Mesorat%20hashas for Chullin 203:31

טהורה ור"מ

R'Mani B'Pattish pointed out a contradiction between the first clause and the second clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first clause implies that the prohibition of a limb severed from a living creature does not apply to unclean animals since it rules that he who eats it does not suffer stripes, whereas the inference from the second clause is that the limb of an unclean living animal is forbidden. V. prec. n.');">¹⁴</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Chullin 203:31. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.