Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 18, 2019 | 讬状讘 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 52

Details regarding ribs that detach with or without part of the vertebra detaching with it. Details about an animal attacking – different opinions regarding what animals would inflict their venom and in what situations.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讞讜诇 讛讚拽 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讞讜诇 讛讙住 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗讘拽 讚专讻讬诐 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 转讬讘谞讗 讜注讘讬讚 讘讝讙讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讘讝讙讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

If the bird fell on fine sand, we need not be concerned, because the sand slides on impact, cushioning the fall. If it fell on coarse sand, we must be concerned, because there are large stones mixed into it. If it fell on dust of the road, we must be concerned, because the dust is compact and hard. If the bird fell on bundled straw, we must be concerned, because it is compact and hard. If the straw was not bundled, we need not be concerned.

讞讬讟讬 讜讻诇 讚诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖注专讬 讜讻诇 讚诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 拽讟谞讬讜转 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 诇讘专 诪谉 专讜讘讬讗 讞讬诪爪讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽 讗讘专讬诐 讞驻爪讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽 讗讘专讬诐 讻诇诇讗 讚诪诇转讗 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诪砖专讬拽 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽 讗讘专讬诐 诇讗 诪砖专讬拽 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽 讗讘专讬诐

If the bird fell on wheat and all similar types of grain, such as spelt or rye, whose kernels are hard, we must be concerned. If it fell on barley and all similar types of grain, such as oats, we must be concerned. With regard to all types of beans, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs if a bird fell on them, since their round shape causes the bird to slide when it hits them, except for fenugreek. With regard to peas, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs, but with regard to chickpeas, there is a concern due to possible shattered limbs. The principle of the matter is: With regard to anything that slips to the sides on impact, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs. And with regard to anything that does not slip, there is a concern due to possible shattered limbs.

讚讘讜拽 专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讬 讗诪讬诪专 讗住专 讘讞讚 讙驻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖专讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘转专讬 讙驻讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讬讻讬 谞讬拽讜诐 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗驻砖专 讚谞讬拽讜诐 讗注讬拽讘讬 讚讙驻讬

If the bird鈥檚 wings became stuck to a davuk, a board covered with glue set as a trap, and in trying to escape it fell to the ground while stuck to the board, Rav Ashi deemed the bird permitted, while Ameimar deemed it prohibited. The Gemara explains: In a case where only one wing was stuck to the board, everyone agrees that it is permitted, because the bird flaps with the other wing, lessening the impact of the fall. They disagree when both wings are stuck to the board. The one who deemed it prohibited could have said to you: How will it stand itself up so that it might dampen the impact? And the one who deemed it permitted could have said to you: It is possible for it to stand itself up by using the tips of its wings.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘转专讬 讙驻讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讬专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讚 讙驻讗 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗驻砖专 讚驻专讞 讘讞讚 讙驻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讛讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 驻专讞 讘讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 驻专讞 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讘转专讬 讙驻讬 讗住讬专 讘讞讚 讙驻讗 砖专讬

And there are those who say: In a case where two wings were stuck to the board, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, because it cannot dampen the impact. They disagree when only one wing is stuck to the board. The one who deemed it permitted could have said to you: It is possible for it to fly with one wing and dampen the fall. And the one who deemed it prohibited could say: Since it cannot fly with this wing that is stuck to the davuk, it also cannot fly with that untrapped wing. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: In a case where two wings were stuck, it is prohibited. In a case where only one wing was stuck, it is permitted.

谞砖转讘专讜 专讜讘 爪诇注讜转讬讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 专讜讘 爪诇注讜转 砖砖 诪讻讗谉 讜砖砖 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 讗讞转 注砖专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 诪讻讗谉

搂 The mishna states that if most of an animal鈥檚 ribs were fractured, it is a tereifa. The Sages taught: These are most of the ribs: Six from here and six from there, i.e., six on each side, or eleven from here and one from there. Twenty-two ribs are significant for matters of tereifot, eleven on each side. Twelve fractured ribs constitutes a majority.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讜诪讞爪讬讬谉 讻诇驻讬 砖讚专讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讘爪诇注讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 诪讜讞

Ze鈥檈iri says: And this applies only when the ribs were fractured from the half of the rib toward the spine, but not if they were fractured on the other half. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And this applies only to fractures occurring in large ribs that contain marrow; fractures in small ribs do not render the animal a tereifa.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗诪专 谞注拽专讜 讘专讜讘 爪讚 讗讞讚 谞砖转讘专讜 讘专讜讘 砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 谞注拽专讜 讘讬谉 谞砖转讘专讜 讘专讜讘 砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉

Ulla said that ben Zakkai says: If the ribs were dislocated from the spine, even a majority of one side, i.e., six dislocated ribs, is enough to render the animal a tereifa. Only if the ribs were broken is a majority of both sides necessary. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Whether they were dislocated or broken, the animal is a tereifa only with a majority of both sides.

讗诪专 专讘 谞注拽专讛 爪诇注 讜讞讜诇讬讗 注诪讛 讟专驻讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 谞注拽专讛 爪诇注 诪讻讗谉 讜爪诇注 诪讻讗谉 讜讞讜诇讬讗 拽讬讬诪转 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讬住讟专讗 拽讗诪专讬转讜

Rav says: If a rib was dislocated and the attached vertebra was torn out with it, the animal is a tereifa, even if the spinal cord remains intact. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: If a rib was dislocated from here and another rib from there, i.e., both ribs connected to a single vertebra were dislocated, but the vertebra itself remains intact, what is the halakha? Rav said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa? This animal is considered to have been sliced and already has the status of a carcass, as it is already considered dead (see 21a).

