Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 10, 2019 | 讙壮 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 103


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讻诇 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 诪谉 讛讟专驻讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

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

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 拽砖讬讗

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

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讗讞转 讻讗谉 讘砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 讘砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 诪讬讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讗讞转 驻诇讬讙讬

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

讘讘讛诪讛 讗讞转 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟专驻讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转 专讜讘讛 诪专 住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讜讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜

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

讜诪专 住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛

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

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讘诪讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 诪讬讞诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛

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

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟专驻讛 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讜讘诪讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

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

诪专 住讘专 讗转讬 讜讞讬讬诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讜讞讬讬诇

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

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖转诇砖 诪诪谞讛 讗讘专 讜讟专驻讛 讘讜 诪专 住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 注讜诪讚转 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讜讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜

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

讜诪专 住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讗讘专

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

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 诪谉 讛讞讬 诪谉 讛讟专驻讛 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 砖诇砖 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 诪谉 讛讞讬 诪谉 讛讟专驻讛 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate forbidden fat from a living animal that is a tereifa he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. Rabbi Ami said to him: But let the Master say that he is liable to three sets of lashes, because I say that the correct version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement is that he is liable to three sets of lashes. It was also stated: Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate forbidden fat from a living animal that is a tereifa he is liable to three sets of lashes.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟专驻讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转 专讜讘讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖 拽住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讚讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讜讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讜讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜

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

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖转讬诐 拽住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讜讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讞讬讬诇

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

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讘诪讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讜讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讜讗讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗转讬 讞讬讬诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讞讬讬诇

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

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟专驻讛 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讜讘诪讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 诪讬讞诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

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

诪专 住讘专 讗转讬 讞讬讬诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞诇讘 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 谞讘诇讛 讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讜讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘

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

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讞诇讘 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬讘 讚讛讜转专

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

诪讻诇诇讜 讗讘诇 讗讘专 讚诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 诇讗

to its general prohibition, as the fat of an undomesticated animal is permitted. But with regard to a limb from a living animal, where there are no permitted circumstances to its general prohibition, the prohibition of consuming a tereifa does not take effect.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诇拽讜 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讟讜专

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish inquired of Rabbi Yo岣nan: If one took from a living animal a limb that was an olive-bulk and divided it into two pieces when it was outside his mouth and ate each piece separately, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: He is exempt.

诪讘驻谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘

Reish Lakish then asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: If he placed an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal inside his mouth and then divided it and swallowed the two parts separately, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: He is liable to receive lashes.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讞诇拽讜 诪讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 诪讘驻谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said an alternative version of this discussion. If one took from a living animal a limb that was an olive-bulk and divided it into two pieces when it was outside his mouth, and he then ate each piece separately, he is exempt. If he divided the limb into two parts inside his mouth, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he is liable, and Reish Lakish says that he is exempt.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讛专讬 谞讛谞讛 讙专讜谞讜 讘讻讝讬转 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘诪注讬讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan says he is liable because his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal. And Reish Lakish says that he is exempt because in order to be liable we require an act of eating that contains the requisite amount, i.e., an olive-bulk, when it enters his stomach, and in this case there is not a full olive-bulk that enters his stomach at one time.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讙专讜诪讬转讗 讝注讬专转讗

The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan it is clear how one can be liable for eating an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal. But according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, how can you find a case where one will be liable for eating a limb from a living animal, since the food is generally broken up before he swallows it? Rav Kahana said: One would be liable in a case where he eats a small bone that contains an olive-bulk of meat, bone and sinew all together, and that he can swallow whole.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽讜 诪讘讞讜抓 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘 诪讞讜住专 拽专讬讘讛 诇讗讜 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

As quoted above, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish agree that if one divides a limb from a living animal before placing it in his mouth, he is not liable for eating it. The Gemara adds: But Rabbi Elazar says: Even if one divided the limb outside his mouth he is liable. This is because the fact that the two pieces are lacking in proximity to each other as they are placed in one鈥檚 mouth is not comparable to lacking an action, i.e., it is not comparable to a case where he ate only half an olive-bulk. Since he ate an entire olive-bulk, he is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻讝讬转 砖讗诪专讜 讞讜抓 诪砖诇 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诐 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐

