Chullin 204

Chapter 204

א אכל צפור טהורה בחייה בכל שהוא במיתתה בכזית וטמאה בין בחייה בין במיתתה בכל שהוא הכא נמי במשהו בשר גידים ועצמות

1 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.');">1 if dead, only if it was as large as an olive's bulk.2 [If he ate] an unclean bird, whether alive or dead, however small it was, [he is liable].3 - Here too we must suppose there was only a little flesh but the sinews and bones [combined to make up the olive's bulk].4

ב ת"ש נטל צפור שאין בו כזית ואכלו רבי פוטר ור' אלעזר בר ר"ש מחייב אמר ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון ק"ו על אבר ממנה חייב על כולה לא כל שכן חנקה ואכלה דברי הכל בכזית

2 Come and hear: [It was taught]:5 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,6 and R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon declares him liable. R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon said: Is there not here an a fortiori argument? If he is liable for a limb thereof,7

ג עד כאן לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר בחייה לאברים עומדת ומר סבר בחייה לאו לאברים עומדת

3 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].8

ד דכ"ע מיהא לא בעינן כזית אמר רב נחמן במשהו בשר גידים ועצמות

4 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.');">9 and the other holds that whilst alive it does not stand to be dismembered into limbs;10 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.');">11

ה ומי איכא מידי דבכוליה לית ביה כזית בשר ובחד אבר אית כזית במשהו בשר גידין ועצמות אמר רב שרביא אין בקלניתא

5 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.12 Consider then the final clause. It reads: 'If he strangled it and ate it, all agree that there must be as much a an olive's bulk [in order to render him liable]'.

ו אימא סיפא חנקה ואכלה דברי הכל בכזית והא קלניתא עוף טמא הוא ואמר רב טמאה בין בחייה בין במיתתה במשהו אלא כעין קלניתא

6 Is not the kallanitha an unclean bird? and Rab has stated, [If person ate] an unclean bird, whether alive or dead, however small it was,[he is liable]! - What was meant was a [clean] bird like the kallanitha. Raba said: If you can find authority for saying that Rabbi holds, an intention with regard to foodstuffs is consequence,13 then if a person intended to eat this bird14 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.');">15 Said to him Abaye: Is there anything which if another were to eat, that other would not be liable,16

ז אמר רבא את"ל סבר רבי מחשבת אוכלין שמה מחשבה חישב לאוכלה אבר אבר ואכלה כולה חייב

7 and if this person were to eat he would be liable? - He replied: Each man is considered according to his intention with regard to it. 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 bird14

ח א"ל אביי ומי איכא מידי דאילו אכיל ליה אחר לא מיחייב ואכיל ליה האי מיחייב אמר ליה זה לפי מחשבתו וזה לפי מחשבתו

8 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');">17 and he ate it alive, he is not liable. Said to him Abaye: Is there anything which if another were to eat, that other would be liable, and if this person were to eat he would not be liable? - He replied: Each man is considered according to his intention with regard to it. 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.');">18

ט ואמר רבא אם תמצא לומר סבר ר' אלעזר בר ר' שמעון מחשבת אוכלין שמה מחשבה חישב לאוכלה מתה ואכלה חיה פטור

9 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],19 refers to flesh [severed] from a living creature and also to flesh of a trefah animal.

י א"ל אביי ומי איכא מידי דאילו אכיל ליה אחר מחייב ואכיל ליה האי פטור א"ל זה לפי מחשבתו וזה לפי מחשבתו

10 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. If a person ate a limb [severed] from a living creature a also flesh [severed] from a living creature,20 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.');">21 and according to R'Simeon B'Lakish he is liable but once.22

יא אמר ר' יוחנן (דברים יב, כג) לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר זה אבר מן החי (שמות כב, ל) ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו זה בשר מן החי ובשר מן הטרפה

11 If a person ate flesh [severed] from a living creature and also flesh of a trefah animal, according to R'Simeon B'Lakish he is liable twice, and according to R'Johanan he is liable but once. If a person ate a limb [severed] from a living creature and also flesh of a trefah animal, according to both he is liable twice.

יב ור"ש בן לקיש אמר לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר זה אבר מן החי ובשר מן החי ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו זה בשר מן הטרפה

12 A contradiction was pointed out from the following:

יג אכל אבר מן החי ובשר מן החי לר' יוחנן חייב שתים לר"ש בן לקיש אינו חייב אלא אחת אכל בשר מן החי ובשר מן הטרפה לר"ש בן לקיש חייב שתים לר' יוחנן אינו חייב אלא אחת אכל אבר מן החי ובשר מן הטרפה לדברי הכל חייב שתים

יד ורמינהו

Previous Chapter Next Chapter