Talmud Bavli Hullin 102a-b - translation by Tzvee

B.            Said R. Yohanan, “Both of them derived their inferences from the same verse, `Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, [102a] and you shall not eat the life with the flesh' (Deut. 12:23). R. Judah and R. Eleazar reason [in accord with the rule that they derive from the first part of the verse]: for any [animal] for which you are commanded to abstain from its blood, you are commanded to abstain from [eating] its limbs. So for these unclean [animals], since you are commanded to abstain from their blood, you are commanded to abstain from their limbs. And our rabbis reason [based on the rule they derive from the second part of the verse]: `And you shall not eat the life with the flesh' — [this means that you shall eat] just the flesh. [Thus] for any [animal] from which you are permitted to eat the flesh, you are commanded to abstain from [eating] its limbs. And for any [animal] from which you are not permitted to eat the flesh, you are not commanded to abstain from [eating] its limbs.”

C.            So according to the view of R. Judah [who says that one prohibition may apply on top of another] why do I need to rely on a verse [to teach me the rule prohibiting eating a limb from a live unclean animal]? Let the prohibition of a limb from a live animal come and apply on top of the prohibition of an unclean animal. For [the prohibition of a limb] applies also to the descendants of Noah [and thus is more inclusive]. Indeed this is the case. And you therefore need the verse to support the view of R. Eleazar.

D.            It was taught on Tannaite authority also in this regard: [The prohibition of eating] a limb from a live animal applies to beasts, wild animals and fowl, whether clean or unclean, as it says, `Only be sure that you do not eat the blood': “For any [animal] for which you are commanded to abstain from its blood, you are commanded to abstain from [eating] its limbs. And for any [animal] for which you are not commanded to abstain from its blood, you are not commanded to abstain from [eating] its limbs,” the words of R. Eleazar.

E.            And the sages say, “It only applies to the clean [species], as it says, `And you shall not eat the life with the flesh' — [this means that you shall eat] just the flesh. [Thus] for any [animal] from which you are permitted to eat the flesh, you are commanded to abstain from [eating] its limbs. And for any [animal] from which you are not permitted to eat the flesh, you are not commanded to abstain from [eating] its limbs.”

F.             R. Meir says, “[The prohibition] only applies to a clean beast.” [A mnemonic is given here.] Said Rabbah bar Samuel, said R. Hisda, and some maintain, R. Joseph; and there are those that say, said Rabbah bar Shila, said R. Hisda, and some maintain, R. Joseph; and there are those that say, said Rabbah bar Shimi, said R. Hisda, and some maintain, R. Joseph, “What is the basis in scripture for the view of R. Meir? Scripture says, `[If the place which the Lord your God will choose to put his name there is too far from you,] then you may kill any of your herd or your flock, [which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat within your towns as much as you desire]' (Deut. 12:21) [i.e., the verse mentions beasts only].”

G.            Said R. Giddal, said Rab, “The dispute [over what animals are subsumed in the prohibition of a limb from a live animal] pertains only to an Israelite. But regarding a descendant of Noah, everyone agrees that he is warned [that the prohibition of a limb from a live animal applies] to the unclean [species] as it does to the clean [species].”

H.           It was taught on Tannaite authority also in this regard: [Regarding the prohibition against eating] a limb from a live animal — a descendant of Noah is warned [that the prohibition of a limb from a live animal applies] to the unclean [species] as it does to the clean [species]. And an Israelite is warned only [that the prohibition of a limb from a live animal applies] to the clean [species].

I.              Some say: “To a clean one” [i.e., a clean beast] and in accord with the view of R. Meir [that the prohibition applies only to beasts]. And some say: “To clean ones” [i.e., clean beasts, wild animals and fowl] and in accord with the view of our rabbis [E-F above].

J.              Said R. Shizbi, “I too have taught in this regard on Tannaite authority: [The carrion of the unclean bird] ...And (7) he who eats a limb from the living [unclean bird] from it does not receive the forty stripes. And (8) slaughtering it does not render it [i.e., the severed limb] clean [M. Toh. 1:3 H-I]. Concerning whom? If you maintain this concerns an Israelite, it is obvious that slaughtering it does not render it clean. Rather it concerns the descendants of Noah. We may derive the rule [from (8)] that it is prohibited [to them].”

K.            R. Mani bar Patish raised a contradiction from the first text (7) to the last text (8) [in the preceding Mishnah-passage that was cited. It implies first that a limb of an unclean animal is not prohibited and then implies that it is.] And we answer, the first text refers to an Israelite [in accord with the view of sages]. And the last text refers to a descendant of Noah.

L.            Said Rab [var.: said R. Judah, said Rab], “[To be liable for violating the prohibition against eating] a limb from a live animal, you must have [a minimum quantity of] an olive's bulk. What is the basis in scripture for this view? The verse uses the language of `eating' concerning it. [Eating is defined as entailing at least an olive's bulk.]”

