## Chullin Daf 102b

###### Chullin 102b:1
[Chullin 102b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:1)

אָכַל צִפּוֹר טְהוֹרָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ – בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, בְּמִיתָתָהּ – בִּכְזַיִת, וּטְמֵאָה בֵּין בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין בְּמִיתָתָהּ – בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 102b:2
[Chullin 102b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נָטַל צִפּוֹר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ – רַבִּי פּוֹטֵר, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַיֵּיב. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, עַל אֵבֶר מִמֶּנָּה חַיָּיב, עַל כּוּלָּהּ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן! חֲנָקָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּכְזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 102b:3
[Chullin 102b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:3)

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: בְּחַיֶּיהָ לְאֵבָרִים עוֹמֶדֶת, וּמָר סָבַר: בְּחַיֶּיהָ לָאו לְאֵבָרִים עוֹמֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 102b:4
[Chullin 102b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:4)

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא לָא בָּעֵינַן כְּזַיִת, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר, גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 102b:5
[Chullin 102b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:5)

וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דִּבְכוּלֵּיהּ לֵית בֵּיהּ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, וּבְחַד אֵבֶר אִית כְּזַיִת בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בָּשָׂר גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת? אָמַר רַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא: אִין, בִּקְלָנִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 102b:6
[Chullin 102b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:6)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: חֲנָקָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּכְזַיִת, וְהָא קְלָנִיתָא עוֹף טָמֵא הוּא, וְאָמַר רַב: טְמֵאָה, בֵּין בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין בְּמִיתָתָהּ, בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ! אֶלָּא כְּעֵין קְלָנִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 102b:7
[Chullin 102b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:7)

אָמַר רָבָא: אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר סָבַר רַבִּי מַחְשְׁבֶת אֳכָלִין שְׁמָהּ מַחְשָׁבָה, חִישֵּׁב לְאוֹכְלָהּ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר, וַאֲכָלָהּ כּוּלָּהּ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chullin 102b:8
[Chullin 102b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּאִילּוּ אָכֵיל לֵיהּ אַחֵר – לָא מִיחַיַּיב, וְאָכֵיל לֵיהּ הַאי – מִיחַיַּיב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ, וְזֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 102b:9
[Chullin 102b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:9)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר סָבַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַחְשְׁבֶת אֳכָלִין שְׁמָהּ מַחְשָׁבָה, חִישֵּׁב לְאוֹכְלָהּ מֵתָה, וַאֲכָלָהּ חַיָּה – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 102b:10
[Chullin 102b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּאִילּוּ אָכֵיל לֵיהּ אַחֵר מִחַיַּיב, וְאָכֵיל לֵיהּ הַאי פָּטוּר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ, וְזֶה לְפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 102b:11
[Chullin 102b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״ – זֶה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – זֶה בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chullin 102b:12
[Chullin 102b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:12)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״ – זֶה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַחַי, ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – זֶה בָּשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.**


###### Chullin 102b:13
[Chullin 102b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:13)

אָכַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַחַי – לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָכַל בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה – לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָכַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבָשָׂר מִן הַטְּרֵפָה – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 102b:14
[Chullin 102b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/102b:14)

וּרְמִינְהוּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: