Chullin 102a — the Talmud in English

And

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

And we derive: You shall not eat of it while the soul is in it, and that is a limb from a living creature.

And this is how they disagreed:

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar hold: With regard to everything concerning whose blood you are commanded—

you are commanded concerning its limbs. And these impure creatures as well, since you are commanded concerning their blood

not to eat it,

you are commanded

also

concerning their limbs

of them, not to eat them under the designation of a limb from a living creature.

And the Rabbis hold

that this is how we derive:

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

eat

the flesh by itself. With regard to everything whose flesh is permitted—

you are commanded concerning its limbs, and with regard to everything whose flesh is not permitted—

you are not commanded concerning its limbs!

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And as for Rabbi Yehuda, why does he need a verse

to say that the prohibition of a limb from a living creature applies also to impure creatures?

Let the prohibition of a limb

from a living creature come, and

apply to the prohibition of impurity,

for we have heard Rabbi Yehuda say that one prohibition applies to another prohibition when the second prohibition is more severe in this respect,

for its prohibition applies to the descendants of Noah as well!?

And the prohibition of a limb from a living creature was, after all, stated also with regard to the descendants of Noah!

And we answer:

Indeed, it is so,

for on account of this a verse is not necessary, since, according to Rabbi Yehuda, one prohibition applies to another prohibition in a case of this kind.

And when the verse is necessary—

it is for Rabbi Elazar,

for he does not hold that a severe prohibition [such as the prohibition of a limb from a living creature, which applies even to the descendants of Noah] applies to a lenient prohibition, and nevertheless he holds like Rabbi Yehuda that the prohibition of a limb from a living creature applies to the prohibition against eating an impure animal.

It was taught likewise

that Rabbi Elazar and the Sages disagree in the interpretation of this verse.

For it was taught:

The prohibition of a limb from a living creature applies to a domesticated animal, a wild animal, and a bird, whether impure or pure. As it is stated: “Only be steadfast not to eat the blood,”

and this is how we derive:

With regard to everything concerning whose blood you are commanded

not to eat it—

you are commanded concerning its limbs. And with regard to everything concerning whose blood you are not commanded,

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 creature

applies only to pure creatures

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 derive:

With regard to everything whose flesh is permitted—

you are commanded concerning its limbs, and with regard to everything whose flesh is not permitted—

you are not commanded concerning its limbs!

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

as we explain it.

(A mnemonic: Shmuel, Shila, Shimi)

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

And some state it as: Rabba bar Shila said in the name of Rav Hisda, and some say: Rav Yosef.

And some state it as: Rabba bar Shimi said in the name of Rav Hisda, and some say: Rav Yosef:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir

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

For he interprets it as follows:

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

and afterward the prohibition against eating a limb from a living creature is written, and it indicates that it applies only to that which is written in the verse preceding it.

Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: The dispute

between the Sages, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Meir as to what the prohibition against eating a limb from a living creature applies to

is with regard to an Israelite

alone,

but with regard to a descendant of Noah—

according to everyone

he

is warned concerning impure creatures as concerning pure creatures

not to eat a limb from a living creature from them, for since we apply to him “eat the flesh by itself,” both with regard to a pure creature and with regard to an impure one, since both are permitted to him, we likewise apply to him: “But a limb from a living creature you shall not eat”!

It was taught likewise: A limb from a living creature—

a descendant of Noah is warned concerning it, concerning impure creatures as concerning pure creatures. And an Israelite is warned only concerning pure creatures.

There are those who say:

he is warned only concerning the

pure domesticated animal, and

in accordance with the words of

Rabbi Meir.

There are those who say:

he is warned only concerning all the

pure creatures [including a wild animal and a bird]

[including wild animals and birds]

and

in accordance with the words of

the Rabbis.

Rav Shizbi said: We too have learned this

in tractate Tohorot, that a descendant of Noah is warned concerning a limb from a living creature from impure creatures.

For we learned:

If one ate a limb from a living creature from it [from the impure bird]

[from an impure bird],

he does not receive forty lashes [in accordance with the Rabbis]

[in accordance with the opinion of the Sages]

and slaughter does not render it pure.

And Rav Shizbi precisely inferred:

With regard to what

does this which it teaches, “and its slaughter does not render it pure,” deal?

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

Rather, is it not with regard to the descendants of Noah? It follows that it is prohibited

for a descendant of Noah to eat a limb from a living creature from impure creatures.

And this means that as long as it is convulsing after slaughter, it is prohibited for a descendant of Noah to eat it under the law of a limb from a living creature. For slaughter permits for a descendant of Noah only the death.

However, with regard to pure creatures, since slaughter permits them for an Israelite, and it is permitted for them to eat it even while it is still convulsing, it also permits it for the descendants of Noah.

Rabbi Mani bar Patis posed a contradiction between the beginning

of the Mishna, which teaches that with regard to an impure bird one does not receive forty lashes,

and the end

which teaches that its slaughter does not render it pure.

And he answered: The beginning is with regard to an Israelite, and the end is with regard to a descendant of Noah

and in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

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

that one eat from it

an olive-bulk

in order to receive lashes for it. For even a complete limb, if it is less than an olive-bulk, one does not receive lashes for it on account of a limb from a living creature!

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 creature from it,

from an impure bird,

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

And it necessarily deals with one who ate a measure for which one receives lashes, had it been a pure bird, since otherwise it would obviously 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 creature, why is he exempt from lashes?

Let it follow from the fact that he ate an olive-bulk

from an impure bird, concerning which there is a negative commandment.

And we answer:

As Rav Naḥman said

below,

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

it deals

with

a limb upon which there is

something of flesh

and

sinews and bones

which complete it to an olive-bulk. For from the perspective of an impure bird, he does not receive lashes for it, since it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh, whereas the sinews and bones are not prohibited in an impure bird. But from the perspective of a limb from a living creature, he would receive lashes for it had it been pure, for it is not necessary that it contain an olive-bulk of flesh alone; rather, since it is a complete limb and contains an olive-bulk, one is liable for it.