חולין 103 — Soncino English Talmud

¹If a person ate a limb [severed] from a living animal that was trefah, R. Johanan says: He is liable twice; but R. Simeon b. Lakish says: He is liable but once. I grant that this is right according to R. Johanan, but according to R. Simeon b. Lakish this is a difficulty, is it not? — R. Joseph answered, It is no difficulty, for one case deals with one animal and the other case with two animals. In the case of two animals he is liable twice [according to both views], but in the case of one animal they differ. On what principle do they differ in the case of one animal? — Abaye said: It is a case where the animal was rendered trefah as soon as the greater part of it had come forth [out of the womb]. One [R. Johanan] holds that an animal [even] whilst alive stands to be dismembered into limbs, so that the prohibitions of trefah and of the limb from a living creature come Into force simultaneously. The other [R. Simeon b. Lakish] holds that an animal whilst alive does not stand to be dismembered into limbs, so that the prohibition of the ‘limb’ [when it does arise] cannot be superimposed upon the [already existing] prohibition of trefah. Alternatively, you may say, all agree that an animal whilst alive does not stand to be dismembered into limbs, but they differ whether or no the prohibition of the limb [severed from a living creature] can be superimposed upon the [existing] prohibition of trefah. One [R. Johanan] holds that the prohibition of the limb can be superimposed upon the [existing] prohibition of trefah; and the other [R. Simeon b. Lakish] holds that the prohibition of the ‘limb’ cannot be superimposed upon the [existing] prohibition of trefah. Alternatively, you may say, all agree that an animal whilst alive stands to be dismembered into limbs, but in this case the animal was rendered trefah later on [and not at birth], and they differ whether or no the prohibition of trefah can be superimposed upon the [existing] prohibition of the limb. One [R. Johanan] holds that it can be superimposed; and the other [R. Simeon b. Lakish] holds that it cannot. Raba said: It is a case where the person tore away a limb from the living animal and thereby rendered it trefah. One [R. Johanan] holds that an animal whilst alive does not stand to be dismembered into limbs, so that the prohibitions of trefah and of the ‘limb’ come into force simultaneously. The other [R. Simeon b. Lakish] holds that an animal [even] whilst alive stands to be dismembered into limbs, so that the prohibition of trefah cannot be superimposed upon the [existing] prohibition of the ‘limb’. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: If a person ate forbidden fat [which was torn away] from a living animal, which was trefah, he is liable twice. Whereupon R. Ammi said to him: And why do you not say thrice? Indeed l say [in the name of R. Johanan that he is liable] thrice. And it has been reported: R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan: If a person ate forbidden fat [torn away] from a living animal, that was trefah, he is liable thrice. On what principle do they differ? — The animal in this case was rendered trefah as soon as the greater part of it had come forth [out of the womb]. Now he who says [he is liable] thrice, is of the opinion that an animal [even] whilst alive stands to be dismembered into limbs, so that the prohibitions of the forbidden fat, of the limb [from a living creature], and of trefah come into force simultaneously; but he who says [he is liable] twice, is of the opinion that an animal whilst alive does not stand to be dismembered into limbs, so that there are [present from the time of birth] the prohibitions of the forbidden fat and of trefah, and the prohibition of the limb [from a living creature] cannot be superimposed upon them. Alternatively, you may say, all agree that an animal whilst alive does not stand to be dismembered into limbs, but they differ whether or no the prohibition of the limb [from a living creature] can be superimposed upon the [existing] prohibitions of the forbidden fat and of trefah. One holds that it can be superimposed upon them, and the other holds that it cannot. Alternatively, you may say, all agree that an animal [even] whilst alive stands to be dismembered into limbs, but in this case the animal was rendered trefah later on [and not at birth], and they differ whether or no the prohibition of trefah can be superimposed upon the prohibition of the limb [from a living creature]. One holds it can be superimposed, just as it is the case with the forbidden fat, for a Master has said: The Torah has expressly indicated that the prohibition of nebelah can be superimposed upon the prohibition of forbidden fat, and that the prohibition of trefah can be superimposed upon the prohibition of forbidden fat. The other, however, maintains that it [sc. the prohibition of trefah] can indeed be superimposed upon the prohibition of forbidden fat inasmuch as there is an exception^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ

^ᵃnote:For it is agreed by all that where the two prohibitions are derived from separate verses, as here, the offender is liable twice.
^ᵇnote:I.e., he ate a limb severed from a living animal and also flesh taken from another animal which was trefah.
^ᶜnote:I.e., he ate a limb severed from a living animal that was trefah.
^ᵈnote:I.e., when it was actually dismembered.
^ᵉnote:Since the prohibition of the limb severed from a living creature is a grave restriction for it applies to the sons of Noah. V. supra 100b and 102a.
^ᶠnote:Consequently the prohibition of the ‘limb’ came into force at the birth of the animal.
^ᵍnote:For R. Johanan is of the opinion that a prohibition can always be superimposed upon an existing prohibition.
^ʰnote:The prohibition of trefah can only come into force after the animal has been slaughtered when the prohibition of the limb of a living animal has gone.
^ⁱnote:E.g., he cut off the leg of a living animal above the knee-joint, v. supra 76a, and he ate it.
^ʲnote:Although he has infringed three prohibitions, (i) of forbidden fat, (ii) of fat (i.e., a limb) taken from a living animal, and (iii) of trefah, he is only liable for two; v. infra.
^ᵏnote:I.e., at the moment of birth these three prohibitions came into force, for whilst a fetus within the womb the whole of its fat was permitted; v. supra 69a. V. however, Tosaf. s.v. ruxhts.
^ˡnote:And liability is incurred for each of these three prohibitions.
^ᵐnote:V. supra 37a, and Zeb. 70a.

²to its general [restriction], but it cannot [be superimposed] upon the prohibition of the ‘limb’ inasmuch as there is no exception to its general [restriction]. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported that R. Simeon b. Lakish put the following question to R. Johanan: What is the law if he divided it outside? and he replied: He is not liable. And what if he divided it inside [his mouth]? and he replied: He is liable. When Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported as follows: If he divided it outside he is not liable. If he divided it inside [his mouth], R. Johanan says, he is liable; R. Simeon b. Lakish says, he is not liable. ‘R. Johanan says he is liable’, because his gullet has derived enjoyment from an olive's bulk. ‘R. Simeon b. Lakish says he is not liable’, because there must enter in his stomach [at one time] the full amount that constitutes ‘eating’, and this is not the case here. (But [it will be asked], according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, how can it ever happen that one [who eats an olive's bulk of the limb] should be liable? — R. Kahana suggested: In the case [where he ate] a small bone.) R. Eleazar however said: Even if he divided it outside he is also liable, because the fact that it is not consumed in one whole does not render it an incomplete act. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The quantity of an olive's bulk of which they [the Rabbis] have spoken does not include that which is between the teeth. R. Johanan said: It includes even that which remains between the teeth. Said R. Papa: As to that which remains between the teeth they certainly do not disagree, they disagree only as to that which remains in the palate and tongue. One [R. Johanan] maintains [that he is liable], since his gullet has derived enjoyment from a whole olive's bulk; the other [R. Simeon b. Lakish] maintains [that he is not liable, because] there must enter his stomach the full amount which constitutes ‘eating’. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If a person ate one half-olive's bulk [of a forbidden substance] and vomited it forth, and then ate another half-olive's bulk, he is liable. Why? Because his gullet has derived enjoyment from an olive's bulk. R. Eleazar enquired of R. Assi: What is the law if a person ate one half-olive's bulk [of a forbidden substance], vomited it forth and then ate it once again? [Let us see], what was his real question? If the question was whether it [sc. what has been vomited forth] is considered as digested food or not, then he might have put the question with regard to a complete olive's bulk; and if the question was whether we regard [eating from the enjoyment of] the gullet or [from the enjoyment of] the stomach, then he might have solved this himself from R. Assi's statement above? — R. Assi had forgotten the tradition [he had received from R. Johanan], and R. Eleazar came and reminded him of it in the following manner: ‘Why speak of another half-olive's bulk? The Master could have dealt with the same [half-olive's bulk], by which two results would have been established, viz., we would have learnt from if that it [sc. what is vomited forth] was not considered as digested food, and we would also have learnt from it that [one is liable if only] the gullet had derived enjoyment from an olive's bulk’. He remained silent and made no reply at all. Thereupon he [R. Eleazar] said to him, ‘O wonder of the generation! Did you not often say this before R. Johanan and he agreed with you saying: "His gullet has in fact derived enjoyment from an olive's bulk"’? MISHNAH. EVERY KIND OF FLESH IS FORBIDDEN TO BE COOKED IN MILK, EXCEPTING THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS; AND IT IS ALSO FORBIDDEN TO PLACE UPON THE TABLE [FLESH] WITH CHEESE, EXCEPTING THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS.^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ⁿnote:For the whole of the fat of a wild animal is permitted.
^ᵒnote:A person took an olive's bulk from a limb that had been severed from a living animal, divided it into halves outside, i.e., before putting it into his mouth, and then swallowed each half separately. In connection with other prohibited substances this raises no doubt at all, for so long as he consumed the required quantity, namely an olive's bulk, within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf, he is deemed to have eaten the requisite amount and he is liable; v. Yoma 80b. With regard to the limb severed from the living animal, however, since it is exceptional in that the required quantity may be made up of bones and sinews to which no prohibition applies elsewhere, it might be said that this whole quantity must be eaten at one time.
^ᵖnote:And swallowed each half separately.
^ᵠnote:For one does not usually swallow an olive's bulk in one whole; one cuts it up with the teeth so that it enters the stomach in separate parts, and this according to R. Simeon b. Lakish does not constitute ‘eating’.
^ʳnote:According to Rashi, the patella, which has but a moiety of flesh on it, but together with the sinews attached to it is of the size of an olive. This is usually swallowed whole.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘what is lacking as regards being brought together is not lacking as to the act’. I.e., the fact that the olive's bulk was put into the mouth in parts, one following the other, does not exempt the person from liability, for after all he has eaten a complete olive's bulk.
^ᵗnote:This and the subsequent cases until the end of the chapter apparently refer to all prohibited substances. According to R. Simeon b. Lakish a person is liable only if he swallowed a whole olive's bulk, i.e., this quantity entered his stomach, but not if he put an exact olive's bulk into his mouth, for in the process of mastication some of the substance would certainly adhere between the teeth and this cannot be reckoned together with the amount swallowed.
^ᵘnote:All hold that it cannot be reckoned together with that which has been swallowed, for neither the gullet nor the stomach has derived any enjoyment therefrom.
^ᵛnote:I.e., within the period of time taken to eat a half-loaf of the size of four (according to Maim. three) ordinary eggs.
^ʷnote:[R. Assi does not accept the statement reported (supra) by R. Dimi in the name of R. Johanan exempting from liability where the olive's bulk was divided outside (Rashi).]
^ˣnote:I.e., if a person ate an olive's bulk of a forbidden substance, vomited it forth, and swallowed it again, would he be liable twice or once only?
^ʸnote:In the preceding passage where R. Assi expressly states that the main factor of eating is the enjoyment of the gullet.
^ᶻnote:R. Eleazar himself was not in doubt at all about the law, but he put the case before R. Assi in the form of a question in order to remind him in the most respectful manner of the decision given by R. Johanan.
^ᵃᵃnote:Which the person swallowed after he had vomited forth a half-olive's bulk.
^ᵃᵇnote:That he is liable even in the case of the sane half-olive's bulk.
^ᵃᶜnote:Including even the flesh of fowls and of wild beasts. The prohibition of ‘flesh cooked in milk’ relating to the cooking, or to the eating, or to the enjoyment of any benefit therefrom, is derived from the thrice-repeated Biblical prohibition: Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk (Ex. XXIII, 19; XXXIV, 26; Deut. XIV, 21).
^ᵃᵈnote:This is a Rabbinic measure as a precaution against eating the two together.