Chullin 103a (קג.) — the Talmud in English

But it was taught in a baraita:

it was stated: ")

one who ate a limb from a living animal from

an animal

that was tereifa—

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

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan, this is understandable:

that he is liable to two, because he transgressed two prohibitions: that of a limb from a living animal and that of tereifa.

But according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, it is difficult:

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

We answer:

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. Here, it is referring to one animal,

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

Here, it is referring to two animals,

from one of which he ate a limb from a living animal, and from the second, which was tereifa, he ate flesh.

With regard to two animals—

he is liable to two

according to everyone, as we said above.

With regard to one animal—

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagree

as will be explained below.

We explain:

With regard to one animal, what do they disagree about?

Why does Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish hold that he is liable to only one, when they are two prohibitions?

Abaye said: It is referring to a case where it became tereifa as most of it emerged.

At the moment it was born, when most of it emerged from its mother’s womb, it became tereifa.

And they disagree about this:

One master,

Rabbi Yohanan

holds that an animal, during its lifetime, is considered destined for its limbs,

and the prohibition against a limb from a living animal takes effect immediately upon birth. Therefore,

the prohibition of tereifa and the prohibition of a limb

from a living animal

take effect simultaneously,

and therefore he is liable to two.

And the other master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

holds that an animal, during its lifetime, is not considered destined for its limbs,

and the prohibition against a limb from a living animal takes effect upon the animal only when one separates a limb from it; at that point, it was already tereifa beforehand.

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

because one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition. Therefore, he is liable to only one, for tereifa, which took effect first.

And if you wish, say:

everyone holds

that an animal, during its lifetime, is not considered destined for its limbs,

and the prohibition of tereifa takes effect first.

And they disagree concerning the arrival of the prohibition of a limb

and

taking effect upon the prohibition of tereifa [

whether the prohibition of a limb from a living animal takes effect upon the limb when it is separated from the animal, in addition to the prohibition of tereifa]

as follows:

One master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds that the prohibition of a limb takes effect upon the prohibition of tereifa

because the prohibition of a limb from a living animal is stringent, as it applies to the descendants of Noah as well.

And the other master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

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

And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that an animal, during its lifetime, is considered destined for its limbs,

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

And it is referring to a case where it became tereifa afterward. And they disagree concerning the arrival of the prohibition of tereifa

and

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

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds that it comes and takes effect.

For he holds that one prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition.

And the other master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

holds that it does not come and take effect.

For one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition.

Rava said:

Their dispute concerns the following case:

For example, he tore a limb from it, thereby rendering it tereifa!

For through the tearing of the limb, the animal became tereifa.

One master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds that an animal, during its lifetime, is not considered destined for its limbs,

and the prohibition against a limb from a living animal likewise takes effect when the limb is torn away. Therefore,

the prohibition of a limb and the prohibition of tereifa take effect simultaneously. And the other master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

holds that an animal, during its lifetime, is considered destined for its limbs,

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

and the prohibition of 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 animal, which preceded it.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: If one ate forbidden fat from a living tereifa animal,

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

he is liable to two!

As will be explained below.

Rabbi Ami said to

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

And let the Master say

that he is liable to

three:

for forbidden fat, for a limb from a living animal, and for tereifa.

For

indeed

I say

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that he is liable to

three?

It was also stated: Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yohanan said: If one ate forbidden fat from a living tereifa animal, he is liable to three!

We ask about this:

What is the basis of their disagreement?

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

We answer:

It is referring to a case where it became tereifa as most of it emerged

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

The one who says that he is liable to three holds that an animal, during its lifetime, is considered destined for its limbs, and that the prohibition of forbidden fat [

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

and the prohibition of a limb and the prohibition of tereifa take effect simultaneously.

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

The one who says that he is liable to two holds that an animal, during its lifetime, is not considered destined for its limbs, and that there are the prohibitions of forbidden fat and tereifa,

which take effect at the time of birth; however,

the prohibition of a limb

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

it does not come and take effect,

and he does not receive lashes for it.

And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that an animal, during its lifetime, is not considered destined for its limbs. And they disagree concerning the arrival of the prohibition of a limb and its taking effect upon the prohibitions of forbidden fat and tereifa,

which took effect earlier, at the time of birth,

as follows!

One master holds: It comes

and

takes effect.

For one prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition; therefore, he is liable to three.

And the other master holds:

It does not come and take effect

and therefore he is liable to only two.

And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that an animal, during its lifetime, is considered destined for its limbs

and that the prohibitions of a limb from a living animal and forbidden fat take effect at the time of birth,

and it is referring to a case where it became tereifa afterward. And they disagree concerning the arrival of the prohibition of tereifa

and

its taking effect upon the prohibition of a limb!

For it is certain that the prohibition of tereifa takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat alone, as will be stated below. But they disagree as to whether the prohibition of tereifa takes effect upon the prohibition of a limb from a living animal.

One master holds: It comes

and

takes effect, just as it does with regard to forbidden fat,

upon which the prohibition of tereifa takes effect; and the same applies to the prohibition of tereifa taking effect upon a limb from a living animal.

For the Master said:

It is stated in the Torah: “And the forbidden fat of an unslaughtered animal and the forbidden fat of an animal rendered tereifa … and he ate it; you shall not eat it.” And we find this difficult: Why does the Torah need to prohibit the forbidden fat of an unslaughtered animal and of a tereifa animal, when even the forbidden fat of a kosher animal is prohibited? Rather,

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

For this phrase, “and he ate it; you shall not eat it,” comes to teach that the prohibitions of an unslaughtered animal and tereifa take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat that preceded them, so that you should not say that one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition. And since the prohibition of tereifa takes effect both upon the prohibition of forbidden fat and upon the prohibition of a limb from a living animal, it follows that he is liable to three.

And the other one,

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