Chullin

If a person ate a clean bird whilst it was yet alive, however small it was [he is liable],1 if dead, only if it was as large as an olive's bulk.2 [If he ate] an unclean bird, whether alive or dead, however small it was, [he is liable].3 — Here too we must suppose there was only a little flesh but the sinews and bones [combined to make up the olive's bulk].4 Come and hear: [It was taught]:5 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,6 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,7 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].8 Now their disagreement is only on this point, viz., one holds that [an animal even] whilst alive stands to be dismembered into limbs,9 and the other holds that whilst alive it does not stand to be dismembered into limbs;10 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].11 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.12 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,13 then if a person intended to eat this bird14 limb by limb but actually ate it whole, he is liable.15 Said to him Abaye: Is there anything which if another were to eat, that other would not be liable,16 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 bird14 dead17 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,18 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],19 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,20 according to R. Johanan he is liable twice,21 and according to R. Simeon b. Lakish he is liable but once.22 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: 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. Mak. 13a. which included the sinews and bones, creature. apparent against Rab. 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. such is the opinion of Rabbi. and sinews there certainly was as much as an olive's bulk. blue-footed gull. creature attaches forthwith, and he would be liable even though he ate it whole. prohibition of the limb of a living creature does not apply to it. 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. trefah animal, ye shall not eat. throughout this passage means liable to the penalty of stripes unless expressly stated otherwise.