Chullin 102b — the Talmud in English

Come and hear: for Rav said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

If one ate a pure 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. And if he ate it

after its death,

after it had died, he is liable for it

for an olive-bulk

on account of an unslaughtered carcass, for this is the measure for liability to lashes for an unslaughtered carcass.

And if he ate a bird

that was impure, whether while it was alive or after its death,

he is liable for it

for any amount

on account of an impure bird. For a whole bird is a “creature,” and a creature does not require a measure [with regard to the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass, it is not applicable to say “creature,” since at the beginning of its creation it was not an unslaughtered carcass — Rashi].

And we see explicitly that Rav holds that one is liable for a limb from a living creature for any amount, and this 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 it contains only any amount, but rather

a small amount of flesh!

For the flesh by itself is only a small amount, and

sinews and bones

complete it to an olive-bulk.

Come and hear: If one took a bird

that was pure,

which did not contain an olive-bulk, and ate it, Rabbi exempts him

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

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon obligates him.

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

that one should be obligated for a whole bird on account of a limb from a living creature. For if

for one limb of it he is liable—

for all of it, is it not all the more so!?

If he strangled it and ate it—

everyone agrees

that he is liable only

for an olive-bulk!

For here there is only the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass, whose measure is an olive-bulk.

And we conclude in response to the difficulty:

They disputed

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

but

in the case of a whole bird.

For one master—

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon—

holds:

an animal [and the same applies to a bird]

while alive—

to divide it

into limbs

it

stands!

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

And one master—

Rabbi—

holds:

an animal

while alive does not stand to be divided into limbs,

and its limbs do not bear the designation “limb” until he separates the limb from it; therefore he is not liable for a whole 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:

That which it teaches, “a bird that did not contain an olive-bulk,” means that it did not contain an olive-bulk of flesh alone, but rather it contained only

a small amount of flesh,

and

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 object:

But is there such a thing,

is there such a bird

that in all of it there is no olive-bulk of flesh,

as we established this statement, “a bird that did not contain an olive-bulk,”

while in one limb

of it

there is

in it

an olive-bulk

composed of

a small amount of flesh

and

sinews and bones!?

For it teaches in the words of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, “If for one limb of it he is liable,” and necessarily that limb contains an olive-bulk consisting of a small amount of flesh and sinews and bones; and if it is so small that in all of it there is no olive-bulk of flesh, it is impossible that one limb of it should contain an olive-bulk?

And we answer:

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

A very lean bird can indeed be like this.

And we object:

Say the latter clause

of the beraita: “

If he strangled it and ate it—

everyone agrees

that his liability is

for an olive-bulk”!

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

But a kalnita is an impure bird,

and if so, although on account of an unslaughtered carcass he is not liable for less than an olive-bulk, on account of an impure bird he should have been liable for any amount. For

Rav said: An impure bird—

whether while alive or after its death

his liability is

for a small amount,

because it is a creature!?

And we answer:

Rather,

it is not speaking of an actual kalnita, but of a pure bird that is lean

like a kalnita.

Rava said: If you should say

that

Rabbi holds that the thought concerning food is considered a thought,

so that something which one does not ordinarily eat in this manner nevertheless constitutes a thought if a person intended to eat it, and the designation “food” takes effect upon it—

If he intended

for a bird

to eat it limb by limb

while it was alive,

but ate all of it

without dividing 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 stands to be divided into limbs, and the designation “limb” took effect upon the limbs of the bird.

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

who

did not

intend concerning the bird to eat it limb by limb,

he would not be liable, but if this

man

ate it, he would be liable?!

He said to him,

Rava: Indeed! There is a reason for the matter:

This one follows his intention, and this one follows his intention!

And Rav said: If you should say

that

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds that the thought concerning food is considered a thought, if he intended

concerning the bird

to eat it

only when it was

dead, but ate it alive—

he is exempt!

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

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

for, without specification, it stands to be divided into limbs,

but this one ate it

man

is exempt?!

He said to him,

Rava:

This one follows his intention, and this one follows his intention!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

That which is written,

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

this

verse

speaks of

a limb from a living creature!

For the limb is called “soul,” since it resembles a soul, which does not return after it has been taken; so too, if the limb is cut off, it will not return. And this is the explanation of the verse: You shall not eat the limb while the soul is with the flesh, meaning while there is vitality in the limb.

And that which is written,

“And flesh in the field, torn, 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

in

flesh from an animal torn

according to 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 is a limb from a living creature and flesh from a living creature!

For this is the explanation: 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, you shall not eat”—

this is flesh from an animal torn!

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

in one eating—

According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, he is liable for two

because he transgressed two prohibitions, for they are learned from two verses.

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

because he transgressed only one prohibition, for they are learned from one verse.

If one ate flesh from a living creature and flesh from an animal torn—

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

for they are two prohibitions.

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

for it is one prohibition.

If one ate a limb from a living creature and flesh from an animal torn, according to everyone he is liable for two,

for they are learned from two verses.