Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 102

1) "EVER MIN HA'CHAI" OF A BIRD

QUESTION: The Tana'im argue whether the Isur of Ever Min ha'Chai applies to the limb of a non-Kosher species of animal, or only to the limb of a Kosher species. Rav Gidal says that the Tana'im argue only with regard to a Jew; they all agree that a Nochri is forbidden to eat the Ever Min ha'Chai of a non-Kosher species. Rav Shizbi cites support for Rav Gidal's assertion from the Mishnah in Taharos (1:3), which says that one who eats Ever Min ha'Chai of a non-Kosher species of bird is not punished with Malkus, and Shechitah does not permit the bird. The Gemara explains that this must be referring to a Nochri (since it is obvious that Shechitah will not permit a Tamei bird to be eaten). The Mishnah is teaching that a Nochri may not eat a bird after it has been slaughtered while it is still twitching, presumably because it is considered Ever Min ha'Chai. We see from the Mishnah that the Ever Min ha'Chai of a non-Kosher bird is forbidden to a Nochri.

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Melachim 9:10-11), however, rules that "a Nochri is Chayav for eating even the smallest amount of Ever Min ha'Chai... but it seems to me that a Nochri is not Chayav for eating the Ever Min ha'Chai of a bird." The Rambam's ruling apparently contradicts the Gemara here, which concludes that a Nochri is *not* permitted to eat the Ever Min ha'Chai of a bird!

ANSWERS:

(a) The RA'AVAD writes that there seems to be a printing error in the text of the Rambam. The Rambam is actually saying that a Nochri is not Chayav for eating the Ever Min ha'Chai of a *Sheretz*.

The RADVAZ disagrees with the Ra'avad's emendation of the text of the Rambam. The Rambam writes, "v'Yir'eh Li" -- "it seems to me." This wording is not appropriate if the Rambam is discussing the Ever Min ha'Chai of a Sheretz, because the law that an Ever Min ha'Chai of a Sheretz is not prohibited to a Nochri is written explicitly in a number of places.

(b) The Radvaz explains that the Rambam agrees that a Nochri is prohibited from eating the Ever Min ha'Chai of a bird. He means only that a Nochri is not Chayav Misah, punished with death, for eating it. (Even though the transgression of every Mitzvah that a Nochri has is punishable with Misah (Sanhedrin 57a), this does not apply to the Isur of Ever Min ha'Chai of a bird, since that Isur is not written explicitly in the Torah.) (Z. Wainstein)

102b

QUESTION: Rav (102a) says that in order to transgress the Isur of eating Ever Min ha'Chai, one must eat at least a k'Zayis. The Gemara asks that Rav taught elsewhere that when one eats a live Kosher bird he is Chayav for Ever Min ha'Chai, regardless of how small it is, while one is Chayav for eating a dead bird (Neveilah) only when he eats a k'Zayis. This seems to contradict Rav's teaching that one must eat a k'Zayis in order to transgress the Isur of Ever Min ha'Chai.

The Gemara answers that when Rav says that one is Chayav for eating a live bird of any size, he means that the *flesh* may be any size (even less than a k'Zayis). The bird, however, is indeed a k'Zayis with regard to Ever Min ha'Chai, since we include its bones and sinews.

RASHI (DH b'Misasah) explains that with regard to most forbidden foods, one must eat a k'Zayis in order to be Chayav, because the Torah uses a form of the word "Achilah" with regard to each Isur, and "Achilah" ("eating") is defined as eating at least a k'Zayis. The only Isur for which one is punished for eating less than a k'Zayis is the Isur of Ever Min ha'Chai. The Torah includes even an Ever Min ha'Chai that is less than a k'Zayis in the Isur for which one is Chayav.

However, Rashi in his following comment (DH Teme'ah) explains that the reason why one is Chayav for eating any amount of a non-Kosher species of bird, whether it is alive or dead, is because it is considered a "Biryah," an independent entity that is significant in itself. Why does Rashi not give this reason for why one is Chayav for eating any amount of an Ever Min ha'Chai?

