Chullin 103b (קג:) — the Talmud in English

The prohibition against forbidden fat is a lenient one,

because

it was permitted

the prohibition against forbidden fat

from its general scope.

For it does not apply to an animal. And since it is a lenient prohibition, the prohibition of nevela and tereifa takes effect upon it.

But

with regard to the prohibition of

a limb

from a living creature,

which was not permitted from its general scope, it does not

become subject to the prohibition of nevela and tereifa. Therefore, with regard to this forbidden fat that was torn from a living creature, upon which there is also the prohibition of a limb from a living creature, the prohibition of tereifa does not take effect; and one is liable only for two prohibitions, for forbidden fat and for a limb from a living creature.

When Rav Dimi came, he said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan:

With regard to an olive-bulk of a limb from a living creature that he

divided

into two

outside

before placing it into his mouth, and he did not eat the two halves at once, but one after the other—

what

is the halakha? Is he liable as with all prohibitions of the Torah, where the acts of eating combine to form an olive-bulk as long as they occur within the time needed to eat a peras? Or perhaps the prohibition of a limb from a living creature is different, since it is a novel law: the sinews and bones also combine to form an olive-bulk, unlike all other prohibitions, for which one is liable only for the meat. And one may derive nothing from a novel law beyond its novelty; therefore, he is liable only when he eats it at once?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

He is exempt!

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked him again: If he placed a complete olive-bulk into his mouth and divided it

inside,

swallowing it in two portions—

what

did he say to him,

Rabbi Yohanan?

He is liable!

When Ravin came, he said: If he divided it outside, he is exempt.

If he divided it inside,

Rabbi Yohanan said: He is liable.

And Reish Lakish said: He is exempt.

The rationale for their dispute is as follows:

Rabbi Yohanan said: He is liable,

because

his throat derived benefit from a complete olive-bulk

before he swallowed it.

And Reish Lakish said: He is exempt,

because the measure of

eating,

that is, a complete olive-bulk,

must be present in his intestines!

When it descends into his intestines,

it is not present!

For it had already been divided beforehand.

And we raise a difficulty:

But according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

how can you find a case in which he is liable

for a limb from a living creature? For it is impossible to swallow an olive-bulk whole without chewing it.

And we resolve:

Rav Kahana said: With a small bone!

A small bone of the thigh on which there is only a small amount of meat, while the sinew and bone complete the measure of an olive-bulk. One can swallow it whole without chewing.

And Rabbi Elazar said: Even if he divided it inside, he is likewise liable,

since he needs only to bring the two halves close to one another, and therefore

lacking only proximity

is not considered lacking an act!

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The “olive-bulk” that they stated

with regard to all prohibitions of eating in the Torah must be present in the food that he swallows,

excluding what remains between the teeth!

For what remains between the teeth does not combine to form an olive-bulk.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even

if the olive-bulk consists only

of

what remains

between the teeth,

it is considered an olive-bulk.

Rav Pappa said: With regard to what remains between

the

teeth, everyone agrees

that it does not combine to form an olive-bulk, since he derives no benefit whatsoever from it.

They disagree with regard to what remains between the gums.

That is, what remains attached to the palate, from which the throat derives benefit.

One

Rabbi Yohanan

holds:

It combines to form an olive-bulk, because

his throat derived benefit from an olive-bulk. And the other

Reish Lakish

holds:

It does not combine, because the measure of

eating

must be present in his intestines!

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: If one ate half an olive-bulk and vomited it, and then ate another half an olive-bulk—

he is liable!

What is the reason?

Because

his throat derived benefit from an olive-bulk!

For he derived the taste of two half-olive-bulks. [But there is no benefit to his intestines here, for benefit to the intestines means that his abdomen is filled with an olive-bulk; here, an olive-bulk was never in his abdomen, since when he swallowed the second half, the first half had already exited. Throat benefit, by contrast, means tasting, and he tasted two half-olive-bulks.]

Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Asi: If one ate half an olive-bulk and vomited it, and then ate that same half again, what is the halakha?

And we raise a difficulty:

What was he asking?

If you say that he was uncertain

whether

the food that he swallowed

is considered digested,

so that it no longer has the status of food, but is merely excrement, and consequently this involves only the eating of half an olive-bulk,

or whether it is not considered digested?

If so,

he should have asked him about a complete olive-bulk

that he ate, vomited, and then ate again: Is he liable to two sets of lashes or only one, since it is considered digested?

Rather,

say that it was obvious to him that it was not considered digested. His uncertainty was

whether, after

the benefit to

his throat, we follow

and he derived benefit twice from half an olive-bulk—that is, the benefit of a complete olive-bulk—and is liable,

or whether we follow the benefit to his intestines

and he derived benefit from only half an olive-bulk.

The difficulty still remains:

He should have resolved it from Rabbi Asi’s statement,

that we follow the throat, and if so, there is no difference whether he ate another half olive-bulk or ate that same half again.

And we resolve:

Rabbi Asi’s learning had been uprooted from his memory!

He had forgotten what he had heard from Rabbi Yohanan [together with Rabbi Elazar]: that even if he ate that same half olive-bulk again, he is liable. For he had stated in the name of Rabbi Yohanan only that the case involved eating another half olive-bulk.

And Rabbi Elazar came to remind him,

to remind him that Rabbi Yohanan had said that this applies even to that same half olive-bulk; and out of respect for him, he phrased it as a question.

And this is what he said to him: Why do I need another half olive-bulk? Let the Master state it with regard to the same one,

that same half,

from which two novel rulings can be inferred:

For

we can infer from it that it is not considered digested, and we can infer from it that his throat derived benefit from an olive-bulk. He was silent

Rabbi Asi

and did not say anything to him

Rabbi Elazar.

Rabbi Elazar said to him:

Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Asi:

O wonder of the generation!

The foremost scholar of the generation. And

have you not, many times,

said

before Rabbi Yohanan

that he is liable even for that same half olive-bulk,

and he told you

that your statement was certainly correct, since

his throat derived benefit from an olive-bulk,

and it is not considered digested!

We will return to you, chapter of the sciatic nerve

The Torah states three times, “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk,” to teach us three prohibitions concerning meat and milk: one prohibition against eating, one prohibition against deriving benefit, and one prohibition against cooking meat and milk together.

Although it is stated, “You shall not cook a kid,” and a kid is a domesticated animal, nevertheless—

Mishna:

All meat,

whether meat of a domesticated animal or of a non-domesticated animal or poultry,

is prohibited to cook

it

with milk [

and below they disagree whether the prohibition against cooking the meat of a non-domesticated animal and poultry with milk is by Torah law or rabbinic law].

Except for the meat of fish and locusts,

as there is no prohibition at all against cooking it with milk.

And

all meat

is prohibited to place

it together

with cheese on the table, except for the meat of fish and locusts.