搂 The Gemara cites another dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish pertaining to the measure of an olive-bulk with regard to prohibitions involving eating. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The olive-bulk of which the Sages spoke with regard to prohibitions involving eating is measured by the food one actually swallows, aside from the food that remains stuck between the teeth. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says that it includes even the food that remains stuck between the teeth.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖诇 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬诐 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬谉 讛讞谞讬讻讬讬诐 诪专 住讘专 讛专讬 谞讛谞讛 讙专讜谞讜 讘讻讝讬转 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘诪注讬讜 讘注讬谞谉

In explanation of this dispute, Rav Pappa says: With regard to food that remains stuck between the teeth, everyone agrees that it is not included in measuring an olive-bulk that would render one liable to receive lashes. When they disagree it is with regard to food that remains on the palate, which one tastes but does not swallow. One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that since his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk, i.e., he tastes the full olive-bulk, he is liable. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that in order to be liable, we require an act of eating that contains the requisite amount, i.e., an olive-bulk, when it enters his stomach.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜讛拽讬讗讜 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛专讬 谞讛谞讛 讙专讜谞讜 讘讻讝讬转

搂 The Gemara quotes another related ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate half an olive-bulk of a forbidden food and vomited it, and then ate another half an olive-bulk, he is liable. What is the reason? It is because his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk of the forbidden food, even though the full olive-bulk did not actually enter his stomach.

讘注讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜讛拽讬讗讜 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇讜 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讬 注讬讻讜诇 讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讬讻讜诇 讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讝讬转

Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: If one ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden food and vomited it, and then ate it again, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies: What is the dilemma he is raising? If it is about whether the half-olive-bulk that he ate and vomited up is considered to have been digested, in which case it is no longer considered food, or whether it is not considered to have been digested, let him raise the dilemma with regard to an entire olive-bulk. If one eats an entire olive-bulk and vomits it and then eats it again, if the food is considered not to have been digested the first time, he is liable to be flogged twice.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讘转专 讙专讜谞讜 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讬 讘转专 诪注讬讜 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讗住讬

Rather, his dilemma must be about whether we follow the throat or whether we follow the stomach in measuring how much forbidden food one has swallowed. That being the case, let him resolve the dilemma from that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said, which indicates that we follow the throat.

专讘讬 讗住讬 讙诪专讬讛 讗讬注拽专 诇讬讛 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗讚讻讜专讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讗讞专 诇讬诪讗 诪专 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬 砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 注讬讻讜诇 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛 讚讛专讬 谞讛谞讛 讙专讜谞讜 讘讻讝讬转

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar knew the answer to his question, but Rabbi Asi forgot the statement that he had learned from Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rabbi Elazar came to remind him of what he had known previously. And this is what Rabbi Elazar was saying to him: Why do I need the case where he swallows another half an olive-bulk? Let the Master teach this ruling in a case where he swallows the same half-olive-bulk he had swallowed previously and vomited, as two principles can be derived from the ruling in that case: We can learn from it that the food was not considered to have been digested the first time he swallowed it, and we can learn from it that since his throat derives pleasure from a full olive-bulk, he is liable.

讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜驻转 讛讚讜专 诇讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讗诪专转 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专 诇讱 讛专讬 谞讛谞讛 讙专讜谞讜 讘讻讝讬转

Rabbi Asi was silent and did not say anything. Rabbi Elazar said to him: Wonder of the generation, did you not say this case many times before Rabbi Yo岣nan, and he said to you: This person is liable because his throat derives pleasure from a full olive-bulk?

