Chullin 102b (קב:) — the Talmud in English

Ta shma: As Rav said:

If one ate a kosher bird while it was alive,

without slaughtering it, he is liable for it

for any amount

on account of a limb from a living creature. But if he ate it

after its death,

after it died, he is liable for it

for an olive-bulk

on account of an animal carcass, as this is the measure for liability to lashes for a carcass.

But if he ate a bird

that was non-kosher, whether while it was alive or after its death,

he is liable for it

for any amount

on account of a non-kosher bird. For an entire bird is a beriya, an intact entity, and an intact entity does not require a minimum measure [with regard to the prohibition of a carcass, it is not applicable to say “an intact entity,” since at the beginning of its formation it was not a carcass — Rashi].

And we see explicitly that Rav holds that one is liable for a limb from a living creature for any amount, which is difficult for Rav Yehuda, who said in the name of Rav that an olive-bulk is required?

And we answer:

Here too,

when Rav said, “while it was alive, for any amount,” this does not mean that there is only any amount of it, but rather

for the slightest amount of flesh!

For the flesh by itself amounts to only a little, while

the sinews and bones

complete it to an olive-bulk.

Ta shma: If one took a bird

that was kosher

in which there was no olive-bulk and ate it, Rabbi exempts him

on account of a limb from a living creature, since an entire bird is not called a “limb”!

And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds him liable.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: There is a kal va-chomer

that one should be liable for an entire bird on account of a limb from a living creature. For if

one is liable for a limb of it —

is it not all the more so for the entire bird!?

If he strangled it and ate it —

everyone agrees

that he is liable only

for an olive-bulk!

For in this case there is only the prohibition of a carcass, whose measure is an olive-bulk.

And we conclude the resolution of the difficulty:

They disagree only

Rabbi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concerning less than an olive-bulk

but

in the case of an entire bird.

One Master,

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

holds:

An animal [and the same applies to a bird]

while alive —

for cutting it

into limbs

it

is destined!

That is, even while it is alive and whole, each limb in it bears the designation “limb”; therefore, one is liable for it on account of a limb from a living creature. [And although a bird contains many limbs, nevertheless he is liable for it only by one set of lashes, since there was only one warning].

And the other Master,

Rabbi,

holds:

An animal

while alive is not destined to be divided into limbs,

and its limbs do not bear the designation “limb” until one separates the limb from it. Therefore, one is not liable for an entire bird on account of a limb from a living creature. But if he ate a limb from the bird,

everyone

agrees that

at least an olive-bulk is not required!

And this is difficult for Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav!?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman said:

The statement that teaches, “a bird in which there is no olive-bulk,” means that there is no olive-bulk of flesh alone, but rather it contains only

the slightest amount of flesh,

while

the sinews and bones

complete it to an olive-bulk. For with regard to a limb from a living creature, it is considered as though it contains an olive-bulk.

And we raise an objection:

Is there such a thing,

that is, is there a bird such

that in its entirety there is no olive-bulk of flesh,

as we explained the statement, “a bird in which there is no olive-bulk,”

while in one limb

of it

there is

in it

an olive-bulk

composed of

the slightest amount of flesh

and

sinews and bones!?

For the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, teaches, “If one is liable for a limb of it,” and it necessarily follows that that limb contains an olive-bulk composed of a small amount of flesh, sinews, and bones; and if the bird is so small that its entirety does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh, it is impossible for one of its limbs to contain an olive-bulk?

And we answer:

Rav Sherevya said: Yes! In the case of a kalnita!

It is possible for an extremely emaciated bird to be like this.

And we raise an objection:

Say the latter clause

of the beraita: “

If he strangled it and ate it —

everyone

is liable

for an olive-bulk”!

But if it is speaking of a kalnita, this is difficult:

But a kalnita is a non-kosher bird,

and if so, although on account of a carcass one is not liable for less than an olive-bulk, on account of a non-kosher bird he should be liable for any amount. For

Rav said: For a non-kosher bird —

whether while alive or after its death

one’s liability is

for the slightest amount,

because it is an intact entity!?

And we answer:

Rather,

it is not speaking of an actual kalnita, but of a kosher bird that is emaciated

like a kalnita.

Rava said: If you should say

that

Rabbi holds that a person’s intention concerning food is considered an intention,

so that even when something is not normally eaten in that manner, if a person intended to eat it, that is considered an intention and it acquires the status of “food” —

if he intended

for the bird

to eat it limb by limb

while it was alive

but ate it in its entirety

without cutting it into limbs,

he is liable

for it on account of a limb from a living creature. For he revealed through his intention that it was destined to be divided into limbs, and the limbs of the bird acquired the designation “limb.”

Abaye said to him: Is there such a thing, that if another person ate it

who

had not

intended to eat the bird limb by limb

he would not be liable, whereas if this

man

ate it, he would be liable?!

He said to him,

Rava: Indeed! There is a basis for this, for

this one is according to his intention, and that one is according to his intention!

And Rav said: If you should say

that

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that a person’s intention concerning food is considered an intention, if he intended

for the bird

to eat it

only when it was

dead, but ate it while it was alive —

he is exempt!

For he revealed through his intention that, while alive, it was not destined to be divided into limbs.

Abaye said to him: Is there such a thing, that if another person ate it he would be liable,

for it is ordinarily destined to be divided into limbs,

whereas this one ate it

man

would be exempt?!

He said to him,

Rava:

This one is according to his intention, and that one is according to his intention!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The verse that is written,

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

this

verse

speaks of

a limb from a living creature!

The limb is called “soul” because it resembles the soul, which does not return after it has been taken; likewise, if the limb is cut off, it will not return. And this is the meaning of the verse: You shall not eat the limb while the soul is with the flesh, while there is life in the limb.

And the verse that is written,

“And flesh in the field, torn by a non-kosher animal, you shall not eat,”

this

verse

speaks of

flesh from a living creature!

For “in the field” indicates that the flesh has separated from its place,

and

it speaks

of flesh from an animal torn by a non-kosher animal,

in accordance with the plain meaning of the verse.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: “You shall not eat the soul with the flesh” —

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: “You shall not eat the soul with the flesh” —

this refers both to a limb from a living creature and to flesh from a living creature!

For this is the meaning: You shall not eat the soul, which is the limb, and you shall not eat the flesh so long as the soul is with the flesh.

“And flesh in the field, torn by a non-kosher animal, you shall not eat” —

this refers to flesh from an animal torn by a non-kosher animal!

If one ate a limb from a living creature and flesh from a living creature

in one act of eating —

according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, he is liable for two

because he transgressed two prohibitions, as they are derived from two verses.

According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, he is liable for only one

because he transgressed only one prohibition, as they are derived from one verse.

If one ate flesh from a living creature and flesh from an animal torn by a non-kosher animal —

according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, he is liable for two,

as they are two prohibitions.

According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, he is liable for only one,

as it is one prohibition.

If one ate a limb from a living creature and flesh from an animal torn by a non-kosher animal, everyone agrees that he is liable for two,

as they are derived from two verses.