Chullin

and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh.1 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 animals2 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.3 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!4 — 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 animal5 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.6 R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: The dispute7 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’ ‘8 and it is in accordance with R. Meir's view; but others read ‘of clean ones’,9 and it is in accordance with the view of the Sages. R. Shizbi said: We have also learnt it [in the following Mishnah]:10 If a person ate a limb [severed] from it11 whilst alive, he does not suffer forty stripes; and the slaughtering thereof does not render it clean.12 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,13 and this proves that it is forbidden to him. R. Mani b. Pattish pointed out a contradiction between the first clause and the second clause14 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]:15 The [prohibition of a] limb severed from a living creature requires [at least] an olive's bulk, because the expression ‘eating’16 is used with regard to it. R. ‘Amram raised an objection [against this]. [We have learnt:] If a person ate a limb from it17 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]?18 — 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].19 Come and hear from the following statement of Rab: creature, for the latter part of the verse is interpreted as: Thou shalt not eat the flesh whilst the animal is still alive. the seven commandments imposed upon them. Cf. Sanh. 56a. and flocks wild beasts and birds are excluded. uncleanness whatsoever is attached to the carcass of a bird that is forbidden to be eaten. quite dead, for otherwise he would be eating the limb of a living animal and this is forbidden to him. 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. 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.