讜讛讗 专讘 谞诪讬 讙讬住讟专讗 拽讗诪专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 爪诇注 讘诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav also say that a sliced animal is a tereifa, since he said that if a rib was dislocated along with the attached vertebra, the animal is a tereifa? In such a case, the opposite rib is inevitably detached. If so, the animal should be considered a carcass. The Gemara responds: When Rav said that such an animal is a tereifa, he was referring to a case where the rib was dislocated without the vertebra.

讜讛讗 爪诇注 讜讞讜诇讬讗 拽讗诪专 爪诇注 讜讞爪讬 讞讜诇讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav explicitly say his statement with regard to a rib and vertebra that were dislocated? The Gemara responds: Rav meant that if a rib and half its attached vertebra were dislocated, the animal is a tereifa. The opposite rib, however, is intact and connected to the remainder of the vertebra.

诪讻诇诇 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 爪诇注 讘诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 讗诪专讬 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讬住讟专讗 拽讗诪专讬转讜 讜讛讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗诪专 谞注拽专讜 讘专讜讘 爪讚 讗讞讚 谞砖转讘专讜 讘专讜讘 砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara challenges: By inference, one may conclude that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi stated their question with regard to a less serious case, i.e., where a rib from each side was torn out without the vertebra being damaged at all. And yet, Rav said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa? Rather, this animal is a carcass and is certainly prohibited. And how could Rav say this? But didn鈥檛 Ulla say that ben Zakkai says: If the ribs were dislocated, even a majority of one side is enough to render the animal a tereifa, while if the ribs were broken, a majority of both sides is necessary? If so, any animal with fewer than six dislocated ribs should be kosher, as long as the spine is undamaged.

讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讛讻讗 讝讛 讻谞讙讚 讝讛

The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you: There, where ben Zakkai says that six dislocated ribs on one side render the animal a tereifa, this is referring only to ribs not dislocated one opposite the other. Here, where Rav says that two dislocated ribs render the animal a carcass, this is referring to ribs dislocated one opposite the other.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘专讜讘 砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讜讘专讜讘 砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讝讛 讻谞讙讚 讝讛

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the animal is a tereifa only if a majority of both sides was dislocated, and in a majority of both sides, it is impossible that one of them is not situated opposite another? Still, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the animal is a tereifa and not a carcass.

讛转诐 讘讜讻谞讗 讘诇讗 讗住讬转讗 讛讻讗 讘讜讻谞讗 讜讗住讬转讗

The Gemara responds: There, Rabbi Yo岣nan is referring to a case where the pestle, i.e., the end of the rib, was torn out without the mortar, the socket of the vertebra in which it sits, leaving the spine completely intact. In such a case, the animal is a tereifa only if twelve ribs were dislocated, even though this necessarily includes one rib opposite another. Here, where Rav says that two dislocated ribs opposite one another render the animal a carcass, that is referring to a case where the pestle and mortar were torn out together, damaging the spine.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讚专讘

The Gemara asks: If so, why did Rav Kahana and Rav Asi ask anything of Rav? Their case in question is identical to the statement of Rav. If Rav says that the animal is a tereifa if a rib and part of its vertebra were dislocated, that should be the halakha all the more so if ribs opposite one another were dislocated in addition to part of the attached vertebra. The Gemara responds: Rav Kahana and Rav Asi did not hear that statement of Rav.

讜诇讬讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讚专讘 住讘专讬 诇讬讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讚讗 讚驻专讬砖 诇谉 转专转讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讚讗 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇谉 讟专驻讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 转专转讬 讗讬 讗诪专 诇谉 讻砖专讛 讗讻转讬 转专转讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉

The Gemara persists: But if so, let them ask about the simpler case of one dislocated rib, like that which Rav himself discussed. Why ask specifically about two ribs opposite one another? The Gemara responds: They reasoned: Let us ask him one question through which he will explain to us two different cases. As, if we ask him about only one dislocated rib, this works out well if he says to us that the animal is a tereifa, because we can infer that all the more so if two ribs opposite one another are dislocated, the animal is a tereifa. But if he says to us that it is kosher, we must still ask with regard to a case of two dislocated ribs.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 转专转讬 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻砖专讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讞讚讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟专驻讛 讗讻转讬 讞讚讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then now, too, when they ask him about two ribs, they may not receive an answer with regard to both cases. Granted, this works out well if he says to them that an animal with two dislocated ribs opposite one another is kosher, since they can infer that all the more so it is kosher if only one rib is dislocated. But if he says to them that it is a tereifa, they must still ask with regard to a case of only one dislocated rib.

住讘专讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讬专转讞 拽讗 专转讞 讞讚讗 讟专驻讛 转专转讬 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara responds: They reasoned that it is better to ask about a case where two ribs opposite one another were dislocated, because if it is so that Rav holds that the animal is a tereifa if even one rib is dislocated, then he would become angry and respond: If an animal with even one dislocated rib is a tereifa, is it necessary to ask about an animal with two dislocated ribs?

讜讛讗 拽讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 专转讞 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讬住讟专讗 拽讗诪专讬转讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬转讞讬讛

The Gemara objects: But they did say this question to him and he did not become angry, despite the fact that he holds that even one dislocated rib renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara responds: When he said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa, this is his anger. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi understood from this response that an animal with two dislocated ribs opposite one another is a carcass, but an animal with one dislocated rib is a tereifa.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞注拽专讛 爪诇注 诪注讬拽专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖谞讞讘住讛 讘专讜讘讛 讜讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讛讻专住 讘专讜讘讜 讟专驻讛

Rabba bar Rav Sheila says that Rav Mattana says that Shmuel says: If a rib was ripped from its root, or if the skull was crushed in its majority, or if the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was damaged in its majority, the animal is a tereifa.

