Following the deleted question: "swallowing-permitted-species-alive",

If one swallows a small fish or a bird or a Kosher grasshopper whole and alive, does he transgress Evar Min Hachai? If yes how many of transgressions - according to the counting of organs?

I read Rambam and Chinuch but probably missed the answer...


2 Answers 2


There is no issue of ever min hachai with fish or grasshoppers. The gemara in Chulin 101b writes

The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies whether the limb comes from a domesticated animal (beheima), an undomesticated animal (chaya), or a bird, and whether it is from a non-kosher species or from a kosher species

See also Rambam MT Ma'achalot Assurot 5:1. This is codified by the Rema in SA YD 13:1 who permits eating a limb of a live fish but forbids eating a whole live fish as it is disgusting.

Eating a whole bird alive is forbidden by the Rema above. The Rambam (e.g., in 5:3) never suggests multiple counts of lashes for eating more than an olive-sized portion, therefore it appears there would be only one count of lashes for an entire animal. However, as with eating pork, each additional kazayit adds to the weigh of the issur.

  • Is that one count of בל תשקצו for the whole animal?
    – DonielF
    Commented Feb 24, 2019 at 19:35

The Shulchan Aruch (YD 100:1) seems to draw a distinction between a "בריה" (a whole animal) and "ואבר מן החי" by listing them as separate distinct entities:

"בריה דהיינו כגון נמלה או עוף טמא וגיד הנשה ואבר מן החי וביצה שיש בה אאפרוח וכיוצא בהם"

"A creature (that is, something like an ant or an unkosher bird, or a sciatic nerve, or a limb of a living animal, or an egg with a chick inside, and such things)"

If we extend this inference- ie since the Shulchan Aruch seems to list a "בריה" and "אבר מן החי" as separate entities- perhaps we can suggest that אבר מן החי wouldn't apply to a living creature that was eaten whole.

NOTE: This suggestion presupposes that the SA is referring to a living creature either dead/alive. If the SA is only referring to a dead creature, this line of reasoning may not work.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .