Chullin 102a (קב.) — the Talmud in English

And:

“You shall not eat the soul with the flesh!”

And we interpret it homiletically: You shall not eat of it while the soul is still within it; and this is a limb from a living animal.

And this is the dispute:

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar hold: Whoever is commanded concerning its blood—

you are commanded concerning its limbs. And these impure animals, too, since you are commanded concerning their blood

not to eat it,

you are commanded

also

concerning their limbs,

not to eat them as a limb from a living animal.

And the Rabbis hold

that this is how we interpret the verse:

“You shall not eat the soul with the flesh”; rather,

eat

the flesh by itself. Whoever has flesh that is permitted—

you are commanded concerning its limbs; and whoever does not have flesh that is permitted—

you are not commanded concerning its limbs!

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to Rabbi Yehuda, why does he need a verse

to state that the prohibition of a limb from a living animal applies even to impure animals?

Let the prohibition of a limb

from a living animal come

and take effect upon the prohibition of impurity,

for we have heard Rabbi Yehuda say that one prohibition takes effect upon another when the second prohibition is more severe in that

its prohibition applies to the descendants of Noah!?

And the prohibition of a limb from a living animal was stated even with regard to the descendants of Noah!

And we answer:

Indeed, so

that is not the reason the verse is necessary, since, according to Rabbi Yehuda, one prohibition takes effect upon another in such a case.

And when the verse is necessary—

it is necessary according to Rabbi Elazar,

who does not hold that a severe prohibition—for example, the prohibition of a limb from a living animal, which applies even to the descendants of Noah—takes effect upon a less severe prohibition; nevertheless, he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda that the prohibition of a limb from a living animal takes effect upon the prohibition against eating an impure animal.

It was taught likewise

that Rabbi Elazar and the Sages dispute the interpretation of this verse.

As it was taught:

The prohibition of a limb from a living animal applies to domesticated animals, undomesticated animals, and birds, whether impure or pure. As it is stated: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood,”

and this is how we interpret it:

Whoever is subject to a prohibition concerning its blood,

not to eat it,

you are commanded concerning its limbs. And whoever is not subject to a prohibition concerning its blood,

such as fish and locusts—

you are not commanded concerning its limbs; these are the words of Rabbi Elazar.

And the Sages say:

A limb from a living animal

applies only to pure animals

alone,

as it is stated: “You shall not eat the soul with the flesh.”

Rather,

eat

the flesh by itself!

And this is how we interpret it:

Whoever has flesh that is permitted—

you are commanded concerning its limbs; and whoever does not have flesh that is permitted—

you are not commanded concerning its limbs!

Rabbi Meir says: It applies only to a pure domesticated animal,

as we explain it.

(Mnemonic: Shmuel, Sheila, Shimi)

Rabba bar Shmuel said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, and some say: Rav Yosef.

And some say: Rabba bar Sheila said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, and some say: Rav Yosef.

And some say: Rabba bar Shimi said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, and some say: Rav Yosef:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir,

who says that the prohibition of a limb from a living animal applies only to a pure domesticated animal?

For he interprets it as follows:

The verse states: “And you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flocks,”

and immediately afterward the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal is written. This indicates that it applies only to those mentioned in the preceding verse.

Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: The dispute

among the Sages, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Meir concerning the animals to which the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal applies is

with regard to Israelites

alone.

But with regard to a descendant of Noah—

everyone agrees

that he

is warned concerning impure animals just as concerning pure animals,

not to eat a limb from them while they are alive. Since we can apply to him the phrase “eat the flesh by itself,” both with regard to a pure animal and with regard to an impure one, as both are permitted to him, we can likewise apply to him the phrase “but a limb from a living animal you shall not eat”!

It was taught likewise: With regard to a limb from a living animal,

a descendant of Noah is warned concerning impure animals as well as pure animals. But an Israelite is warned only concerning pure animals.

There are those who say:

He is warned only concerning a

pure

animal,

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

There are those who say:

He is warned only concerning all

pure animals

[including undomesticated animals and birds]

and

in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis.

Rav Shizvi said: We, too, have learned this

in tractate Taharot: A descendant of Noah is warned concerning a limb from a living animal taken from an impure animal.

As we learned:

If one ate a limb from a living animal taken from it

[from an impure bird],

he does not receive forty lashes

[in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis]

and its slaughter does not render it pure.

And Rav Shizvi inferred:

With regard to what

is the statement that it teaches, “Its slaughter does not render it pure”?

If you say that it is referring to an Israelite, it is obvious that its slaughter does not render it pure!?

Rather, is it not referring to descendants of Noah? This proves that it is prohibited

for a descendant of Noah to eat a limb from a living animal taken from an impure animal.

That is, as long as it is still convulsing after slaughter, it is prohibited for a descendant of Noah to eat it by virtue of the prohibition of a limb from a living animal. Slaughter permits a descendant of Noah only by bringing about death.

However, with regard to pure animals, whose slaughter permits them for an Israelite, and which he may eat even while they are still convulsing, it also permits them for descendants of Noah.

Rabbi Mani bar Patis raised a contradiction between the first clause

of the Mishna, which teaches that in the case of an impure bird one does not receive forty lashes,

and the final clause,

which teaches that its slaughter does not render it pure.

And he answered: The first clause is referring to an Israelite, and the final clause is referring to a descendant of Noah,

and it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A limb from a living animal requires

that one eat from it

an olive-bulk

in order to be liable to lashes for it. Even if it is an entire limb, if it is less than an olive-bulk, he is not flogged for it on account of a limb from a living animal!

What is the reason?

Because

“eating” is written with regard to it,

and there is no eating with less than an olive-bulk.

Rav Amram raised an objection:

We learned:

If one ate a limb from a living animal taken from it,

from an impure bird,

he does not receive forty lashes, and its slaughter does not render it pure!

And it must necessarily be referring to one who ate an amount for which he would receive lashes had it been a pure bird, for otherwise it is obvious that he would be exempt from lashes.

And if it enters your mind that an olive-bulk is required

for the prohibition of a limb from a living animal, why is he exempt from lashes?

Let it emerge that he ate an olive-bulk

of an impure bird, for which there is a prohibition?

And we answer:

As Rav Naḥman said

below,

“with something of flesh, sinews, and bones,” so too here

it is referring

to

a limb upon which there is

something of flesh

and

sinews and bones

that together complete an olive-bulk. With regard to an impure bird, he is not flogged for eating it, since it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh, while the sinews and bones are not prohibited in the case of an impure bird. But with regard to a limb from a living animal, he would be flogged for eating it had the animal been pure, since it is not necessary for the flesh itself to contain an olive-bulk; rather, since it is an entire limb and contains an olive-bulk, one is liable for it.