谞注拽专讛 爪诇注 诪注讬拽专讛 讟专驻讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel really say that if a rib was ripped from its root, the animal is a tereifa? But raise a contradiction from a mishna (Oholot 2:3):

讻诪讛 讞住专讜谉 讘砖讚专讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 诇讟专驻讛

How much is considered a deficiency in the spine of a corpse so that it will not be considered a full corpse that would render one impure in a tent? Beit Shammai say: Two missing vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: One vertebra. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa, i.e., according to Beit Hillel an animal missing only one vertebra is a tereifa. Evidently, Shmuel holds that a missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa, but a dislocated rib does not.

讛讻讗 爪诇注 讘诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 讛转诐 讞讜诇讬讗 讘诇讗 爪诇注

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, where Shmuel says that a rib ripped from its root renders the animal a tereifa, he is referring to a case where the rib was torn out without the vertebra. There, where he says that a missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa according to Beit Hillel, he is referring to a case where the vertebra was missing without the rib being dislocated. But if the rib itself was ripped from its root, the animal is a tereifa.

讘砖诇诪讗 爪诇注 讘诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 讘诇讗 爪诇注 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘砖讬诇讛讬 讻驻诇讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a case where a rib was dislocated without the vertebra, you find this commonly. But how can you find a case of a missing vertebra without a dislocated rib? The Gemara responds: This can occur at the ends of the flanks, where there are vertebrae with no ribs attached to them.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜诇转谞讬讬讛 讙讘讬 拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讬 讗讬转砖讬诇 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬转砖讬诇 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗

Shmuel said that just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa. Rav Oshaya objects to this statement: But if that is so, then the opinion of Beit Hillel is the more stringent one, as they hold that even one missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa. Accordingly, let the tanna teach this dispute along with the list of leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel in tractate Eduyyot. Rav said to him: When the question was asked, it was asked with regard to the ritual impurity of a corpse. That is the source of the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, and on that matter, Beit Shammai constitute the stringent opinion. The parallel disagreement with regard to tereifot is not mentioned explicitly in any mishna or baraita, and it was therefore omitted from the list in tractate Eduyyot.

讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖谞讞讘住讛 讘专讜讘讛 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讜讘 讙讜讘讛讛 讗讜 专讜讘 讛讬拽讬驻讛 转讬拽讜

The Gemara returns to Shmuel鈥檚 statement: Or if the skull was crushed in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Is this referring to the majority of its height or the majority of its circumference? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讜讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 专讜讘 讛讻专住 讘专讜讘讜 讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讘专讜讘 拽专讜注 讗讜 讘专讜讘 谞讟讜诇

Shmuel also said: Or if the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was damaged in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Is this referring even to a case where the majority of the length of the flesh was torn? Or is it referring only to a case where the majority of the flesh was removed, but if it was torn along the majority of its length the animal remains kosher?

转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚转谞谉 讻专住 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讗讜 砖谞拽专注 专讜讘 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛讻专住 讻讜诇讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 讻专住 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讜讗讬 讝讛讜 讻专住 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讛讻专住

The Gemara responds: Resolve the dilemma from that which we learned in the mishna: If the internal rumen was perforated or most of the external rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa. And in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina: The entire rumen is the internal rumen. And if so, which is the external rumen? It is the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen. Apparently, the animal is a tereifa even if the flesh is torn in its majority.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讬诇转

The Gemara rejects the proof: This explanation is meant only to clarify the statement of Shmuel, and Shmuel does not agree with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, as this is what Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Na岣ani said that Shmuel said: The case of: Most of the external rumen was torn, mentioned in the mishna, where the animal is a tereifa, is not referring to where the flesh enveloping the majority of the rumen was torn, but rather where the majority of the rumen itself was torn. The internal rumen is the place in the rumen that has no wool, i.e., downy projections on the inside of the rumen. Accordingly, one cannot prove anything about the statement of Shmuel based on an explanation of the mishna offered by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina.

讜讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讝讗讘 讜诇诪注诇讛 讜讘注讜驻讜转 诪谉 讛谞抓 讜诇诪注诇讛

搂 The mishna states: And an animal that was clawed by a wolf is a tereifa. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of an animal, it is a tereifa if it was clawed by any predator from the size of a wolf and upward. And with regard to birds, they are tereifot if they were clawed by any predator from the size of a hawk and upward.

诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞转讜诇 转谞讬谞讗 讜讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讝讗讘 讘讙住讛 谞诪讬 讚专讬住 讜讛讗 转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 讘讚拽讛 讜讚专讜住转 讗专讬 讘讙住讛

The Gemara asks: What does this statement of Rav, that an animal is a tereifa if it was clawed by a predator at least as large as a wolf, serve to exclude? If we say it serves to exclude a cat that clawed an animal, since it is smaller than a wolf, we already learned in the mishna: And an animal clawed by a wolf is a tereifa. One can infer from this that cats do not render an animal a tereifa. And if you would say: This mishna teaches us that a wolf can also effectively claw a large animal, e.g., cattle, but it may still be that a cat can render a small animal a tereifa, this cannot be; didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was clawed by a wolf in the case of a small animal, or clawed by a lion in the case of a large animal, the animal is a tereifa?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讘专 讬驻转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 诇讗 讘讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诇驻专砖 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis, and they hold that a wolf can also render large livestock tereifa by clawing, this too is impossible, as doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet say that Rabbi Ela says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna comes only to explain the statement of the Rabbis?

讙讘专讗 讗讙讘专讗 拽讗 专诪讬转 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞转讜诇 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讜专讞讗 讚诪诇转讗 拽转谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: Are you setting the statement of one man against the statement of another man? Even if Rabbi Ela holds that Rabbi Yehuda comes only to explain the statement of the Rabbis, Rav may still hold that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis. Or, if you wish, say instead: Actually, everyone agrees that a wolf can render only a small animal a tereifa through clawing. Nevertheless, the statement of Rav serves to exclude a cat from the ability to render even a small animal a tereifa. Lest you say that the mishna taught about a wolf only because this is the manner in which the matter typically occurs, but a cat may in fact render a small animal a tereifa, Rav teaches us that it is referring specifically to a wolf.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚专讜住转 讞转讜诇 讜谞诪讬讬讛 讘讙讚讬讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐 讚专讜住转 讞讜诇讚讛 讘注讜驻讜转 诪讬转讬讘讬 讚专讜住转 讞转讜诇 谞抓 讜谞诪讬讬讛 注讚 砖转讬谞拽讘 诇讞诇诇 讗讘诇 讚专讜住讛 诇讬转 诇讛讜

Rav Amram says that Rav 岣sda says: If an animal was clawed by a cat or a mongoose, in the case of kids or lambs, which are very small, it is a tereifa. If it was clawed by a weasel in the case of birds, it is a tereifa. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An animal clawed by a cat, hawk, or mongoose is not rendered a tereifa until one of its internal organs is perforated to its recesses. One may infer: But they, i.e., a cat, hawk, and mongoose, do not have the ability to render an animal a tereifa through the clawing itself.

讜转住讘专讗 谞抓 诇讗 讚专讬住 讜讛转谞谉 讜讚专讜住转 讛谞抓 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注讜驻讜转 讻讗谉 讘讙讚讬讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐

The Gemara questions the inference: And can you understand that a hawk does not effectively claw an animal? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And a small bird clawed by a hawk is rendered a tereifa? The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. Here, where the mishna states that a hawk can effectively claw, it is with regard to birds, while there, where the baraita states that a hawk does not effectively claw, it is with regard to kids and lambs.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘专讬讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讚专讜住讛 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讬砖 讚专讜住讛

The Gemara returns to its initial objection: In any case, the baraita poses a difficulty for Rav 岣sda, who says that a cat may render kids and lambs tereifot through clawing. The Gemara responds: Rav 岣sda states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is not effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are none present to save it. But in a place where there are bystanders trying to save the kid, it is effectively clawed, since the cat is angered and injects venom into the wound. Rav 岣sda is referring specifically to the latter case.

讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讚专讜住讛 讜讛讗 讛讛讬讗 转专谞讙讜诇转 讚讛讜讗讬 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚专讛讟 讞转讜诇 讘转专讛 讜注诇 诇讗讬讚专讜谞讗 讜讗讬转讞讬讚 讚砖讗 讘讗驻讬讛 讜诪讞讬讬讛 诇讚砖讗 讘住讬讞讜驻讬讛 讜讗砖转讻讞 注诇讛 讞诪砖讛 拽讜专讟讬 讚诪讗

The Gemara asks: And in a place where there are none to save the kid, is it not effectively clawed? But there was a certain hen that was in the house of Rav Kahana, which a cat pursued, and the cat entered after it into a small room, and the door shut in the cat鈥檚 face, and it struck the door with its paws in anger. And afterward, five drops of blood, i.e., venom, were found on the door. Apparently a cat is venomous even if no one is present to save its prey.

讛爪诇转 注爪诪讛 谞诪讬 讻讛爪诇转 讗讞专讬诐 讚诪讬 讜专讘谞谉 讝讬讛专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 拽诇讬 讝讬讛专讬讛

The Gemara responds: For a cat, saving itself is also considered like saving others. Since the cat felt threatened, it acted as it would if there had been someone present to defend the hen. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who state in the baraita that a cat can never effectively claw a small animal, even when there are bystanders attempting to save its prey, how do they explain this incident? The Gemara responds: According to the Rabbis, a cat does have venom, but its venom does not burn enough to render the animal a tereifa.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 讘专讬讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘专讬讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讬砖 讚专讜住讛 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讚专讜住讛

There are those who state the details of this exchange differently: After raising an objection to the statement of Rav 岣sda from the baraita that states that a cat cannot effectively claw kids and lambs, the Gemara responds: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Distinguished One, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are bystanders present to save it. But in a place where there are none present to save the kid, it is not effectively clawed. The baraita, then, discusses a case where there are none present to save it. Rav 岣sda agrees with the Rabbis that a cat can effectively claw an animal even when there are none present to save it.

讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讚专讜住讛 讜讛讗 讛讛讬讗 转专谞讙讜诇转 讚讛讜讗讬 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚专讛讟 讞转讜诇 讘转专讛 讜注诇 诇讗讬讚专讜谞讗 讜讗讬转讞讬讚 讚砖讗 讘讗驻讬讛 讜诪讞讬讬讛 诇讚砖讗 讘住讬讞讜驻讬讛 讜讗讬砖转讻讞 注诇讬讛 讞诪砖讛 拽讜专讟讬 讚诪讗 讛爪诇转 注爪诪讛 谞诪讬 讻讛爪诇转 讗讞专讬诐 讚诪讬讗

The Gemara asks: But in a place where there are none present to save the kid, is it not effectively clawed? But there was a certain hen that was in the house of Rav Kahana, which a cat pursued, and the cat entered after it into a small room, and the door shut in the cat鈥檚 face, and it struck the door with its paws in anger. And afterward, five drops of blood, i.e., venom, were found on the door. The Gemara responds: For a cat, saving itself is also considered like saving others.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪专讘

The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana asked Rav:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 52

讞讜诇 讛讚拽 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讞讜诇 讛讙住 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗讘拽 讚专讻讬诐 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 转讬讘谞讗 讜注讘讬讚 讘讝讙讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讘讝讙讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

If the bird fell on fine sand, we need not be concerned, because the sand slides on impact, cushioning the fall. If it fell on coarse sand, we must be concerned, because there are large stones mixed into it. If it fell on dust of the road, we must be concerned, because the dust is compact and hard. If the bird fell on bundled straw, we must be concerned, because it is compact and hard. If the straw was not bundled, we need not be concerned.