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讘砖专 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 讞讜抓 诪讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 讜讗住讜专 诇讛注诇讜转 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讞讜抓 诪讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐

MISHNA: It is prohibited to cook any meat of domesticated and undomesticated animals and birds in milk, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, whose halakhic status is not that of meat. And likewise, the Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to place any meat together with milk products, e.g., cheese, on one table. The reason for this prohibition is that one might come to eat them after they absorb substances from each other. This prohibition applies to all types of meat, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 103

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 103

讗讻诇 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 诪谉 讛讟专驻讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

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

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 拽砖讬讗

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

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讗讞转 讻讗谉 讘砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 讘砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 诪讬讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讗讞转 驻诇讬讙讬

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

讘讘讛诪讛 讗讞转 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟专驻讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转 专讜讘讛 诪专 住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讜讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜

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

讜诪专 住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛

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

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讘诪讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 诪讬讞诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛

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

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟专驻讛 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讜讘诪讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

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

诪专 住讘专 讗转讬 讜讞讬讬诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讜讞讬讬诇

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

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖转诇砖 诪诪谞讛 讗讘专 讜讟专驻讛 讘讜 诪专 住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 注讜诪讚转 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讜讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜

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

讜诪专 住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讗讘专

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

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 诪谉 讛讞讬 诪谉 讛讟专驻讛 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 砖诇砖 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 诪谉 讛讞讬 诪谉 讛讟专驻讛 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate forbidden fat from a living animal that is a tereifa he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. Rabbi Ami said to him: But let the Master say that he is liable to three sets of lashes, because I say that the correct version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement is that he is liable to three sets of lashes. It was also stated: Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate forbidden fat from a living animal that is a tereifa he is liable to three sets of lashes.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟专驻讛 注诐 讬爪讬讗转 专讜讘讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖 拽住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讚讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讜讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讜讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜

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

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖转讬诐 拽住讘专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讜讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讞讬讬诇

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

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讘诪讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 讜讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讜讗讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗转讬 讞讬讬诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讞讬讬诇

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

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 注讜诪讚转 讜讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟专驻讛 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讜讘诪讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 诪讬讞诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

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

诪专 住讘专 讗转讬 讞讬讬诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞诇讘 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 谞讘诇讛 讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讜讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘

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

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讞诇讘 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬讘 讚讛讜转专

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

诪讻诇诇讜 讗讘诇 讗讘专 讚诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 诇讗

to its general prohibition, as the fat of an undomesticated animal is permitted. But with regard to a limb from a living animal, where there are no permitted circumstances to its general prohibition, the prohibition of consuming a tereifa does not take effect.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诇拽讜 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讟讜专

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish inquired of Rabbi Yo岣nan: If one took from a living animal a limb that was an olive-bulk and divided it into two pieces when it was outside his mouth and ate each piece separately, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: He is exempt.

诪讘驻谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘

Reish Lakish then asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: If he placed an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal inside his mouth and then divided it and swallowed the two parts separately, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: He is liable to receive lashes.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讞诇拽讜 诪讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 诪讘驻谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said an alternative version of this discussion. If one took from a living animal a limb that was an olive-bulk and divided it into two pieces when it was outside his mouth, and he then ate each piece separately, he is exempt. If he divided the limb into two parts inside his mouth, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he is liable, and Reish Lakish says that he is exempt.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讛专讬 谞讛谞讛 讙专讜谞讜 讘讻讝讬转 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘诪注讬讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan says he is liable because his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal. And Reish Lakish says that he is exempt because in order to be liable we require an act of eating that contains the requisite amount, i.e., an olive-bulk, when it enters his stomach, and in this case there is not a full olive-bulk that enters his stomach at one time.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讙专讜诪讬转讗 讝注讬专转讗

The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan it is clear how one can be liable for eating an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal. But according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, how can you find a case where one will be liable for eating a limb from a living animal, since the food is generally broken up before he swallows it? Rav Kahana said: One would be liable in a case where he eats a small bone that contains an olive-bulk of meat, bone and sinew all together, and that he can swallow whole.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽讜 诪讘讞讜抓 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘 诪讞讜住专 拽专讬讘讛 诇讗讜 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

As quoted above, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish agree that if one divides a limb from a living animal before placing it in his mouth, he is not liable for eating it. The Gemara adds: But Rabbi Elazar says: Even if one divided the limb outside his mouth he is liable. This is because the fact that the two pieces are lacking in proximity to each other as they are placed in one鈥檚 mouth is not comparable to lacking an action, i.e., it is not comparable to a case where he ate only half an olive-bulk. Since he ate an entire olive-bulk, he is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻讝讬转 砖讗诪专讜 讞讜抓 诪砖诇 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诐 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐

