F. And they raised a contradiction: [103a] One who ate a limb from a living animal that was terefah — R. Yohanan said, “He is liable for violating two prohibitions.” R. Simeon b. Laqish said, “He is liable for violating only one prohibition.”
G. It is consistent according to R. Yohanan and the matter is settled. But according to R. Simeon b. Laqish there is an inconsistency. Said R. Joseph, “There does not have to be an inconsistency. [You can say] this one [rule] refers to [flesh torn] from one animal. And this one refers to [flesh torn] from two animals. Where there were two animals, he is liable for violating two prohibitions. Where there is one animal, they disputed the matter.”
H. Where there is one animal, what did they dispute? Said Abayye, “The case in question [that they disputed] is one where the animal became a terefah as the majority of it emerged from its [mother at its birth]. One authority reasons in accord with the principle that [a whole] animal while alive already has been divided [in theory] into limbs. So the prohibition [against eating] a terefah-animal and the prohibition [against eating] the limbs take effect at the same moment. And the other authority reasons in accord with the principle that an animal while alive has not been divided [in theory] into limbs. And the prohibition [against eating] the limb does not apply on top of the prohibition [against eating] a terefah-animal.”
I. If you prefer [another explanation]: All agree with the principle that [a bird] while alive has not been divided [in theory] into limbs. They dispute whether the prohibition [against eating] the limbs can come and apply on top of the prohibition [against eating] a terefah-animal. One authority reasons in accord with the view that the prohibition [against eating] the limbs can come and apply on top of the prohibition [against eating] a terefah-animal. And one authority reasons in accord with the view that the prohibition [against eating] the limbs cannot come and apply on top of the prohibition [against eating] a terefah-animal.
J. If you prefer [another explanation]: All agree with the principle that [a bird] while alive has not been divided [in theory] into limbs. And the case in question is one where the animal became terefah afterward. They dispute whether the prohibition [against eating] a terefah-animal can come and apply on top of the prohibition [against eating] limbs. One authority reasons in accord with the view that [the prohibition against eating a terefah-animal] can come and apply on top of [the prohibition against eating the limbs]. And one authority reasons in accord with the view that [the prohibition against eating a terefah-animal] cannot come and apply on top of [the prohibition against eating the limbs].
K. Raba said, “The case in question is one where he tore off a limb and in so doing rendered the animal terefah. One authority reasons in accord with the principle that an animal while alive has not been divided [in theory] into limbs. And the prohibition [against eating] the limb and the prohibition [against eating] a terefah-animal take effect at the same moment. And one master reasons in accord with the principle that [a whole bird] while alive already has been divided [in theory] into limbs. So the prohibition [against eating] a terefah-animal does not come and apply on top of the prohibition [against eating] the limbs.”
L. Said R. Hiyya bar Abba, said R. Yohanan, “One who ate [forbidden] fat torn from a living animal that was a terefah-animal is liable for violating two prohibitions.” Said to him R. Ammi, “Why does the master not maintain [that he violated] three [prohibitions]? For I say [he violated] three.”
M. It also was stated: Said R. Abbahu, said R. Yohanan, “One who ate fat torn from a living animal that was a terefah-animal is liable for violating three prohibitions.”
N. Concerning what principles do they dispute in this matter? The case in question [that they disputed] is one where the animal became a terefah as the majority of it emerged from its [mother at its birth]. The authority who reasons he is liable for three [violations], reasons in accord with the principle that [a whole] animal while alive already has been divided [in theory] into limbs. So the prohibition [against eating] the fat and prohibition [against eating] a terefah-animal and the prohibition [against eating] the limbs take effect at the same moment. And the authority who reasons he is liable for two [violations], reasons in accord with the principle that an animal while alive has not been divided [in theory] into limbs. And the prohibitions [against eating] the fat or a terefah-animal are there. And the prohibition [against eating] the limb does not apply on top of them.”
O. If you prefer [another explanation]: all agree with the principle that an animal while alive has not been divided [in theory] into limbs. They dispute whether the prohibition [against eating] the limbs can come and apply on top of the prohibitions [against eating] the fat or a terefah-animal. One authority reasons in accord with the view that the prohibition [against eating] the limbs can come and apply on top of the prohibitions [against eating] the fat or a terefah-animal. And one authority reasons in accord with the view that the prohibition [against eating] the limbs cannot come and apply on top of the prohibitions [against eating] the fat or a terefah-animal.
P. If you prefer [another explanation]: all agree with the principle that an animal while alive has not been divided [in theory] into limbs. And the case in question is one where the animal became terefah afterward. They dispute whether the prohibition [against eating] a terefah-animal can come and apply on top of the prohibitions [against eating] the fat or limbs. One authority reasons in accord with the view that [the prohibition against eating a terefah-animal] can come and apply on top of [the prohibitions against eating the fat or limbs].
Q. It is the same [in that respect] as in the case of the prohibition [against eating] fat [that another prohibition can apply on top of it]. [See b. 37a, Zahavy, ullin, vol. I, p. 203 in reference to the verse: “The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use, but on no account shall you eat it” (Lev. 7:24).] For said the master, “[What new law does Lev. 7:24 come to tell us? The prohibition of fat and blood was previously spelled out in Lev. 3:17.] The Torah said: Let the prohibition [against eating] carrion come and apply on top of the prohibition [against eating] fat.” And so let the prohibition [against eating] a terefah-animal come and apply on top of the prohibition [against eating] fat.