讞讬讟讬 讜讻诇 讚诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖注专讬 讜讻诇 讚诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 拽讟谞讬讜转 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 诇讘专 诪谉 专讜讘讬讗 讞讬诪爪讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽 讗讘专讬诐 讞驻爪讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽 讗讘专讬诐 讻诇诇讗 讚诪诇转讗 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诪砖专讬拽 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽 讗讘专讬诐 诇讗 诪砖专讬拽 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽 讗讘专讬诐

If the bird fell on wheat and all similar types of grain, such as spelt or rye, whose kernels are hard, we must be concerned. If it fell on barley and all similar types of grain, such as oats, we must be concerned. With regard to all types of beans, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs if a bird fell on them, since their round shape causes the bird to slide when it hits them, except for fenugreek. With regard to peas, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs, but with regard to chickpeas, there is a concern due to possible shattered limbs. The principle of the matter is: With regard to anything that slips to the sides on impact, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs. And with regard to anything that does not slip, there is a concern due to possible shattered limbs.

讚讘讜拽 专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讬 讗诪讬诪专 讗住专 讘讞讚 讙驻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖专讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘转专讬 讙驻讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讬讻讬 谞讬拽讜诐 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗驻砖专 讚谞讬拽讜诐 讗注讬拽讘讬 讚讙驻讬

If the bird鈥檚 wings became stuck to a davuk, a board covered with glue set as a trap, and in trying to escape it fell to the ground while stuck to the board, Rav Ashi deemed the bird permitted, while Ameimar deemed it prohibited. The Gemara explains: In a case where only one wing was stuck to the board, everyone agrees that it is permitted, because the bird flaps with the other wing, lessening the impact of the fall. They disagree when both wings are stuck to the board. The one who deemed it prohibited could have said to you: How will it stand itself up so that it might dampen the impact? And the one who deemed it permitted could have said to you: It is possible for it to stand itself up by using the tips of its wings.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘转专讬 讙驻讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讬专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讚 讙驻讗 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗驻砖专 讚驻专讞 讘讞讚 讙驻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讛讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 驻专讞 讘讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 驻专讞 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讘转专讬 讙驻讬 讗住讬专 讘讞讚 讙驻讗 砖专讬

And there are those who say: In a case where two wings were stuck to the board, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, because it cannot dampen the impact. They disagree when only one wing is stuck to the board. The one who deemed it permitted could have said to you: It is possible for it to fly with one wing and dampen the fall. And the one who deemed it prohibited could say: Since it cannot fly with this wing that is stuck to the davuk, it also cannot fly with that untrapped wing. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: In a case where two wings were stuck, it is prohibited. In a case where only one wing was stuck, it is permitted.

谞砖转讘专讜 专讜讘 爪诇注讜转讬讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 专讜讘 爪诇注讜转 砖砖 诪讻讗谉 讜砖砖 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 讗讞转 注砖专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 诪讻讗谉

搂 The mishna states that if most of an animal鈥檚 ribs were fractured, it is a tereifa. The Sages taught: These are most of the ribs: Six from here and six from there, i.e., six on each side, or eleven from here and one from there. Twenty-two ribs are significant for matters of tereifot, eleven on each side. Twelve fractured ribs constitutes a majority.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讜诪讞爪讬讬谉 讻诇驻讬 砖讚专讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讘爪诇注讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 诪讜讞

Ze鈥檈iri says: And this applies only when the ribs were fractured from the half of the rib toward the spine, but not if they were fractured on the other half. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And this applies only to fractures occurring in large ribs that contain marrow; fractures in small ribs do not render the animal a tereifa.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗诪专 谞注拽专讜 讘专讜讘 爪讚 讗讞讚 谞砖转讘专讜 讘专讜讘 砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 谞注拽专讜 讘讬谉 谞砖转讘专讜 讘专讜讘 砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉

Ulla said that ben Zakkai says: If the ribs were dislocated from the spine, even a majority of one side, i.e., six dislocated ribs, is enough to render the animal a tereifa. Only if the ribs were broken is a majority of both sides necessary. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Whether they were dislocated or broken, the animal is a tereifa only with a majority of both sides.

讗诪专 专讘 谞注拽专讛 爪诇注 讜讞讜诇讬讗 注诪讛 讟专驻讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 谞注拽专讛 爪诇注 诪讻讗谉 讜爪诇注 诪讻讗谉 讜讞讜诇讬讗 拽讬讬诪转 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讬住讟专讗 拽讗诪专讬转讜

Rav says: If a rib was dislocated and the attached vertebra was torn out with it, the animal is a tereifa, even if the spinal cord remains intact. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: If a rib was dislocated from here and another rib from there, i.e., both ribs connected to a single vertebra were dislocated, but the vertebra itself remains intact, what is the halakha? Rav said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa? This animal is considered to have been sliced and already has the status of a carcass, as it is already considered dead (see 21a).

