אָכֵיל לֵיהּ אַחֵר מִחַיַּיב, וְאָכֵיל לֵיהּ הַאי פָּטוּר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ, וְזֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ.
Abaye said to Rava: But is there anything that if another person ate it he would be liable, but if this person ate it he is exempt? Rava said to Abaye: This individual’s action is judged according to his thought and that individual’s action is judged according to his thought.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״ – זֶה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – זֶה בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה.
§ The Gemara discusses the source of the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: “You shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23); this is the source for the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal. And the verse: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30); this is the source for the prohibition of eating flesh severed from the living and flesh severed from a tereifa, even if it is not an entire limb.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״ – זֶה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַחַי, ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – זֶה בָּשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה.
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: “You shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23); this is the source for the prohibitions of eating a limb from a living animal and of eating flesh severed from the living. And the verse: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30); this is the source for the prohibition of eating flesh severed from a tereifa.
אָכַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַחַי – לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָכַל בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה – לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָכַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.
The Gemara clarifies the difference between these two opinions. If one ate a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from the living, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan he is liable to receive two sets of lashes but according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. Conversely, if one ate flesh severed from the living and flesh severed from a tereifa, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish he is liable to receive two sets of lashes but according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If one ate a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from a tereifa, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive two sets of lashes.
וּרְמִינְהוּ:
And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the claim that everyone agrees that one who eats both a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from a tereifa is liable to receive two sets of lashes, based upon the following statement:
