POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Chulin 102
CHULIN 101-102 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
1) "EVER MIN HA'CHAI"
(a) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah and R. Elazar): The Isur of Ever
Min ha'Chai (a limb of a living animal) applies to
Behemos, Chayos and birds, both Tehorim and Teme'im;
2) THE QUANTITY FOR WHICH ONE IS LIABLE
1. Chachamim say, it applies only to Tehorim.
(b) R. Yochanan: They both learn from "Do not eat the blood,
for the blood is the soul; do not eat the soul with the
flesh (i.e. do not eat the flesh while it still has its
1. R. Yehudah and R. Elazar say, the verse discusses
everything whose blood is forbidden - this includes
(c) Question: Why does R. Yehudah need a verse to teach that
the Isur applies to Teme'im -Ever Min ha'Chai is
forbidden even to Benei No'ach, such an Isur is Chal Al
Isur (like he holds about Gid ha'Nasheh)!
2. Chachamim expound, "Do not eat the soul with the
flesh" - rather, eat the flesh alone (after its soul
departed) - the verse discusses animals whose flesh
is permitted, i.e. Tehorim.
(d) Answer: Indeed, he does not need a verse; R. Yochanan
explains R. Elazar's source that the Isur applies to
(e) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa - R. Elazar): "Do not
eat the blood, for the blood is the soul; do not eat the
soul with the flesh" - the verse discusses everything
whose blood is forbidden - this includes Teme'im;
1. Chachamim expound, "do not eat the soul with the
flesh" - rather, eat the flesh alone - the verse
discusses animals whose flesh is permitted, i.e.
(f) (Rabah bar Shmuel): R. Meir learns from a previous verse
"From your cattle and flock" that this applies only to
2. R. Meir says, it applies only to Behemos Tehoros.
(g) (Rav Gidal): The Tana'im only argue regarding Yisrael,
but all agree that Benei No'ach are also commanded about
(h) Support #1 (Beraisa): Benei No'ach are commanded about
Ever Min ha'Chai of Teme'im just like of Tehorim;
1. Benei Yisrael are commanded only about Tehorim.
(i) Support #2 (Rav Shizbi - Mishnah): The following apply to
a Tamei bird:
2. Version #1: The correct text of the Beraisa says
*Teme'ah* and *Tehorah*; the singular form indicates
that these apply only to a Behemah - this is like R.
3. Version #2: The correct text of the Beraisa says
*Teme'im* and *Tehorim*; the plural form indicates
that this applies to Behemos, Chayos and birds -
this is like Chachamim.
1. One who eats Ever Min ha'Chai is not lashed;
slaughtering it does not permit it.
(j) Question: To whom does this apply?
1. It cannot apply to a Yisrael - obviously,
slaughtering it does not permit it!
(k) Answer: It applies to a Ben No'ach (slaughter does not
permit it while it is still quivering - it is forbidden
like (limbs of) a living animal until it dies).
(l) Question (Rav Mani bar Patish): The Reisha says that Ever
Min ha'Chai does not apply to a Tamei bird (it exempts
from lashes), the Seifa says that it does apply!
(m) Answer (Rav Mani bar Patish): The Reisha applies to
Yisraelim, the Seifa to Benei No'ach.
(a) (Rav): To be liable for eating Ever Min ha'Chai, one must
eat a k'Zayis.
1. This is because the Torah forbids 'eating' it, this
always connotes a k'Zayis.
(b) Question (Rav Amram - Mishnah): One who eats Ever Min
ha'Chai (of a Tamei bird) is not lashed; slaughtering it
does not permit it.
1. According to Rav, the Chidush (that he is not
lashed) is only if he eats a k'Zayis - but then he
would be lashed for eating a k'Zayis of a Tamei
(c) Answer: We answer like Rav Nachman said (elsewhere) - he
ate a limb that was a k'Zayis, but that k'Zayis was
comprised of less than a k'Zayis of flesh, together with
bones and sinews (the Isur against eating a Tamei species
does not apply to bones and sinews).
(d) Contradiction: But Rav taught, if one eats a (whole) live
Tahor bird he is liable, no matter how small it is;
3) FLESH OF A LIVING ANIMAL
1. If it was dead (Neveilah), he is only liable for a
(e) Answer: Here also, the case (of Rav's first law) is, the
entire bird was a k'Zayis, the flesh was less.
2. Regarding a Tamei bird, whether alive or dead, he is
liable now matter how small it is.