讜讛讗 专讘 谞诪讬 讙讬住讟专讗 拽讗诪专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 爪诇注 讘诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav also say that a sliced animal is a tereifa, since he said that if a rib was dislocated along with the attached vertebra, the animal is a tereifa? In such a case, the opposite rib is inevitably detached. If so, the animal should be considered a carcass. The Gemara responds: When Rav said that such an animal is a tereifa, he was referring to a case where the rib was dislocated without the vertebra.

讜讛讗 爪诇注 讜讞讜诇讬讗 拽讗诪专 爪诇注 讜讞爪讬 讞讜诇讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav explicitly say his statement with regard to a rib and vertebra that were dislocated? The Gemara responds: Rav meant that if a rib and half its attached vertebra were dislocated, the animal is a tereifa. The opposite rib, however, is intact and connected to the remainder of the vertebra.

诪讻诇诇 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 爪诇注 讘诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 讗诪专讬 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讬住讟专讗 拽讗诪专讬转讜 讜讛讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗诪专 谞注拽专讜 讘专讜讘 爪讚 讗讞讚 谞砖转讘专讜 讘专讜讘 砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara challenges: By inference, one may conclude that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi stated their question with regard to a less serious case, i.e., where a rib from each side was torn out without the vertebra being damaged at all. And yet, Rav said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa? Rather, this animal is a carcass and is certainly prohibited. And how could Rav say this? But didn鈥檛 Ulla say that ben Zakkai says: If the ribs were dislocated, even a majority of one side is enough to render the animal a tereifa, while if the ribs were broken, a majority of both sides is necessary? If so, any animal with fewer than six dislocated ribs should be kosher, as long as the spine is undamaged.

讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讛讻讗 讝讛 讻谞讙讚 讝讛

The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you: There, where ben Zakkai says that six dislocated ribs on one side render the animal a tereifa, this is referring only to ribs not dislocated one opposite the other. Here, where Rav says that two dislocated ribs render the animal a carcass, this is referring to ribs dislocated one opposite the other.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘专讜讘 砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讜讘专讜讘 砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讝讛 讻谞讙讚 讝讛

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the animal is a tereifa only if a majority of both sides was dislocated, and in a majority of both sides, it is impossible that one of them is not situated opposite another? Still, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the animal is a tereifa and not a carcass.

讛转诐 讘讜讻谞讗 讘诇讗 讗住讬转讗 讛讻讗 讘讜讻谞讗 讜讗住讬转讗

The Gemara responds: There, Rabbi Yo岣nan is referring to a case where the pestle, i.e., the end of the rib, was torn out without the mortar, the socket of the vertebra in which it sits, leaving the spine completely intact. In such a case, the animal is a tereifa only if twelve ribs were dislocated, even though this necessarily includes one rib opposite another. Here, where Rav says that two dislocated ribs opposite one another render the animal a carcass, that is referring to a case where the pestle and mortar were torn out together, damaging the spine.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讚专讘

The Gemara asks: If so, why did Rav Kahana and Rav Asi ask anything of Rav? Their case in question is identical to the statement of Rav. If Rav says that the animal is a tereifa if a rib and part of its vertebra were dislocated, that should be the halakha all the more so if ribs opposite one another were dislocated in addition to part of the attached vertebra. The Gemara responds: Rav Kahana and Rav Asi did not hear that statement of Rav.

讜诇讬讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讚专讘 住讘专讬 诇讬讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讚讗 讚驻专讬砖 诇谉 转专转讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讚讗 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇谉 讟专驻讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 转专转讬 讗讬 讗诪专 诇谉 讻砖专讛 讗讻转讬 转专转讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉

The Gemara persists: But if so, let them ask about the simpler case of one dislocated rib, like that which Rav himself discussed. Why ask specifically about two ribs opposite one another? The Gemara responds: They reasoned: Let us ask him one question through which he will explain to us two different cases. As, if we ask him about only one dislocated rib, this works out well if he says to us that the animal is a tereifa, because we can infer that all the more so if two ribs opposite one another are dislocated, the animal is a tereifa. But if he says to us that it is kosher, we must still ask with regard to a case of two dislocated ribs.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 转专转讬 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻砖专讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讞讚讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟专驻讛 讗讻转讬 讞讚讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then now, too, when they ask him about two ribs, they may not receive an answer with regard to both cases. Granted, this works out well if he says to them that an animal with two dislocated ribs opposite one another is kosher, since they can infer that all the more so it is kosher if only one rib is dislocated. But if he says to them that it is a tereifa, they must still ask with regard to a case of only one dislocated rib.

住讘专讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讬专转讞 拽讗 专转讞 讞讚讗 讟专驻讛 转专转讬 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara responds: They reasoned that it is better to ask about a case where two ribs opposite one another were dislocated, because if it is so that Rav holds that the animal is a tereifa if even one rib is dislocated, then he would become angry and respond: If an animal with even one dislocated rib is a tereifa, is it necessary to ask about an animal with two dislocated ribs?

讜讛讗 拽讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 专转讞 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讬住讟专讗 拽讗诪专讬转讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬转讞讬讛

The Gemara objects: But they did say this question to him and he did not become angry, despite the fact that he holds that even one dislocated rib renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara responds: When he said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa, this is his anger. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi understood from this response that an animal with two dislocated ribs opposite one another is a carcass, but an animal with one dislocated rib is a tereifa.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞注拽专讛 爪诇注 诪注讬拽专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖谞讞讘住讛 讘专讜讘讛 讜讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讛讻专住 讘专讜讘讜 讟专驻讛

Rabba bar Rav Sheila says that Rav Mattana says that Shmuel says: If a rib was ripped from its root, or if the skull was crushed in its majority, or if the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was damaged in its majority, the animal is a tereifa.

谞注拽专讛 爪诇注 诪注讬拽专讛 讟专驻讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel really say that if a rib was ripped from its root, the animal is a tereifa? But raise a contradiction from a mishna (Oholot 2:3):

讻诪讛 讞住专讜谉 讘砖讚专讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 诇讟专驻讛

How much is considered a deficiency in the spine of a corpse so that it will not be considered a full corpse that would render one impure in a tent? Beit Shammai say: Two missing vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: One vertebra. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa, i.e., according to Beit Hillel an animal missing only one vertebra is a tereifa. Evidently, Shmuel holds that a missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa, but a dislocated rib does not.

讛讻讗 爪诇注 讘诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 讛转诐 讞讜诇讬讗 讘诇讗 爪诇注

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, where Shmuel says that a rib ripped from its root renders the animal a tereifa, he is referring to a case where the rib was torn out without the vertebra. There, where he says that a missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa according to Beit Hillel, he is referring to a case where the vertebra was missing without the rib being dislocated. But if the rib itself was ripped from its root, the animal is a tereifa.

讘砖诇诪讗 爪诇注 讘诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 讘诇讗 爪诇注 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘砖讬诇讛讬 讻驻诇讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a case where a rib was dislocated without the vertebra, you find this commonly. But how can you find a case of a missing vertebra without a dislocated rib? The Gemara responds: This can occur at the ends of the flanks, where there are vertebrae with no ribs attached to them.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜诇转谞讬讬讛 讙讘讬 拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讬 讗讬转砖讬诇 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬转砖讬诇 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗

Shmuel said that just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa. Rav Oshaya objects to this statement: But if that is so, then the opinion of Beit Hillel is the more stringent one, as they hold that even one missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa. Accordingly, let the tanna teach this dispute along with the list of leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel in tractate Eduyyot. Rav said to him: When the question was asked, it was asked with regard to the ritual impurity of a corpse. That is the source of the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, and on that matter, Beit Shammai constitute the stringent opinion. The parallel disagreement with regard to tereifot is not mentioned explicitly in any mishna or baraita, and it was therefore omitted from the list in tractate Eduyyot.

讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖谞讞讘住讛 讘专讜讘讛 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讜讘 讙讜讘讛讛 讗讜 专讜讘 讛讬拽讬驻讛 转讬拽讜

The Gemara returns to Shmuel鈥檚 statement: Or if the skull was crushed in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Is this referring to the majority of its height or the majority of its circumference? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讜讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 专讜讘 讛讻专住 讘专讜讘讜 讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讘专讜讘 拽专讜注 讗讜 讘专讜讘 谞讟讜诇

Shmuel also said: Or if the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was damaged in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Is this referring even to a case where the majority of the length of the flesh was torn? Or is it referring only to a case where the majority of the flesh was removed, but if it was torn along the majority of its length the animal remains kosher?

转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚转谞谉 讻专住 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讗讜 砖谞拽专注 专讜讘 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛讻专住 讻讜诇讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 讻专住 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讜讗讬 讝讛讜 讻专住 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讛讻专住

The Gemara responds: Resolve the dilemma from that which we learned in the mishna: If the internal rumen was perforated or most of the external rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa. And in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina: The entire rumen is the internal rumen. And if so, which is the external rumen? It is the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen. Apparently, the animal is a tereifa even if the flesh is torn in its majority.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讬诇转

The Gemara rejects the proof: This explanation is meant only to clarify the statement of Shmuel, and Shmuel does not agree with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, as this is what Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Na岣ani said that Shmuel said: The case of: Most of the external rumen was torn, mentioned in the mishna, where the animal is a tereifa, is not referring to where the flesh enveloping the majority of the rumen was torn, but rather where the majority of the rumen itself was torn. The internal rumen is the place in the rumen that has no wool, i.e., downy projections on the inside of the rumen. Accordingly, one cannot prove anything about the statement of Shmuel based on an explanation of the mishna offered by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina.

讜讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讝讗讘 讜诇诪注诇讛 讜讘注讜驻讜转 诪谉 讛谞抓 讜诇诪注诇讛

搂 The mishna states: And an animal that was clawed by a wolf is a tereifa. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of an animal, it is a tereifa if it was clawed by any predator from the size of a wolf and upward. And with regard to birds, they are tereifot if they were clawed by any predator from the size of a hawk and upward.

诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞转讜诇 转谞讬谞讗 讜讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讝讗讘 讘讙住讛 谞诪讬 讚专讬住 讜讛讗 转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 讘讚拽讛 讜讚专讜住转 讗专讬 讘讙住讛

The Gemara asks: What does this statement of Rav, that an animal is a tereifa if it was clawed by a predator at least as large as a wolf, serve to exclude? If we say it serves to exclude a cat that clawed an animal, since it is smaller than a wolf, we already learned in the mishna: And an animal clawed by a wolf is a tereifa. One can infer from this that cats do not render an animal a tereifa. And if you would say: This mishna teaches us that a wolf can also effectively claw a large animal, e.g., cattle, but it may still be that a cat can render a small animal a tereifa, this cannot be; didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was clawed by a wolf in the case of a small animal, or clawed by a lion in the case of a large animal, the animal is a tereifa?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讘专 讬驻转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 诇讗 讘讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诇驻专砖 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis, and they hold that a wolf can also render large livestock tereifa by clawing, this too is impossible, as doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet say that Rabbi Ela says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna comes only to explain the statement of the Rabbis?