M.           R. Amram raised an objection [to the requirement of this minimum quantity]: And (7) he who eats a limb from the living [unclean bird] from it does not receive the forty stripes. And (8) slaughtering it does not render it [i.e., the severed limb] clean [M. Toh. 1:3 H-I]. Now if you concluded that you must have an olive's bulk, let us exclude this [justification that he violated the prohibition against a limb from a living animal] for he did eat an olive's bulk [of unclean meat].

N.           [We may explain that it is not possible for him to eat an olive's bulk of unclean meat.] As R. Nahman said, “Any amount [of meat combines with] sinews and bones [to constitute the olive's bulk].” Here too [it is a case of] any amount [of meat that combines with] sinews and bones [to constitute an olive's bulk].

III.2

A.            Come and take note: For said Rab, [102b] “One who ate a living clean bird of any size [is liable]. [One who eats a bird] after it died [is liable if it is the quantity of] an olive's bulk. [One who ate] an unclean [bird], whether living or dead of any size [is liable].” Here too [the case must be where there is] any amount of flesh [combined together with] sinews and bones [to make up the olive's bulk].

B.            Come and take note: If one took a bird that is not the volume of an olive's bulk and ate it — Rabbi declares exempt. And R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon declares liable. Said R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, “It is derived a fortiori. Now if on account of a limb from a bird [that is alive] one is liable, is it not logical to conclude that for the whole [bird] one should be liable? [If] one strangled it and ate it, [he is exempt] — All would agree that there must be an olive's bulk.” [T. A.Z. 8:6 F-J].

C.            On this point they do not dispute. But one master reasons in accord with the principle that [a whole bird] while alive already has been divided [in theory] into limbs. [When one eats the bird whole he transgresses the prohibition of eating the limbs.] And the other master reasons in accord with the principle that [a bird] while alive has not been divided [in theory] into limbs. Everyone agrees meanwhile that we do not need [to be liable to have a limb in the quantity of] an olive's bulk.

III.3

A.            [Referring back to III.1 N, above]: Said R. Nahman, “Any amount [of meat combines with] sinews and bones [to constitute the olive's bulk].” But is there such [a bird] that does not have a total of an olive's bulk of meat but on one limb has an olive's bulk [of substance] if you combine the [small] amount of meat on it with its sinews and bones? Said R. Sherabia, “Yes, the kallanita [blue-footed gull].”

B.            But consider the latter text [of the Tosefta-passage cited above at III.2 B]: [If] one strangled it and ate it, [he is exempt] — All would agree that there must be an olive's bulk. But lo, the kallanita is an unclean bird. And said Rab, “An unclean bird — whether living or dead — [renders unclean] with any amount at all.” Rather [it must be that the type of bird referred to in A was] one that resembles the kallanita [but is a clean bird].

III.4

A.            Said Raba, “If you wish to say that Rabbi [in T. A.Z. 8:6, cited above] reasoned in accord with the view that deliberation regarding foods is effective [in changing its status], then if he deliberated to eat it limb by limb and then he ate it whole, he would be liable [for eating limbs from a living animal].”

B.            Said to him Abayye, “Is there such a case where if another person ate it he would not be liable [for eating a limb from a living bird], but if he ate it he would be liable?” He [Raba] said to him, “This one is judged in accord with his deliberation and this one is judged in accord with his deliberation.”

C.            Said Raba, “If you wish to say that R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon reasoned in accord with the view that deliberation regarding foods is effective [in changing its status], then if he deliberated to eat it dead and he ate it alive, he would be exempt.”

D.            Said to him Abayye, “Is there such a case where if another person ate it he would be liable [for eating a limb from a living bird], but if he ate it he would not be liable?” He [Raba] said to him, “This one is judged in accord with his deliberation and this one is judged in accord with his deliberation.”

III.5

A.            Said R. Yohanan, “`And you shall not eat the life with the flesh' (Deut. 12:23) — this is [the source of the prohibition against eating] a limb from a living animal. `You shall not eat any meat that is mangled by beasts in the field' (Exod. 22:31) — this is [the source of the prohibition against eating] flesh torn from a living animal and flesh torn from a terefah-animal.”

B.            Said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “`And you shall not eat the life with the flesh' (Deut. 12:23) — this is [the source of the prohibition against eating] a limb from a living animal and flesh torn from a living animal. `You shall not eat any meat that is mangled by beasts in the field' (Exod. 22:31) — this is [the source of the prohibition against eating] flesh torn from a terefah-animal.”

C.            One who ate a limb from a living animal and flesh torn from a living animal — according to R. Yohanan he is liable for violating two prohibitions; according to R. Simeon b. Laqish he is liable for violating only one prohibition.

D.            One who ate flesh torn from a living animal and flesh torn from a terefah-animal — according to R. Simeon b. Laqish he is liable for violating two prohibitions; according to R. Yohanan he is liable for violating only one prohibition.

E.            One who ate a limb from a living animal and flesh torn from a terefah-animal — according to both authorities he is liable for violating two prohibitions.