Chullin 102

On today’s daf:

Rabbi Meir says that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only to kosher species of domesticated animals, but not to undomesticated animals or fowl, even if they are kosher.

We’ve spent considerable time studying the prohibition on eating the sciatic nerve. Yesterday, the rabbis considered the possibility that while the sciatic nerve of a kosher animal is certainly forbidden, the sciatic nerve of an unkosher animal might not be. It’s an academic point since unkosher animals are forbidden in their entirety. The one on today’s daf, however, is not entirely academic: The Torah forbids the consumption of a limb from a living animal, but Rabbi Meir contemplates the notion that the restriction on tearing a limb from a living animal and eating it does not apply to all kosher animals — implying it would be acceptable to do this with an undomesticated kosher species.

Rabbi Meir’s position — exempting wild animals from the prohibition of eating a living limb — seems counterintuitive. Ultimately, this view was not codified into law; instead, the prohibition applies equally to all kosher species. Similar to the rule regarding the sciatic nerve, this prohibition technically does not apply to unkosher animals. However, this distinction has no practical impact, since eating any part of unkosher species is already forbidden.

But that won’t stop us from investigating Rabbi Meir’s position. Where would he get such a notion anyway?

What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only with regard to a kosher species of domesticated animal? It is that the verse states: “Then you shall slaughter any of your cattle and any of your sheep … you must not consume the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:21–23).

The end of this scriptural quote, Deuteronomy 12:23, is the source for the prohibition on consuming a limb from a living animal: “…you must not consume the life with the flesh” is understood by the rabbis to preclude flesh torn from a living beast. If we back up two verses and read this statement in context, we can see that the Torah specifically cites cattle and sheep, quintessential domesticated animals. Therefore, according to this teaching, Rabbi Meir infers that the restriction applies only to domesticated animals.
 
This explanation of Rabbi Meir’s rule is attributed to three possible authors:

(Some say the statement is attributed to) Rabba bar Shmuel who said that Rav Hisda said it, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said it.

And some say the attribution is as follows: Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Hisda said it, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said it. 

And some say the attribution is as follows: Rabba bar Shimi said that Rav Hisda said it, and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said it.

Note the multiple layers of confusion. Each of the options cites a rabbi named Rabba who thinks that this is a teaching of Rav Hisda, though some others attribute it to Rav Yosef. Rav Hisda and Rav Yosef were contemporaries, both from the third-generation of Babylonian amoraim. However, they were from different academies: Rav Yosef was from Pumbedita, and Rav Hisda from Sura — that is, until he left and set up one of his own. It may well be that each of them taught this tradition of Rabbi Meir in his house of study and is remembered for it. And it may be that there is legitimate confusion about which of them said it.

To add to the confusion, there are three different Rabbas here: Rabba bar Shmuel, a second-generation Babylonian amora, Rabba bar Sheila, a third/fourth-generation Babylonian amora, and Rabba bar Shimi, a fourth-generation Babylonian amora. The three named Rabbas are all children of a father whose first name starts with the Hebrew letter shin: Shmuel, Sheila, Shimi. And while there are many other talmudic rabbis named Rabba, none has a father with this first initial. The compiler of the sugya, it seems, knew that it was one of these Rabbas, but was not sure which, so he included all three. Rabbinic tradition reports that Rabba bar Sheila was a student of Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Shimi was a student of Rav Yosef, adding to the confusion. That Rabba bar Shmuel was a second-generation amora and predated Rav Hisda and Rav Yosef does not seem to get in the way of naming him as a possible source for the teaching.

We may never know who gave the citation for this teaching, but to help us remember the three possibilities, the Gemara leaves us with this:

A mnemonic: Shmuel, Sheila, Shimi.

Keep that in mind in case there is a pop quiz tomorrow.

Read all of Chullin 102 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on August 10, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.