Talmud sur Téroumot 11:3

Rebbi [Yose]⁵⁷Missing in ms. and editio princeps; needed by the context and historical considerations. said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution⁵⁸He has an olive-sized piece of flesh taken from a living animal and splits it in two. Neither piece has the minimum size that would make prosecution possible. He eats both pieces in one meal. As Rashi explains in Ḥulin 103b (s.v. מהו): “In general, undersized parts of forbidden food consumed in the same meal are added together (Babli Yoma 80b). But the prohibition of limbs from a living animal is particular since in general inedible sinews and bones (of carcass and “torn” meat) are not forbidden food. By contrast, here one would be guilty since there is no limb without sinews and bones. One may say that its rules are separate and if one eats it in one piece one is guilty, since this is the normal way of eating, but not in minute pieces.”. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside⁵⁹In the interpretation of the Babli, for R. Joḥanan the prohibition is triggered by the palate’s enjoyment, for R. Simeon ben Laqish by the act of swallowing.. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats⁶⁰In the Babli, Ḥulin 103b, this is R. Eleazar’s opinion. The configuration of the food is irrelevant.. If somebody split an ant in his mouth⁶¹Since an ant is a complete creature, it is forbidden food (Lev. 11:41) irrespective of size (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 17). In the Babli, Makkot 16b, eating an ant is counted as violating up to five prohibitions simultaneously. and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁶²According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, what he did is forbidden but not prosecutable.. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he⁶³A nazir, who can be criminallyprosecuted for eating an olive’s volume of grapes. split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there⁶⁴A limb taken from a living animal causes impurity (Ahilut 2:1); similarly, crawling animals are called “impure”. An entire crawling animal is always impure. But all parts of such an animal cut into pieces smaller than lentils are pure. it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity⁶⁵R. Simeon ben Laqish will agree that for the nazir only the total amount consumed is relevant.. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah⁶⁶In the first night of Passover, when there is a biblical commandment to eat mazzah (in the minimal amount of one olive’s size); Ex. 12:18. in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit⁶⁷Here also, R. Simeon ben Laqish will agree with R. Joḥanan.. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries⁶⁸The berries of the pomegranate, each containing a single seed. Such a berry is a creature (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 18). which are ‘orlah⁶⁹Harvested before the tree is three years old, when all usufruct is forbidden. and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.⁷⁰Mishnah Terumot 11:3. Therefore, the pomegranate berries are food and follow the rules of food.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them⁷¹A pomegranate berry is much smaller than an olive. It is agreed that eating a whole berry of ‘orlah can be prosecuted since it means eating a complete creature. But if the berry is eaten after being split into two parts, one might assume that R. Joḥanan will agree with R. Simeon ben Laqish that one cannot be prosecuted..