R. And the other [authority]? [He would say that] it applies on top of [the prohibition of] fat since there are some kinds [of fat] that are permitted [i.e., fat of a wild animal]. [103b] But it would not [apply on top of the prohibition of eating] a limb since there are none of its kind [i.e., limbs from a living animal] that are permitted.
III.6
A. When R. Dimi came [from Israel] he said: R. Simeon b. Laqish posed a question to R. Yohanan: “If he cut up [the olive's bulk of a limb of a living animal] outside [of his mouth and then ate it in smaller quantities] what is the law?” He [Yohanan] said to him, “He is exempt [from any violation].” [He asked: “What if he separated the olive's bulk] inside [of his mouth and swallowed pieces that were each less than an olive's bulk]?” He said to him, “He is liable.”
B. When Rabin came [from Israel] he said: If he cut up [the olive's bulk of a limb of a living animal] outside [of his mouth and then ate it in smaller quantities] he is exempt [from any violation]. If he separated the olive's bulk] inside [of his mouth and swallowed pieces that were each less than an olive's bulk] — R. Yohanan said, “He is liable.” And Resh Laqish said, “He is exempt.”
C. R. Yohanan said, “He is liable.” Behold his gullet has benefited from [ingesting] an olive's bulk. And Resh Laqish said, “He is exempt.” We must have consumption of an olive's bulk [at one time] in his belly [for him to be liable]. And here we do not have it.
D. But then according to the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish how would we ever find a case in which he would be liable? [One always chews it up into small pieces.]
E. Said R. Kahana, “[A case is] the patella-bone [i.e., it is small and swallowed whole].”
F. And R. Eleazar said, “Even if he cut up [the olive's bulk of a limb of a living animal] outside [of his mouth and then ate it in smaller quantities] he is liable [based on the principle that actions] that are disconnected are not necessarily separate acts. [Even if he does it less than an olive's bulk at a time, they may be deemed part of the same act of eating.]
III.7
A. Said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “The olive's bulk that they speak of [includes all of what one ate] except for the material that sticks between his teeth.” And R. Yohanan said, “You may include [in the olive's bulk] the material that sticks between his teeth.”
B. Said R. Pappa, “Regarding the material that sticks between his teeth nobody disputes [that it cannot be included]. Concerning what material did they dispute? The material that stuck to his gums. One authority reasons that behold his gullet has benefitted from [ingesting] an olive's bulk. And one authority holds that we must have consumption of an olive's bulk [at one time] in his belly [for him to be liable. And here we do not have it, as in III.6 C, above].”
C. Said R. Assi, said R. Yohanan, “One who ate half an olive's bulk and threw it up and then ate another half an olive's bulk is liable. What principle is the basis for this rule? Behold his gullet has benefited from [ingesting] an olive's bulk.”
D. R. Eleazar posed a question to R. Assi: One who ate half an olive's bulk and threw it up and then ate another half an olive's bulk — what is the law? But what is the point of this question? If he was not sure whether to consider [what he threw up to have been] digested or not digested, then let him pose the question for the case of an olive's bulk [or more of food]. If he was not sure whether to consider determinative the gullet's benefit or the belly's benefit, let him resolve that question by making reference to the teaching attributed to R. Assi himself [at C immediately above, i.e., the gullet's benefit determines the status].
E. R. Assi forgot his own teaching and R. Eleazar came and reminded him of it. And here is how he stated the matter to him, “Why must I consider [in this case of one who ate half an olive's bulk and threw it up, that he then ate] another half an olive's bulk? Let the master maintain that [he ate again] the same one [that he had thrown up].” Then you would derive from this [response] two things. We would derive from this that we do not consider [what he threw up to have been] digested. And we would derive from this [that we adhere to the principle that one is liable if] behold his gullet has benefited from [ingesting] an olive's bulk.
F. [Assi] sat mute and said nothing to him in reply. He [Eleazar] said to him, “Marvel of our times! Did you not state this matter many times before R. Yohanan? And he said to you [one is liable if] behold his gullet has benefited from [ingesting] an olive's bulk.”
Unit I.1 identifies the operative principle of the M.-passage. I.2-3 develop questions out of the foregoing. II.1 cites T. to clarify M. and poses a question. III.1-7 cites a passage from T. Zabim and adds an appendix that deals with the prohibition of limbs and flesh from a living animal to conclude the chapter.
Bavli ullin Chapter Eight Folios 103B-117B
8:1 A-E
A. Every [kind of] flesh [i.e., meat, of cattle, wild beast, and fowl] is it prohibited to cook in milk,
B. except for the flesh of fish and locusts.
C. And it is prohibited to serve it up onto the table with cheese,
D. except for the flesh of fish and locusts.
E. [104a] He who vows [to abstain] from flesh is permitted [to make use of] the flesh of fish and locusts.
No comments:
Post a Comment