Chullin 203
(דברים יב, כג) לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר
and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 23. This verse contains two prohibitions: against eating blood and against eating the limb of a living creature, for the latter part of the verse is interpreted as: Thou shalt not eat the flesh whilst the animal is still alive.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ר' יהודה ור' אלעזר סברי
R'Judah and R'Eleazar hold that where you are forbidden the blood [of an animal] you are also forbidden the limbs severed therefrom, and as you are forbidden the blood of unclean animals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. M. Ker. V, 1.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
והני טמאין נמי הואיל ואתה מצווה על דמן אתה מצווה על אברין
The Sages, however, maintain: It is written: 'And thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh', but the flesh alone [you may eat]; therefore, where you are permitted the flesh [of the animal] you are forbidden the limbs severed therefrom, but where you are not permitted the flesh [of the animal] you are not forbidden the limbs severed therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But of course there is the prohibition of the flesh of an unclean animal.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר אלא בשר לחודיה
Surely the prohibition of the 'limb' can be superimposed upon the prohibition of uncleanness, since the prohibition of the former applies even to the sons of Noah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 100b. The sons of Noah were forbidden to eat the limb of a living animal, cf. Gen. IX, 4. This was one of the seven commandments imposed upon them. Cf. Sanh. 56a.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ור' יהודה למה ליה קרא
It has been taught likewise: The [prohibition of the] limb of a living creature applies to cattle, wild beas and birds, either clean or unclean, for it is written: 'Only be steadfast in not eating the blood etc.' , that is say, where you are forbidden the blood you are also forbidden the limbs severed therefrom, and where you are not forbidden the blood of an animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. the blood of fish and of locusts.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
תניא נמי הכי
It applies only to clean animals, for it is written: 'Thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh, the flesh alone [you may eat]; therefore, where you are permitted the flesh you are then forbidden the limbs' severed therefrom, but where you are not permitted the flesh you are then not forbidden the limbs severed therefrom.
ר' מאיר אומר
Because the verse reads: Thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 21. This verse precedes the law of the limb of a living animal (verse 23) and as it expressly mentions herds and flocks wild beasts and birds are excluded.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
שמואל שילא שימי)
It has been taught likewise: As to the limb of a living creature a descendant of Noah is warned against [eating] it, whether it be of a clean or unclean animal, whereas an Israelite is warned only against [eating] the limb of a clean animal.
אמר רב גידל אמר רב
whilst alive, he does not suffer forty stripes; and the slaughtering thereof does not render it clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., does not render it permitted to be eaten. 'Clean' cannot mean here 'free from defilement' because no uncleanness whatsoever is attached to the carcass of a bird that is forbidden to be eaten.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אבר מן החי בן נח מוזהר עליו על הטמאים כטהורים וישראל אינו מוזהר אלא על הטהורין בלבד
It could only have been said of a descendant of Noah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the implication is that even after the slaughtering the descendant of Noah is not permitted to eat of it until it ia quite dead, for otherwise he would be eating the limb of a living animal and this is forbidden to him.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
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.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
אמר רב שיזבי אף אנן נמי תנינא
The [prohibition of a] limb severed from a living creature requires [at least] an olive's bulk, because the expression 'eating'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An olive's bulk is the minimum amount to constitute 'eating'.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
רבי מני בר פטיש רמי רישא אסיפא ומשני
Now if you were to hold that there must be an olive's bulk, then guilt is established because of eating an olive's bulk [of what is unclean]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which he would incur stripes, quite apart from any consideration regarding the limb of a living creature.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
רישא בישראל וסיפא בבן נח
- As R'Nahman suggested elsewhere that there was only a little flesh but the sinews and bones [combined to make up the olive's bulk], so here too, we must say that there was only a little flesh but the sinews and bones [combined to make up the olive's bulk].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would not involve the prohibition of flesh of an unclean animal since there must be an olive's bulk of flesh excluding bones and sinews; on the other hand, a limb consisting of flesh, bones and sinews, in all the size of an olive, is subject to the prohibition of a limb severed from a living creature.');"><sup>19</sup></span>