חולין 102:1 — Soncino English Talmud

and 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.