Chullin 204:1
אכל צפור טהורה בחייה בכל שהוא במיתתה בכזית
If a person ate a clean bird whilst it was yet alive, however small it was [he is liable],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is liable for transgressing the prohibition of a limb of a living creature, for the eating of the entire bird alive is certainly equivalent to the eating of a limb severed from the living bird. It is apparent, therefore, that Rab does not insist upon the minimum quantity of an olive's bulk with regard to this prohibition, thus contradicting his own previous statement.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
וטמאה בין בחייה בין במיתתה בכל שהוא
if dead, only if it was as large as an olive's bulk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is liable for eating nebelah for which there must be the minimum quantity of an olive's bulk.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
הכא נמי
[If he ate] an unclean bird, whether alive or dead, however small it was, [he is liable].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is a complete entity expressly prohibited by the Torah, and one is liable for it no matter how small it is. Cf. Mak. 13a.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
במשהו בשר גידים ועצמות
- Here too we must suppose there was only a little flesh but the sinews and bones [combined to make up the olive's bulk].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'however small it was' refers to the amount of flesh, but actually a whole olive's bulk was eaten which included the sinews and bones,');"><sup>4</sup></span>
נטל צפור שאין בו כזית ואכלו רבי פוטר ור' אלעזר בר ר"ש מחייב
If a person took a [clean] bird, the whole of which was not as large as an olive's bulk, and ate it, Rabbi holds that he is not liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' pot the law concerning the limb of a living animal refers specifically to a limb and does not include the entire living creature.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
חנקה ואכלה דברי הכל בכזית
If he is liable for a limb thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the whole limb was not as large as an olive's bulk. This is not disputed by Rabbi, hence the objection is apparent against Rab.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
עד כאן לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר בחייה לאברים עומדת ומר סבר בחייה לאו לאברים עומדת
surely he is liable for the whole of it! If he strangled it and ate it, all agree that there must be a much as an olive's bulk [in order to render him liable].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the prohibition here is that of nebelah, the minimum quantity of an olive's bulk is essential,');"><sup>8</sup></span>
דכ"ע מיהא לא בעינן כזית
Now their disagreement is only on this point, viz. , one holds that [an animal even] whilst alive stands to be dismembered into limbs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the prohibition of a limb of a living creature attaches to the animal whilst yet whole, and if a man eats an entire living creature he has certainly eaten a limb of a living creature as comprehended within the prohibition. In fact he has eaten many such limbs, nevertheless he is liable but once since presumably he received only one warning. This is the view of R. Eleazar b, R. Simeon.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
אמר רב נחמן
and the other holds that whilst alive it does not stand to be dismembered into limbs;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of a limb of a living creature only comes about when the limb is actually severed from the body; such is the opinion of Rabbi.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
במשהו בשר גידים ועצמות
but thus far they are agreed, namely, that [in the case of a limb] the size of an olive's bulk is not necessary! - Said R'Nahman, [it is a case where] there was only a little flesh but the sinews and bones [combined to make up the olive's bulk].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'the whole of which was not as large as an olive's bulk' refers to the flesh only, but with the bones and sinews there certainly was as much as an olive's bulk.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ומי איכא מידי דבכוליה לית ביה כזית בשר ובחד אבר אית כזית במשהו בשר גידין ועצמות
But is there such a creature, the whole of which does not carry an olive's bulk of flesh and yet in one limb there is as much as an olive's bulk made up of a little flesh and sinews and bones? - R'Sherebia replied: Yes, it is the kallanitha.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A thin and scraggly bird. According to Levysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, p. 183, a species of gull, probably the blue-footed gull.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
והא קלניתא עוף טמא הוא ואמר רב
Raba said: If you can find authority for saying that Rabbi holds, an intention with regard to foodstuffs is consequence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its name is an intention',');"><sup>13</sup></span>
אלא
limb by limb but actually ate it whole, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this person had expressed his intention to eat the bird limb by limb the prohibition of the limb of a living creature attaches forthwith, and he would be liable even though he ate it whole.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
כעין קלניתא
Said to him Abaye: Is there anything which if another were to eat, that other would not be liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So long as that other person had expressed no intention with regard to it.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
את"ל סבר רבי מחשבת אוכלין שמה מחשבה חישב לאוכלה אבר אבר ואכלה כולה חייב
Raba also said: If you can find authority for saying that R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon holds, an intention with regard to foodstuffs is of consequence, then if a person intended to eat the bird<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a bird the whole of which was not as large as an olive's bulk.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
א"ל אביי
dead<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is evident from the expressed intention that the bird was not to be dismembered whilst alive; therefore the prohibition of the limb of a living creature does not apply to it. apb');"><sup>17</sup></span>
זה לפי מחשבתו וזה לפי מחשבתו
R'Johanan said: The verse: Thou salt not eat the life with the flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 23. I.e., thou shalt not eat a limb whilst there is yet life in the flesh. The word , 'nefesh' (soul) in the verse refers to an entire limb, for once a limb is gone it cannot return or be replaced just as when the soul is gone.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ואמר רבא
refers to a limb [severed] from a living creature; and the verse: Ye shall not eat any flesh in the field, that is trefah [torn of beasts],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 30. The interpretation is, flesh in the field i.e., cut away from its place in the living animal, or flesh of a trefah animal, ye shall not e');"><sup>19</sup></span>
א"ל אביי
R'Simeon B'Lakish said: The verse: 'Thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh', refers to a limb [severed] from the living creature and als to flesh [severed] from a living creature; and the verse: ' Ye shall not eat any flesh in the field, that is tre [torn of beasts]', refers to flesh of a trefah animal.
ומי איכא מידי דאילו אכיל ליה אחר מחייב ואכיל ליה האי פטור
If a person ate a limb [severed] from a living creature a also flesh [severed] from a living creature,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At one meal and the offender was only given one warning.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
א"ל
according to R'Johanan he is liable twice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the transgression of two prohibitions, since each prohibition is derived from separate verses. 'Liable' throughout this passage means liable to the penalty of stripes unless expressly stated otherwise.');"><sup>21</sup></span>