搂 The Gemara cites another dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish pertaining to the measure of an olive-bulk with regard to prohibitions involving eating. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The olive-bulk of which the Sages spoke with regard to prohibitions involving eating is measured by the food one actually swallows, aside from the food that remains stuck between the teeth. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says that it includes even the food that remains stuck between the teeth.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖诇 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬诐 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬谉 讛讞谞讬讻讬讬诐 诪专 住讘专 讛专讬 谞讛谞讛 讙专讜谞讜 讘讻讝讬转 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘诪注讬讜 讘注讬谞谉

In explanation of this dispute, Rav Pappa says: With regard to food that remains stuck between the teeth, everyone agrees that it is not included in measuring an olive-bulk that would render one liable to receive lashes. When they disagree it is with regard to food that remains on the palate, which one tastes but does not swallow. One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that since his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk, i.e., he tastes the full olive-bulk, he is liable. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that in order to be liable, we require an act of eating that contains the requisite amount, i.e., an olive-bulk, when it enters his stomach.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜讛拽讬讗讜 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛专讬 谞讛谞讛 讙专讜谞讜 讘讻讝讬转

搂 The Gemara quotes another related ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate half an olive-bulk of a forbidden food and vomited it, and then ate another half an olive-bulk, he is liable. What is the reason? It is because his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk of the forbidden food, even though the full olive-bulk did not actually enter his stomach.

讘注讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜讛拽讬讗讜 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇讜 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讬 注讬讻讜诇 讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讬讻讜诇 讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讝讬转

Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: If one ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden food and vomited it, and then ate it again, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies: What is the dilemma he is raising? If it is about whether the half-olive-bulk that he ate and vomited up is considered to have been digested, in which case it is no longer considered food, or whether it is not considered to have been digested, let him raise the dilemma with regard to an entire olive-bulk. If one eats an entire olive-bulk and vomits it and then eats it again, if the food is considered not to have been digested the first time, he is liable to be flogged twice.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讘转专 讙专讜谞讜 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讬 讘转专 诪注讬讜 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讗住讬

Rather, his dilemma must be about whether we follow the throat or whether we follow the stomach in measuring how much forbidden food one has swallowed. That being the case, let him resolve the dilemma from that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said, which indicates that we follow the throat.

专讘讬 讗住讬 讙诪专讬讛 讗讬注拽专 诇讬讛 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗讚讻讜专讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讗讞专 诇讬诪讗 诪专 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬 砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 注讬讻讜诇 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛 讚讛专讬 谞讛谞讛 讙专讜谞讜 讘讻讝讬转

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar knew the answer to his question, but Rabbi Asi forgot the statement that he had learned from Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rabbi Elazar came to remind him of what he had known previously. And this is what Rabbi Elazar was saying to him: Why do I need the case where he swallows another half an olive-bulk? Let the Master teach this ruling in a case where he swallows the same half-olive-bulk he had swallowed previously and vomited, as two principles can be derived from the ruling in that case: We can learn from it that the food was not considered to have been digested the first time he swallowed it, and we can learn from it that since his throat derives pleasure from a full olive-bulk, he is liable.

讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜驻转 讛讚讜专 诇讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讗诪专转 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专 诇讱 讛专讬 谞讛谞讛 讙专讜谞讜 讘讻讝讬转

Rabbi Asi was silent and did not say anything. Rabbi Elazar said to him: Wonder of the generation, did you not say this case many times before Rabbi Yo岣nan, and he said to you: This person is liable because his throat derives pleasure from a full olive-bulk?

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讘砖专 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 讞讜抓 诪讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 讜讗住讜专 诇讛注诇讜转 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讞讜抓 诪讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐

MISHNA: It is prohibited to cook any meat of domesticated and undomesticated animals and birds in milk, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, whose halakhic status is not that of meat. And likewise, the Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to place any meat together with milk products, e.g., cheese, on one table. The reason for this prohibition is that one might come to eat them after they absorb substances from each other. This prohibition applies to all types of meat, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers.

Scroll To Top