חולין 102 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh. R. Judah and R. Eleazar hold that where you are forbidden the blood [of an animal] you are also forbidden the limbs severed therefrom, and as you are forbidden the blood of unclean animals you are also forbidden the limbs severed therefrom. The Sages, however, maintain: It is written: ‘And thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh’, but the flesh alone [you may eat]; therefore, where you are permitted the flesh [of the animal] you are forbidden the limbs severed therefrom, but where you are not permitted the flesh [of the animal] you are not forbidden the limbs severed therefrom. Why is the verse necessary to explain R. Judah's view? Surely the prohibition of the ‘limb’ can be superimposed upon the prohibition of uncleanness, since the prohibition of the former applies even to the sons of Noah! — Indeed this is so, and the verse is necessary only to explain R. Eleazar's view. It has been taught likewise: The [prohibition of the] limb of a living creature applies to cattle, wild beasts and birds, either clean or unclean, for it is written: ‘Only be steadfast in not eating the blood etc.’, that is to say, where you are forbidden the blood you are also forbidden the limbs severed therefrom, and where you are not forbidden the blood of an animal you are not forbidden the limbs severed therefrom: so R. Eleazar. The Sages say. It applies only to clean animals, for it is written: ‘Thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh, but the flesh alone [you may eat]; therefore, where you are permitted the flesh you are then forbidden the limbs’ severed therefrom, but where you are not permitted the flesh you are then not forbidden the limbs severed therefrom. R. Meir says: It applies only to clean cattle. (Mnemonic: Samuel, Shila, Shimi). Rabbah b. Samuel said in the name of R. Hisda or, as some say: R. Joseph; others say. Rabbah b. Shila said in the name of R. Hisda or, as some say. R. Joseph; and others say: Rabbah b. Shimi said in the name of R. Hisda or, as some say. R. Joseph: What is the reason for R. Meir's view? Because the verse reads: Thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock. R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: The dispute refers only to an Israelite, but as for a descendant of Noah all agree that he is warned against [eating the limb of] unclean as well as clean animals. It has been taught likewise: As to the limb of a living creature a descendant of Noah is warned against [eating] it, whether it be of a clean or unclean animal, whereas an Israelite is warned only against [eating] the limb of a clean animal. Some read ‘of a clean one’ ‘ and it is in accordance with R. Meir's view; but others read ‘of clean ones’, and it is in accordance with the view of the Sages. R. Shizbi said: We have also learnt it [in the following Mishnah]: If a person ate a limb [severed] from it whilst alive, he does not suffer forty stripes; and the slaughtering thereof does not render it clean. Of whom is this said? Should you say of an Israelite, but is it not obvious that the slaughtering does not render it clean? It could only have been said of a descendant of Noah, and this proves that it is forbidden to him. R. Mani b. Pattish pointed out a contradiction between the first clause and the second clause and resolved it thus: The first clause speaks of an Israelite, but the second clause of a descendant of Noah. Rab [Judah] said [in the name of Rab]: The [prohibition of a] limb severed from a living creature requires [at least] an olive's bulk, because the expression ‘eating’ is used with regard to it. R. ‘Amram raised an objection [against this]. [We have learnt:] If a person ate a limb from it whilst alive, he does not suffer forty stripes; and the slaughtering thereof does not render it clean. Now if you were to hold that there must be an olive's bulk, then guilt is established because of eating an olive's bulk [of what is unclean]? — As R. Nahman suggested elsewhere that there was only a little flesh but the sinews and bones [combined to make up the olive's bulk], so here too, we must say that there was only a little flesh but the sinews and bones [combined to make up the olive's bulk]. Come and hear from the following statement of Rab:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:Deut. XII, 23. This verse contains two prohibitions: against eating blood and against eating the limb of a living creature, for the latter part of the verse is interpreted as: Thou shalt not eat the flesh whilst the animal is still alive.
^ᵇnote:V. M. Ker. V, 1.
^ᶜnote:But of course there is the prohibition of the flesh of an unclean animal.
^ᵈnote:V. supra 100b. The sons of Noah were forbidden to eat the limb of a living animal, cf. Gen. IX, 4. This was one of the seven commandments imposed upon them. Cf. Sanh. 56a.