讙讘专讗 讗讙讘专讗 拽讗 专诪讬转 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞转讜诇 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讜专讞讗 讚诪诇转讗 拽转谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: Are you setting the statement of one man against the statement of another man? Even if Rabbi Ela holds that Rabbi Yehuda comes only to explain the statement of the Rabbis, Rav may still hold that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis. Or, if you wish, say instead: Actually, everyone agrees that a wolf can render only a small animal a tereifa through clawing. Nevertheless, the statement of Rav serves to exclude a cat from the ability to render even a small animal a tereifa. Lest you say that the mishna taught about a wolf only because this is the manner in which the matter typically occurs, but a cat may in fact render a small animal a tereifa, Rav teaches us that it is referring specifically to a wolf.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚专讜住转 讞转讜诇 讜谞诪讬讬讛 讘讙讚讬讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐 讚专讜住转 讞讜诇讚讛 讘注讜驻讜转 诪讬转讬讘讬 讚专讜住转 讞转讜诇 谞抓 讜谞诪讬讬讛 注讚 砖转讬谞拽讘 诇讞诇诇 讗讘诇 讚专讜住讛 诇讬转 诇讛讜

Rav Amram says that Rav 岣sda says: If an animal was clawed by a cat or a mongoose, in the case of kids or lambs, which are very small, it is a tereifa. If it was clawed by a weasel in the case of birds, it is a tereifa. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An animal clawed by a cat, hawk, or mongoose is not rendered a tereifa until one of its internal organs is perforated to its recesses. One may infer: But they, i.e., a cat, hawk, and mongoose, do not have the ability to render an animal a tereifa through the clawing itself.

讜转住讘专讗 谞抓 诇讗 讚专讬住 讜讛转谞谉 讜讚专讜住转 讛谞抓 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注讜驻讜转 讻讗谉 讘讙讚讬讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐

The Gemara questions the inference: And can you understand that a hawk does not effectively claw an animal? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And a small bird clawed by a hawk is rendered a tereifa? The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. Here, where the mishna states that a hawk can effectively claw, it is with regard to birds, while there, where the baraita states that a hawk does not effectively claw, it is with regard to kids and lambs.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘专讬讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讚专讜住讛 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讬砖 讚专讜住讛

The Gemara returns to its initial objection: In any case, the baraita poses a difficulty for Rav 岣sda, who says that a cat may render kids and lambs tereifot through clawing. The Gemara responds: Rav 岣sda states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is not effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are none present to save it. But in a place where there are bystanders trying to save the kid, it is effectively clawed, since the cat is angered and injects venom into the wound. Rav 岣sda is referring specifically to the latter case.

讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讚专讜住讛 讜讛讗 讛讛讬讗 转专谞讙讜诇转 讚讛讜讗讬 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚专讛讟 讞转讜诇 讘转专讛 讜注诇 诇讗讬讚专讜谞讗 讜讗讬转讞讬讚 讚砖讗 讘讗驻讬讛 讜诪讞讬讬讛 诇讚砖讗 讘住讬讞讜驻讬讛 讜讗砖转讻讞 注诇讛 讞诪砖讛 拽讜专讟讬 讚诪讗

The Gemara asks: And in a place where there are none to save the kid, is it not effectively clawed? But there was a certain hen that was in the house of Rav Kahana, which a cat pursued, and the cat entered after it into a small room, and the door shut in the cat鈥檚 face, and it struck the door with its paws in anger. And afterward, five drops of blood, i.e., venom, were found on the door. Apparently a cat is venomous even if no one is present to save its prey.

讛爪诇转 注爪诪讛 谞诪讬 讻讛爪诇转 讗讞专讬诐 讚诪讬 讜专讘谞谉 讝讬讛专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 拽诇讬 讝讬讛专讬讛

The Gemara responds: For a cat, saving itself is also considered like saving others. Since the cat felt threatened, it acted as it would if there had been someone present to defend the hen. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who state in the baraita that a cat can never effectively claw a small animal, even when there are bystanders attempting to save its prey, how do they explain this incident? The Gemara responds: According to the Rabbis, a cat does have venom, but its venom does not burn enough to render the animal a tereifa.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 讘专讬讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘专讬讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讬砖 讚专讜住讛 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讚专讜住讛

There are those who state the details of this exchange differently: After raising an objection to the statement of Rav 岣sda from the baraita that states that a cat cannot effectively claw kids and lambs, the Gemara responds: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Distinguished One, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are bystanders present to save it. But in a place where there are none present to save the kid, it is not effectively clawed. The baraita, then, discusses a case where there are none present to save it. Rav 岣sda agrees with the Rabbis that a cat can effectively claw an animal even when there are none present to save it.

讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讚专讜住讛 讜讛讗 讛讛讬讗 转专谞讙讜诇转 讚讛讜讗讬 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚专讛讟 讞转讜诇 讘转专讛 讜注诇 诇讗讬讚专讜谞讗 讜讗讬转讞讬讚 讚砖讗 讘讗驻讬讛 讜诪讞讬讬讛 诇讚砖讗 讘住讬讞讜驻讬讛 讜讗讬砖转讻讞 注诇讬讛 讞诪砖讛 拽讜专讟讬 讚诪讗 讛爪诇转 注爪诪讛 谞诪讬 讻讛爪诇转 讗讞专讬诐 讚诪讬讗

The Gemara asks: But in a place where there are none present to save the kid, is it not effectively clawed? But there was a certain hen that was in the house of Rav Kahana, which a cat pursued, and the cat entered after it into a small room, and the door shut in the cat鈥檚 face, and it struck the door with its paws in anger. And afterward, five drops of blood, i.e., venom, were found on the door. The Gemara responds: For a cat, saving itself is also considered like saving others.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪专讘

The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana asked Rav:

Scroll To Top