ANSWER: Rashi apparently maintains that only an independent entity that is presently alive, or at one time was alive, can be considered a Biryah. An Ever Min ha'Chai, was never an independent, living creature, and thus it cannot be considered to be a Biryah (just as the Chelev of an animal is not considered a Biryah). (See Insights to Chulin 96:2.)

Rashi explains, therefore, that the reason why one is punished for eating less than a k'Zayis of Ever Min ha'Chai is because the Torah specifically includes such an amount in the Isur (by repeating the Isur of Ever Min ha'Chai in two different verses (Shemos 22:30, Devarim 12:23), as the Gemara later points out). Although Ever Min ha'Chai is called a Biryah with regard to the Halachah d'Rabanan that a Biryah is not Batel, the Torah does not consider it a Biryah with regard to punishing one who eats less than a k'Zayis of it. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan states that the verse, "Do not eat meat that is torn (Tereifah) in the field" (Shemos 22:30), teaches that it is forbidden to eat flesh (and not just a limb) that was taken from a live animal, and that it is forbidden to eat the flesh of a Tereifah animal.

How can Rebbi Yochanan compare eating flesh from a live animal, and eating flesh of a Tereifah animal? A Tereifah is an animal that has some anatomical deficiency and will not survive for twelve months. How, then, can the Isur of eating the flesh from a live, healthy animal be derived from the verse that specifically refers to a "Tereifah"?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH u'Vasar) explains that the Isur of eating flesh from a live animal is derived from the word "ba'Sadeh" -- "in the field" -- which implies that the flesh has left its place of origin (that is, it has become detached from the body of the animal). Accordingly, this Isur is *not* being derived from the Isur of Tereifah mentioned in the verse.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 4:10) writes that when one cuts flesh off of a live animal (of a Kosher species), the flesh is considered to be a Tereifah, and one who eats it receives Malkus because of the Isur of Tereifah. His reasoning is that this flesh came from an animal that was not slaughtered (and thus it is not Kosher), and that did not die on its own (and thus it is not Asur as Neveilah). There is no difference whether a wild animal tore off the flesh, or whether it was cut off with a knife, and there is no difference whether the entire animal was cut up or only a part of it. Once the animal becomes "meat that is torn in the field," it is a Tereifah.

The CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER writes that the Rambam understands the verse in the way that TARGUM ONKELOS translates it: "Do not eat flesh that is pull off from a live animal." The Rambam, like Onkelos, understands that the verse is saying that the flesh pulled off by a wild animal is Tereifah. Similarly, if the flesh was pulled off by other means (such as being cut off by a person with a knife), it is also Tereifah (the Torah is merely describing the most common scenario). This is clearly stated by the Rambam elsewhere (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 4:8, and Hilchos Shechitah 5:1).

We find a similar ruling elsewhere in the Rambam. The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 4:17) writes that one who eats half of a k'Zayis of Neveilah and half of a k'Zayis of Tereifah receives Malkus because "a Tereifah is the beginning of the process that leads to Neveilah." This shows that Tereifah and Neveilah are considered to be a similar Isur (see Insights to Chulin 75:4). The LECHEM MISHNEH explains that the Rambam is consistent with his opinion that flesh from a live animal is Tereifah, as this is the beginning of the process of death. Just as Tereifah is the beginning of the process of Neveilah, flesh from a live animal is Tereifah because some of the life-force of the animal is removed when the flesh is cut off, in the same way that an animal that is a Tereifah is lacking part of its life-force.

The AVNEI MILU'IM (Teshuvos, end of volume 4, DH Amnam Nosei, cited by TESHUVOS ACHIEZER 2:6:5) found a source in the Torah for the similarity between Tereifah and Neveilah. On the verse, "You shall not eat any Neveilah" (Devarim 14:21), the Sifri states that from the word "any" ("Kol") we derive the Isur of Tereifah as well. From that verse we learn thaIsur of Tereifah is an extension of the Isur of Neveilah. (D. Bloom)