^ᵉnote:E.g. the blood of fish and of locusts.
^ᶠnote:Deut. XII, 21. This verse precedes the law of the limb of a living animal (verse 23) and as it expressly mentions herds and flocks wild beasts and birds are excluded.
^ᵍnote:Between R. Eleazar, the Sages, and R. Meir.
^ʰnote:In the feminine singular, which refers to cattle only and excludes wild beasts and birds.
^ⁱnote:In the masculine plural, so as to include every living creature that is clean.
^ʲnote:Toh. I, 3.
^ᵏnote:Sc. an unclean bird, i.e., one that is forbidden to be eaten.
^ˡnote:I.e., does not render it permitted to be eaten. ‘Clean’ cannot mean here ‘free from defilement’ because no uncleanness whatsoever is attached to the carcass of a bird that is forbidden to be eaten.
^ᵐnote:And the implication is that even after the slaughtering the descendant of Noah is not permitted to eat of it until it ia quite dead, for otherwise he would be eating the limb of a living animal and this is forbidden to him.
^ⁿnote:For the first clause implies that the prohibition of a limb severed from a living creature does not apply to unclean animals since it rules that he who eats it does not suffer stripes, whereas the inference from the second clause is that the limb of an unclean living animal is forbidden. V. prec. n.
^ᵒnote:So MS.M.
^ᵖnote:An olive's bulk is the minimum amount to constitute ‘eating’.
^ᵠnote:Sc. an unclean bird, i.e., one that is forbidden to be eaten.
^ʳnote:For which he would incur stripes, quite apart from any consideration regarding the limb of a living creature.
^ˢnote:This would not involve the prohibition of flesh of an unclean animal since there must be an olive's bulk of flesh excluding bones and sinews; on the other hand, a limb consisting of flesh, bones and sinews, in all the size of an olive, is subject to the prohibition of a limb severed from a living creature.

²If a person ate a clean bird whilst it was yet alive, however small it was [he is liable], if dead, only if it was as large as an olive's bulk. [If he ate] an unclean bird, whether alive or dead, however small it was, [he is liable]. — Here too we must suppose there was only a little flesh but the sinews and bones [combined to make up the olive's bulk]. Come and hear: [It was taught]: If a person took a [clean] bird, the whole of which was not as large as an olive's bulk, and ate it, Rabbi holds that he is not liable, and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon declares him liable. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Is there not here an a fortiori argument? If he is liable for a limb thereof, surely he is liable for the whole of it! If he strangled it and ate it, all agree that there must be as much as an olive's bulk [in order to render him liable]. Now their disagreement is only on this point, viz., one holds that [an animal even] whilst alive stands to be dismembered into limbs, and the other holds that whilst alive it does not stand to be dismembered into limbs; but thus far they are agreed, namely, that [in the case of a limb] the size of an olive's bulk is not necessary! — Said R. Nahman, [it is a case where] there was only a little flesh but the sinews and bones [combined to make up the olive's bulk]. But is there such a creature, the whole of which does not carry an olive's bulk of flesh and yet in one limb there is as much as an olive's bulk made up of a little flesh and sinews and bones? — R. Sherebia replied: Yes, it is the kallanitha. Consider then the final clause. It reads: ‘If he strangled it and ate it, all agree that there must be as much as an olive's bulk [in order to render him liable]’. Is not the kallanitha an unclean bird? and Rab has stated, [If a person ate] an unclean bird, whether alive or dead, however small it was,[he is liable]! — What was meant was a [clean] bird like the kallanitha. Raba said: If you can find authority for saying that Rabbi holds, an intention with regard to foodstuffs is of consequence, then if a person intended to eat this bird limb by limb but actually ate it whole, he is liable. Said to him Abaye: Is there anything which if another were to eat, that other would not be liable, and if this person were to eat he would be liable? — He replied: Each man is considered according to his intention with regard to it. Raba also said: If you can find authority for saying that R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds, an intention with regard to foodstuffs is of consequence, then if a person intended to eat the bird dead and he ate it alive, he is not liable. Said to him Abaye: Is there anything which if another were to eat, that other would be liable, and if this person were to eat he would not be liable? — He replied: Each man is considered according to his intention with regard to it. R. Johanan said: The verse: Thou salt not eat the life with the flesh, refers to a limb [severed] from a living creature; and the verse: Ye shall not eat any flesh in the field, that is trefah [torn of beasts], refers to flesh [severed] from a living creature and also to flesh of a trefah animal. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The verse: ‘Thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh’, refers to a limb [severed] from the living creature and also to flesh [severed] from a living creature; and the verse: ‘ Ye shall not eat any flesh in the field, that is trefah [torn of beasts]’, refers to flesh of a trefah animal. If a person ate a limb [severed] from a living creature and also flesh [severed] from a living creature, according to R. Johanan he is liable twice, and according to R. Simeon b. Lakish he is liable but once. If a person ate flesh [severed] from a living creature and also flesh of a trefah animal, according to R. Simeon b. Lakish he is liable twice, and according to R. Johanan he is liable but once. If a person ate a limb [severed] from a living creature and also flesh of a trefah animal, according to both he is liable twice. A contradiction was pointed out from the following:^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ

^ᵗnote:He is liable for transgressing the prohibition of a limb of a living creature, for the eating of the entire bird alive is certainly equivalent to the eating of a limb severed from the living bird. It is apparent, therefore, that Rab does not insist upon the minimum quantity of an olive's bulk with regard to this prohibition, thus contradicting his own previous statement.
^ᵘnote:He is liable for eating nebelah for which there must be the minimum quantity of an olive's bulk.
^ᵛnote:Because it is a complete entity expressly prohibited by the Torah, and one is liable for it no matter how small it is. Cf. Mak. 13a.
^ʷnote:The expression ‘however small it was’ refers to the amount of flesh, but actually a whole olive's bulk was eaten which included the sinews and bones,
^ˣnote:Tosef. A.Z. IX.
^ʸnote:pot the law concerning the limb of a living animal refers specifically to a limb and does not include the entire living creature.
^ᶻnote:Even though the whole limb was not as large as an olive's bulk. This is not disputed by Rabbi, hence the objection is apparent against Rab.
^ᵃᵃnote:As the prohibition here is that of nebelah, the minimum quantity of an olive's bulk is essential,
^ᵃᵇnote:So that the prohibition of a limb of a living creature attaches to the animal whilst yet whole, and if a man eats an entire living creature he has certainly eaten a limb of a living creature as comprehended within the prohibition. In fact he has eaten many such limbs, nevertheless he is liable but once since presumably he received only one warning. This is the view of R. Eleazar b, R. Simeon.
^ᵃᶜnote:The prohibition of a limb of a living creature only comes about when the limb is actually severed from the body; such is the opinion of Rabbi.
^ᵃᵈnote:The expression ‘the whole of which was not as large as an olive's bulk’ refers to the flesh only, but with the bones and sinews there certainly was as much as an olive's bulk.
^ᵃᵉnote:A thin and scraggly bird. According to Levysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, p. 183, a species of gull, probably the blue-footed gull.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘its name is an intention’,
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., a bird the whole of which was not as large as an olive's bulk.
^ᵃʰnote:Since this person had expressed his intention to eat the bird limb by limb the prohibition of the limb of a living creature attaches forthwith, and he would be liable even though he ate it whole.
^ᵃⁱnote:So long as that other person had expressed no intention with regard to it.
^ᵃʲnote:It is evident from the expressed intention that the bird was not to be dismembered whilst alive; therefore the prohibition of the limb of a living creature does not apply to it.
^ᵃᵏnote:Deut. XII, 23. I.e., thou shalt not eat a limb whilst there is yet life in the flesh. The word apb, ‘nefesh’ (soul) in the verse refers to an entire limb, for once a limb is gone it cannot return or be replaced just as when the soul is gone.
^ᵃˡnote:Ex. XXII, 30. The interpretation is, flesh in the field i.e., cut away from its place in the living animal, or flesh of a trefah animal, ye shall not eat.
^ᵃᵐnote:At one meal and the offender was only given one warning.
^ᵃⁿnote:For the transgression of two prohibitions, since each prohibition is derived from separate verses. ‘Liable’ throughout this passage means liable to the penalty of stripes unless expressly stated otherwise.
^ᵃᵒnote:For both these prohibitions are derived from the same verse.