(f) (Beraisa - Rebbi): If one eats a (whole) live bird less
than a k'Zayis, he is exempt;
1. R. Elazar bar Shimon is Mechayav.
(g) Question (against Rav): They only argue whether or not a
living being is l'Evarim Omedes (perhaps since it
eventually will be cut into limbs, Ever Min ha'Chai
2. R. Elazar bar Shimon: One is liable for eating one
limb - all the more so, he is liable for the whole
3. If he strangled it and ate it, all agree he is
liable only for a k'Zayis (for eating Neveilah).
1. R. Elazar holds that l'Evarim Omedes, Rebbi does
(h) Answer (Rav Nachman): The whole bird was a k'Zayis, the
flesh was less than a k'Zayis.
2. When Ever Min ha'Chai applies, both Mechayav for
less than a k'Zayis!
(i) Question: Would we ever find a bird without a k'Zayis of
flesh, but one limb alone has a k'Zayis of flesh, bones
(j) Answer (Rav Sharbiya): Yes, he discusses a Kalanisa (a
very lean bird.)
(k) Objection (Seifa): If he choked it and ate it, all agree
that he is liable only for a k'Zayis.
1. A Kalanisa is Tamei - Rav is Mechayav for a Tamei
bird of any size, dead or alive!
(l) Correction: Rather, he discusses a Tahor bird that
resembles a Kalanisa
(m) (Rava): If Rebbi holds that intention to eat makes a
difference, if one intended to dissect and eat the limbs
of a bird less than a k'Zayis, but then ate it whole, he
would be liable;
(n) Question (Abaye): Do we ever find that Reuven is liable
for eating something (i.e. if he had such intent, but ate
it whole), but Shimon (who had no such intent) would be
exempt for it?!
(o) Answer (Rava): Yes - the law of each person depends on
(p) (Rava): If R. Elazar bar Shimon holds that intention to
eat makes a difference - if one intended to eat a bird
(less than a k'Zayis) after it dies, and ate it alive, he
(q) Question (Abaye): Do we ever find that Reuven is exempt
for eating something (i.e. if he had such intent, but ate
it alive), but Shimon (who had no such intent) would be
liable for it?!
(r) Answer (Rava): Yes - the law of each depends on his
(a) (R. Yochanan): "Do not eat the soul with the flesh"
forbids Ever Min ha'Chai; "Do not eat torn meat in the
field" forbids Basar Min ha'Chai (flesh of a living
animal) and Basar Tereifah.
(b) (Reish Lakish): "Do not eat the soul with the flesh" -
this forbids Ever Min ha'Chai and Basar Min ha'Chai; "Do
not eat torn meat in the field" forbids Basar Tereifah.
1. If one ate Ever Min ha'Chai and Basar Min ha'Chai,
R. Yochanan is Mechayav twice, Reish Lakish is
(c) Question: If one ate Ever Min ha'Chai of a Tereifah, R.
Yochanan is Mechayav twice, Reish Lakish is Mechayav
2. If he ate Basar Min ha'Chai and Basar Tereifah, R.
Yochanan is Mechayav once, Reish Lakish is Mechayav
3. If he ate Ever Min ha'Chai and Basar Tereifah, both
1. All agree that these are learned from different
verses - why does Reish Lakish Mechayav only once?
(d) Answer (Rav Yosef): Both Mechayav twice if he eats Ever
Min ha'Chai and Basar of a different Tereifah animal;
1. They argue about Ever Min ha'Chai of a Tereifah.
(e) Question: Why do they argue?
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, it became Tereifah during
birth (or before);
1. R. Yochanan holds l'Evarim Omedes, so both Isurim
take effect simultaneously (At birth);
(g) Answer #2: Neither holds l'Evarim Omedes; they argue
whether or not Ever Min ha'Chai is Chal on Tereifah:
2. Reish Lakish holds Lav l'Evarim Omedes, so only the
Isur Tereifah takes effect at birth;
i. When a limb separates later, the Isur of Ever
Min ha'Chai does not take effect, since the
animal is already forbidden.
1. R. Yochanan says that it is, Reish Lakish says that
it is not.
(h) Answer #3: Both hold l'Evarim Omedes; the case is, it
became Tereifah after birth;
1. They argue whether or not the Tereifah is Chal on
Ever Min ha'Chai.
(i) Answer #4 (Rava): The case is, a limb was torn off the
animal, making it Tereifah;
2. R. Yochanan says that it is, Reish Lakish says that
it is not.
1. R. Yochanan holds Lav l'Evarim Omedes (so Ever Min
ha'Chai and Tereifah are Chal simultaneously);
2. Reish Lakish holds l'Evarim Omedes, so Ever Min
ha'Chai applied from birth; the Isur Tereifah is not
Chal when the limb is torn off.