Talmud - Hullin 102b חולין ק״ב ב׳

If one ate a kosher bird alive, one is punished with lashes for any amount, i.e., even if he ate less than an olive-bulk. If the bird was dead and was not ritually slaughtered, one is punished with lashes only if he ate an olive-bulk. And if one ate a whole bird of a non-kosher species, whether he ate it when it was alive or dead, he is punished with lashes for any amount, i.e., even if the bird contained less than an olive-bulk of meat. The Gemara answers: Here also explain that Rav’s statement is referring to a case of eating a small amount of meat along with sinews and bones, and the total volume is an olive-bulk.

Come and hear another challenge based upon a baraita: With regard to one who took a live bird of a kosher species that did not have a volume of an olive-bulk and ate it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi exempts him from lashes and Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon deems him liable for lashes. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: He should be liable based upon an a fortiori inference: If one is liable to receive lashes for eating a limb of a living animal, all the more so is it not clear that one is liable to receive lashes for eating all of it? The baraita concludes: With regard to one who strangled the bird and ate it, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive lashes only if it had the volume of an olive-bulk.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, disagree only with regard to one who ate an entire live bird, as one Sage, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that even during its life all creatures stand to be divided into limbs, i.e., they will ultimately be cut into pieces. Consequently, each of its limbs is considered a separate entity, and even if one eats a limb without first separating it from the rest of the body, one violates the prohibition of eating a limb from a living being. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that during its life it does not stand to be divided into limbs. Therefore, one does not violate the prohibition of eating a limb from a living being unless he severs a limb from the body.

But in any event, everyone agrees that we do not require one to eat an olive-bulk of meat in order to be liable for lashes for eating a limb from a living being, which is the basis of the a fortiori inference of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Naḥman says in response: Explain that the baraita is referring to a case where one ate a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones, making a total of an olive-bulk.

The Gemara challenges this answer: But is there any bird that does not have an olive-bulk of meat in its whole body, but in one limb it has an olive-bulk of the combination of a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones? Rav Sherevya said: Yes, this is the case with regard to the kelanita, a bird that is very small and scrawny.

The Gemara challenges this answer that the baraita is referring to a kelanita. Say the latter clause: With regard to one who strangled the bird and ate it, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive lashes only if it had the volume of an olive-bulk. But a kelanita is a non-kosher bird, and Rav says: If one eats a whole non-kosher bird, whether he eats it when it is alive or dead, he is punished with lashes for eating any amount. The Gemara answers: The baraita is not referring to an actual kelanita, but rather to a kosher species of bird similar to a kelanita in that it is small and scrawny.

§ The Gemara above cited a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, with regard to one who eats an entire live kosher bird that is less than an olive-bulk. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that an entire bird is not considered to be a limb and is therefore not included in the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, Rava said: If you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that thought with regard to food is considered thought, i.e., one’s thoughts have halakhic significance in determining a food’s status, then in a case where one thought to eat the bird limb by limb, and instead ate it all at once, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hold that he is liable for transgressing the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal.

Abaye said to Rava: But is there anything with regard to which if another person ate it he would not be liable, but if this person ate it he is liable? Rava said to Abaye: There can be different outcomes for different people who perform the same act, as this individual’s action is judged according to his thought and that individual’s action is judged according to his thought.

And Rava also said: If you say that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon holds that thought with regard to food is considered thought, then in a case where one at first intended to eat the entire bird after it had died, but ultimately he ate it alive, Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon would hold that he is exempt from lashes, as according to his thought it does not stand to be divided into limbs while alive.

Abaye said to Rava: But is there anything that if another person ate it he would be liable, but if this person ate it he is exempt? Rava said to Abaye: This individual’s action is judged according to his thought and that individual’s action is judged according to his thought.

§ The Gemara discusses the source of the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: “You shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23); this is the source for the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal. And the verse: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30); this is the source for the prohibition of eating flesh severed from the living and flesh severed from a tereifa, even if it is not an entire limb.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: “You shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23); this is the source for the prohibitions of eating a limb from a living animal and of eating flesh severed from the living. And the verse: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30); this is the source for the prohibition of eating flesh severed from a tereifa.

The Gemara clarifies the difference between these two opinions. If one ate a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from the living, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan he is liable to receive two sets of lashes but according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. Conversely, if one ate flesh severed from the living and flesh severed from a tereifa, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish he is liable to receive two sets of lashes but according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If one ate a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from a tereifa, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive two sets of lashes.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the claim that everyone agrees that one who eats both a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from a tereifa is liable to receive two sets of lashes, based upon the following statement:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Chullin 102b examines lashes for eating a live or dead kosher bird versus a non-kosher bird, weighing volume requirements against the prohibition of eating a limb from a living creature.