Chullin 103a — the Talmud in English

And he raises an objection:

It was stated:

one who ate a limb from a living creature from

an animal

that was a tereifa—

Rabbi Yohanan said: He is liable for two; and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He is liable for only one.

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan, it is understandable

that he is liable for two, since he transgressed two prohibitions: that of a limb from a living creature and that of a tereifa.

But according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, it is difficult

why is he liable for only one, for we said that according to everyone he is liable for two for a limb from a living creature and a tereifa?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosef said: It is not difficult! Here, it is in the case of one animal,

which was a tereifa, and he ate a limb from it while it was alive.

Here, it is in the case of two animals,

where he ate a limb from a living creature from this one, and from the second one, which was a tereifa, he ate meat.

With two animals—

he is liable for two

according to everyone, as we said above.

With one animal—

they disagree,

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, and he explains as follows.

And we explain:

With one animal, over what do they disagree?

Why does Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish hold him liable for only one—is there not two prohibitions?

Abaye said: For example, it became a tereifa with the emergence of most of it.

At that moment when it was born and most of it emerged from the womb of its mother, it became a tereifa.

And in this they disagree:

One master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds: During its life, an animal is destined for limbs,

and the prohibition of a limb from a living creature takes effect immediately upon its birth. Therefore,

the prohibition of a tereifa and the prohibition of a limb

from a living creature

come simultaneously,

and therefore he is liable for two.

And one master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

holds: During its life, an animal is not destined for limbs,

and the prohibition of a limb from a living creature does not take effect upon the animal until he separates a limb from it, and then it had already been a tereifa beforehand.

And the prohibition of a limb does not come and take effect upon the prohibition of a tereifa,

for a prohibition does not take effect upon a prohibition. Therefore, he is liable for only one, for the tereifa, which took effect first.

And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that during its life, an animal is not destined for limbs,

and the prohibition of a tereifa precedes it.

And with regard to the coming of the prohibition of a limb

and

taking effect upon the prohibition of a tereifa [A0050]if the prohibition of a limb from a living creature takes effect upon the limb when he separates it from the animal, upon the prohibition of a tereifa

when the prohibition against eating a limb taken from a living animal takes effect upon the limb when it is detached from the animal.

they disagree:

One master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds: The prohibition of a limb takes effect upon the prohibition of a tereifa

since the prohibition of a limb from a living creature is severe, for it applies to the descendants of Noah.

And one master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

holds: The prohibition of a limb does not come and take effect upon the prohibition of a tereifa.

If you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that during its life, an animal is destined for limbs,

and the prohibition of a limb from a living creature takes effect at the time of birth.

And for example, it became a tereifa afterward. And with regard to the coming of the prohibition of a tereifa

and

taking effect upon the prohibition of a limb they disagree: One master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds: It comes and takes effect.

For he holds that a prohibition does take effect upon a prohibition.

And one master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

holds: It does not come and take effect.

For a prohibition does not take effect upon a prohibition.

Rava said:

This is what their disagreement deals with:

For example, he tore a limb from it, and made it a tereifa through it!

Through the tearing of the limb, the animal became a tereifa.

One master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds: During its life, an animal is not destined for limbs,

and the prohibition of a limb from a living creature also takes effect with the tearing of the limb. Therefore,

the prohibition of a limb and the prohibition of a tereifa come simultaneously. And one master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

holds: During its life, an animal is destined for limbs,

therefore the prohibition of a limb from a living creature takes effect at the time of birth,

and the prohibition of a tereifa does not come

and

take effect upon the prohibition of a limb.

And therefore he is liable only for the prohibition of a limb from a living creature, which preceded it.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One who ate forbidden fat from a living creature from a tereifa,

for example, he tore forbidden fat from a tereifa animal while it was alive—

is liable for two!

And he explains as follows.

Rabbi Ami said to

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

And let the master say

that he is liable for

three:

for forbidden fat, for a limb from a living creature, and for a tereifa?

F

or

I say

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that he is liable for

three?

It was also stated: Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One who ate forbidden fat from a living creature from a tereifa is liable for three!

And we raise the issue:

Over what do they disagree?

What is the reasoning of the one who says that he is liable for only two?

And we answer:

For example, it became a tereifa with the emergence of most of it

at the time of birth. And in this they disagree:

The one who says three holds: During its life, an animal is destined for limbs, for the prohibition of forbidden fat

which takes effect only at the time of birth and not when the offspring is in its mother’s womb

and the prohibition of a limb and the prohibition of a tereifa come simultaneously.

For all of them take effect at the time of birth.

The one who says two holds: During its life, an animal is not destined for limbs, and there is the prohibition of forbidden fat and the prohibition of a tereifa,

for they take effect at the time of birth, but

the prohibition of a limb

takes effect only at the time when he separates the forbidden fat from the animal. Therefore,

it does not come and take effect,

and he is not flogged for it.

And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that during its life, an animal is not destined for limbs. And with regard to the coming of the prohibition of a limb and its taking effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat and upon the prohibition of a tereifa,

which preceded it from the time of birth,

they disagree!

One master holds: It comes

and

takes effect.

For a prohibition does take effect upon a prohibition; therefore, he is liable for three.

And one master holds:

It does not come and take effect

and therefore he is liable for only two.

And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that during its life, an animal is destined for limbs

and the prohibition of a limb from a living creature and the prohibition of forbidden fat take effect at the time of birth,

and for example, it became a tereifa afterward. And with regard to the coming of the prohibition of a tereifa

and

taking effect upon the prohibition of a limb they disagree!

For with regard to the prohibition of forbidden fat alone, certainly the prohibition of a tereifa takes effect, as follows. But with regard to the prohibition of a limb from a living creature, they disagree whether the prohibition of a tereifa takes effect. For

one master holds: It comes

and

takes effect, just as is the case with forbidden fat,

upon which the prohibition of a tereifa takes effect; and the same applies: the prohibition of a tereifa takes effect upon a limb from a living creature.

For one master said:

It is stated in the Torah: “And the forbidden fat of an animal carcass and the forbidden fat of a tereifa ... and he ate it—you shall not eat it.” And we raise the difficulty: Why does the Torah need to prohibit the forbidden fat of an animal carcass and of a tereifa, when even the forbidden fat of a kosher animal is prohibited? Rather,

the Torah said: Let the prohibition of an animal carcass come and take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat! And let the prohibition of a tereifa come and take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat!

For this “and he ate it—you shall not eat it” comes to teach concerning the prohibition of an animal carcass and a tereifa, that they take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat that preceded them, lest you say that a prohibition does not take effect upon a prohibition. And since the prohibition of a tereifa takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat and also upon the prohibition of a limb from a living creature, it follows that he is liable for three.

And the other one,

the one who says that he is liable for only two, said: