Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
A cat or a weasel (chulda) renders a bird a treifa through clawing (derisa), whereas only a cat can do so for small cattle such as young goats and lambs. Other predatory birds besides those explicitly listed in the Mishna can also render other birds a treifa by clawing, but only when targeting birds smaller than themselves, while a hawk (netz) can do so even to birds of its own size. According to an alternate version, ordinary predatory birds can claw birds of their own size or smaller, whereas the hawk can even render birds larger than itself a treifa. Furthermore, two conflicting versions are presented regarding Rav Kahana’s ruling in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi concerning foxes, debating whether or not they possess the capacity to render animals a treifa through clawing.
Abaye limits the laws of derisa to the predator’s front legs, specifying that it must be executed specifically with a claw and not with teeth, must be done with intent, and must occur while the prey is still alive. In a case where a lion was found among oxen and a dislodged claw was subsequently discovered on the back of one of the oxen, Rabba bar Rav Huna ruled in the name of Rav that there is no concern for derisa. He reasoned that while most lions do claw, their claws do not generally detach in the process; thus, it is more probable that the ox rubbed against a wall and accidentally picked up a nail embedded there. The Gemara initially rejects this argument, countering that while oxen frequently rub against walls, nails rarely stick to their backs in this manner, and since the lion remains a viable source, one should rule stringently. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that because the logic can support either side, the ox retains its presumptive status of permissibility; as a matter of pure doubt, Rav remains consistent with his opinion stated elsewhere that we rule leniently in cases of uncertain clawing. Abaye restricts this leniency, clarifying that it only applies when an actual claw is found embedded rather than a mere mark, when the claw is moist rather than dry, and when there are only one, two, or three claws scattered at random rather than two or three found in a distinct row.
Rav and Shmuel disagree on whether to rule leniently or stringently in cases of doubt regarding derisa. While both agree to rule leniently in certain scenarios, they dispute a case where a lion entered among oxen and the lion remained silent while the oxen were found bellowing in distress. Ameimar ruled stringently in accordance with Shmuel, either because he rejected Rav’s view or because he believed Rav ultimately retracted his opinion, a shift suggested by a practical incident that occurred. Although several difficulties are raised regarding the specific details of that incident, they are successfully resolved. Rav Ashi similarly ruled leniently in a case of doubt.
If there is a doubt as to whether an animal was clawed, the Gemara rules that one may inspect the internal areas of the carcass to see if redness has formed from the venom; if no redness is present, the animal is permitted. This testing method was originally stated by the sons of Rabbi Chiya, though Rav Yosef pointed out that Shmuel himself had already articulated this principle. This discussion leads the Gemara to a series of inquiries – some regarding the laws of clawing and others concerning unrelated laws of treifot – all of which were concisely resolved by an authority who declared that each question had already been answered by a prior Rabbinic statement.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Chullin 53
יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה לְחָתוּל אוֹ אֵין דְּרוּסָה לְחָתוּל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף לְחוּלְדָּה יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה. יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה לְחוּלְדָּה אוֹ אֵין דְּרוּסָה לְחוּלְדָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף לְחָתוּל אