חולין דף קב

לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר״. רבי יהודה ורבי אלעזר סברי: כל שאתה מצווה על דמו אתה מצווה על אבריו, והני טמאין נמי,

and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar hold that with regard to any animal whose blood you are commanded not to eat, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. Consequently, with regard to these non-kosher species also, since you are commanded not to eat their blood, you are commanded with regard to their limbs.

הואיל ואתה מצווה על דמן אתה מצווה על אברין.

ורבנן סברי: ״לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר״, אלא בשר לחודיה, כל שבשרו מותר – אתה מצווה על אבריו, וכל שאין בשרו מותר – אי אתה מצווה על אבריו.

And the Rabbis hold that the verse indicates: “And you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23), but rather you shall eat the flesh alone, i.e., when the animal is no longer alive. Consequently, with regard to any animal whose flesh is permitted when it is slaughtered, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. But with regard to any animal whose flesh is not permitted when it is slaughtered, you are not commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., the prohibition of eating limbs that were severed while it was still alive does not apply.

ורבי יהודה, למה ליה קרא? ליתי איסור אבר ליחול על איסור טומאה, שכן איסורו נוהג בבני נח!

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a prohibition takes effect upon an already existing, less stringent prohibition, why does he need to derive this from a verse? Let the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal come and take effect on the prohibition of eating meat from a non-kosher animal, as it is more stringent since its prohibition applies also to descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles.

אין הכי נמי, וכי איצטריך קרא לרבי אלעזר.

The Gemara responds: Yes, that is indeed so. Rabbi Yehuda does not need to derive this halakha from a verse, and the verse was necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that a prohibition does not take effect where there is an already existing prohibition, even if the second prohibition is more stringent.

תניא נמי הכי: אבר מן החי נוהג בבהמה חיה ועוף, בין טמאה בין טהורה, שנאמר ״רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם״.

This fact that it is Rabbi Elazar who derives this halakha from the verse, as opposed to Rabbi Yehuda, is also taught in a baraita: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies with regard to a limb from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and whether it is from a non-kosher species or a kosher species, as it is stated: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23).

כל שאתה מצווה על דמו – אתה מצווה על אבריו, וכל שאי אתה מצווה על דמו – אי אתה מצווה על אבריו, דברי רבי אלעזר.

This verse indicates that with regard to any species whose blood you are commanded not to eat, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. And any species about whose blood you are not commanded, i.e., with regard to which the prohibition of eating blood does not apply, you are not commanded with regard to their limbs. Since the prohibition of eating blood applies even with regard to non-kosher species, the prohibition of eating limbs severed from a living animal also applies; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar.

וחכמים אומרים: אינו נוהג אלא בטהורין, שנאמר ״לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר״, אלא בשר לחודיה, כל שבשרו מותר – אתה מצווה על אבריו,

And the Rabbis say: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only to kosher species, as it is stated in the verse: “And you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23), but rather you shall eat the flesh alone, i.e., when the animal is no longer alive. Consequently, with regard to any animal whose flesh is permitted when it is slaughtered, you are commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. But with regard to any animal whose flesh is not permitted when it is slaughtered, you are not commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., the prohibition of eating limbs that were severed while it was still alive does not apply.

וכל שאין בשרו מותר – אין אתה מצווה על אבריו.

רבי מאיר אומר: אינו נוהג אלא בבהמה טהורה בלבד.

Rabbi Meir says that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only with regard to a kosher species of domesticated animal, but not with regard to undomesticated animals or fowl, even if they are kosher.

(סימן: שמואל, שילא, שימי).

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the different opinions with regard to the name of one of the Sages cited in the upcoming discussion: Shmuel, Sheila, Shimi.

אמר רבה בר שמואל אמר רב חסדא, ואיתימא רב יוסף, ואמרי לה אמר רבה בר שילא אמר רב חסדא, ואיתימא רב יוסף,

Rabba bar Shmuel said that Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said the following statement. And some say the attributions as follows: Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said; and some say the attributions as follows: Rabba bar Shimi said that Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only with regard to a kosher species of domesticated animal?

ואמרי לה רבה בר שימי אמר רב חסדא, ואיתימא רב יוסף: מאי טעמא דרבי מאיר?

אמר קרא ״וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך״.

It is that the verse states: “Then you shall slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep” (Deuteronomy 12:21). This verse is closely followed by the verse that serves as the source of the prohibition to eat a limb severed from a living animal (Deuteronomy 12:23), indicating that the prohibition applies only to kosher domesticated animals.

אמר רב גידל, אמר רב: מחלוקת בישראל, אבל בבן נח – דברי הכל מוזהר על הטמאין כטהורין.

Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer about whether the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a living animal applies with regard to non-kosher species is only with regard to Jews. But with regard to descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles, everyone agrees that they are prohibited from eating a limb from a living non-kosher species of animal just like they are prohibited from eating a limb from a living kosher species.

תניא נמי הכי: אבר מן החי – בן נח מוזהר עליו על הטמאים כטהורים, וישראל אינו מוזהר אלא על הטהורין בלבד.

The Gemara comments that this is also taught in a baraita: A descendant of Noah is prohibited from eating a limb from a living animal from non-kosher species just as from kosher species. But a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from a living animal of kosher species only.

איכא דאמרי ״טהורה״, ורבי מאיר. איכא דאמרי ״טהורים״, ורבנן.

There are those who say that the correct wording of the baraita is that a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from a living kosher species, in singular, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the prohibition is limited to kosher domestic animals. And there are those who say that the correct wording of the baraita is that a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from living kosher species, in plural, and it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the prohibition also applies to a limb from a living bird or a living undomesticated animal of kosher species.

אמר רב שיזבי: אף אנן נמי תנינא, אכל אבר מן החי ממנה אינו סופג ארבעים, ואין שחיטה מטהרתה.

Rav Sheizvi said: We learn in the mishna as well that a gentile is prohibited from eating a limb from a living being even with regard to non-kosher species (Teharot 1:3): If one ate a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, he does not incur forty lashes, and slaughter does not purify it, i.e., cause it to become permitted for consumption.

במאי? אילימא בישראל – פשיטא דאין שחיטה מטהרתה! אלא לאו בבני נח, מכלל דאסור.

Rav Sheizvi clarifies: With regard to what case does the mishna issue this ruling? If we say that it is referring to a Jew who ate the limb, it is obvious that slaughter does not purify it, because it is a non-kosher species and cannot be made kosher. Rather is it not referring to descendants of Noah and teaching that even after the bird is slaughtered the limb severed while it was alive remains forbidden? By inference, it is clear from the mishna that it is prohibited for a gentile to eat a limb severed from a living being even from a non-kosher species.

רבי מני בר פטיש רמי רישא אסיפא, ומשני: רישא בישראל, וסיפא בבן נח.

Rabbi Mani bar Pattish raises a contradiction between the first clause of that mishna, which states that one does not receive lashes for eating a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, and the latter clause of the mishna, which states that a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird remains forbidden after the bird is slaughtered. The first clause indicates that the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a living creature applies only to kosher species, while the latter clause indicates that it applies also to non-kosher species. And he answers this contradiction by explaining that the first clause is referring to a Jew and the latter clause is referring to a descendant of Noah.

אמר רב: אבר מן החי צריך כזית, מאי טעמא? אכילה כתיבה ביה.

§ The Gemara continues discussing the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a living creature. Rav says: A limb severed from a living animal requires an olive-bulk in order to render one who eats it liable to receive lashes. What is the reason for this? It is because the term: Eating, is written with regard to the prohibition of a limb severed from a living animal, and the definition of eating is the consumption of at least one olive-bulk.

מתיב רב עמרם: אכל אבר מן החי ממנה – אינו סופג את הארבעים, ואין שחיטה מטהרתה. ואי סלקא דעתך בעינן כזית – תיפוק ליה דקאכל כזית.

Rav Amram raises an objection from the mishna cited above (Teharot 1:3): If one ate a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, he does not incur the forty lashes, and slaughter does not purify it, i.e., cause it to become permitted. But if it enters your mind that we require an olive-bulk in order for one to receive lashes for eating a limb severed from a living creature, that mishna must be referring to such a case; therefore, it should emerge that he is liable to receive lashes because he ate an olive-bulk of a non-kosher bird.

כדאמר רב נחמן, במשהו בשר גידין ועצמות, הכא נמי במשהו בשר גידין ועצמות.

The Gemara answers: This can be explained as Rav Naḥman said with regard to another issue, that it is referring to a case of eating a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones and the total volume is an olive-bulk. Here also, the mishna is referring to a case of eating a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones.

תא שמע, דאמר רב:

The Gemara raises another challenge to Rav’s statement that one receives lashes for eating a limb severed from a living animal only if he eats an olive-bulk: Come and hear a proof in this regard, as Rav said:

אכל צפור טהורה בחייה – בכל שהוא, במיתתה – בכזית, וטמאה בין בחייה בין במיתתה – בכל שהוא, הכא נמי במשהו בשר גידים ועצמות.

If one ate a kosher bird alive, one is punished with lashes for any amount, i.e., even if he ate less than an olive-bulk. If the bird was dead and was not ritually slaughtered, one is punished with lashes only if he ate an olive-bulk. And if one ate a whole bird of a non-kosher species, whether he ate it when it was alive or dead, he is punished with lashes for any amount, i.e., even if the bird contained less than an olive-bulk of meat. The Gemara answers: Here also explain that Rav’s statement is referring to a case of eating a small amount of meat along with sinews and bones, and the total volume is an olive-bulk.

תא שמע: נטל צפור שאין בו כזית ואכלו – רבי פוטר, ורבי אלעזר בר רבי שמעון מחייב. אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון: קל וחומר, על אבר ממנה חייב,

Come and hear another challenge based upon a baraita: With regard to one who took a live bird of a kosher species that did not have a volume of an olive-bulk and ate it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi exempts him from lashes and Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon deems him liable for lashes. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: He should be liable based upon an a fortiori inference: If one is liable to receive lashes for eating a limb of a living animal, all the more so is it not clear that one is liable to receive lashes for eating all of it? The baraita concludes: With regard to one who strangled the bird and ate it, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive lashes only if it had the volume of an olive-bulk.

על כולה לא כל שכן! חנקה ואכלה – דברי הכל בכזית.

עד כאן לא פליגי, אלא דמר סבר: בחייה לאברים עומדת, ומר סבר: בחייה לאו לאברים עומדת.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, disagree only with regard to one who ate an entire live bird, as one Sage, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that even during its life all creatures stand to be divided into limbs, i.e., they will ultimately be cut into pieces. Consequently, each of its limbs is considered a separate entity, and even if one eats a limb without first separating it from the rest of the body, one violates the prohibition of eating a limb from a living being. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that during its life it does not stand to be divided into limbs. Therefore, one does not violate the prohibition of eating a limb from a living being unless he severs a limb from the body.

דכולי עלמא מיהא לא בעינן כזית, אמר רב נחמן: במשהו בשר, גידים ועצמות.

But in any event, everyone agrees that we do not require one to eat an olive-bulk of meat in order to be liable for lashes for eating a limb from a living being, which is the basis of the a fortiori inference of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Naḥman says in response: Explain that the baraita is referring to a case where one ate a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones, making a total of an olive-bulk.

ומי איכא מידי, דבכוליה לית ביה כזית בשר, ובחד אבר אית כזית במשהו בשר גידין ועצמות? אמר רב שרביא: אין, בקלניתא.

The Gemara challenges this answer: But is there any bird that does not have an olive-bulk of meat in its whole body, but in one limb it has an olive-bulk of the combination of a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones? Rav Sherevya said: Yes, this is the case with regard to the kelanita, a bird that is very small and scrawny.

אימא סיפא: חנקה ואכלה, דברי הכל בכזית, והא קלניתא עוף טמא הוא, ואמר רב: טמאה, בין בחייה בין במיתתה, במשהו! אלא כעין קלניתא.

The Gemara challenges this answer that the baraita is referring to a kelanita. Say the latter clause: With regard to one who strangled the bird and ate it, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive lashes only if it had the volume of an olive-bulk. But a kelanita is a non-kosher bird, and Rav says: If one eats a whole non-kosher bird, whether he eats it when it is alive or dead, he is punished with lashes for eating any amount. The Gemara answers: The baraita is not referring to an actual kelanita, but rather to a kosher species of bird similar to a kelanita in that it is small and scrawny.

אמר רבא: אם תימצי לומר סבר רבי מחשבת אכלין שמה מחשבה, חישב לאוכלה אבר אבר, ואכלה כולה – חייב.

§ The Gemara above cited a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, with regard to one who eats an entire live kosher bird that is less than an olive-bulk. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that an entire bird is not considered to be a limb and is therefore not included in the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, Rava said: If you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that thought with regard to food is considered thought, i.e., one’s thoughts have halakhic significance in determining a food’s status, then in a case where one thought to eat the bird limb by limb, and instead ate it all at once, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hold that he is liable for transgressing the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal.

אמר ליה אביי: ומי איכא מידי, דאילו אכיל ליה אחר – לא מיחייב, ואכיל ליה האי – מיחייב? אמר ליה: זה לפי מחשבתו, וזה לפי מחשבתו.

Abaye said to Rava: But is there anything with regard to which if another person ate it he would not be liable, but if this person ate it he is liable? Rava said to Abaye: There can be different outcomes for different people who perform the same act, as this individual’s action is judged according to his thought and that individual’s action is judged according to his thought.

ואמר רבא: אם תמצי לומר סבר רבי אלעזר בר רבי שמעון מחשבת אכלין שמה מחשבה, חישב לאוכלה מתה, ואכלה חיה – פטור.

And Rava also said: If you say that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon holds that thought with regard to food is considered thought, then in a case where one at first intended to eat the entire bird after it had died, but ultimately he ate it alive, Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon would hold that he is exempt from lashes, as according to his thought it does not stand to be divided into limbs while alive.

אמר ליה אביי: ומי איכא מידי, דאילו אכיל ליה אחר מחייב, ואכיל ליה האי פטור? אמר ליה: זה לפי מחשבתו, וזה לפי מחשבתו.

Abaye said to Rava: But is there anything that if another person ate it he would be liable, but if this person ate it he is exempt? Rava said to Abaye: This individual’s action is judged according to his thought and that individual’s action is judged according to his thought.

אמר רבי יוחנן: ״לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר״ – זה אבר מן החי, ״ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו״ – זה בשר מן החי ובשר מן הטרפה.

§ The Gemara discusses the source of the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: “You shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23); this is the source for the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal. And the verse: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30); this is the source for the prohibition of eating flesh severed from the living and flesh severed from a tereifa, even if it is not an entire limb.

ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר: ״לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר״ – זה אבר מן החי ובשר מן החי, ״ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו״ – זה בשר מן הטרפה.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: “You shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23); this is the source for the prohibitions of eating a limb from a living animal and of eating flesh severed from the living. And the verse: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30); this is the source for the prohibition of eating flesh severed from a tereifa.

אכל אבר מן החי ובשר מן החי – לרבי יוחנן חייב שתים, לרבי שמעון בן לקיש אינו חייב אלא אחת. אכל בשר מן החי ובשר מן הטרפה

The Gemara clarifies the difference between these two opinions. If one ate a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from the living, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan he is liable to receive two sets of lashes but according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. Conversely, if one ate flesh severed from the living and flesh severed from a tereifa, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish he is liable to receive two sets of lashes but according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If one ate a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from a tereifa, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive two sets of lashes.

– לרבי שמעון בן לקיש חייב שתים, לרבי יוחנן אינו חייב אלא אחת. אכל אבר מן החי ובשר מן הטרפה – לדברי הכל חייב שתים.

ורמינהו:

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the claim that everyone agrees that one who eats both a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from a tereifa is liable to receive two sets of lashes, based upon the following statement: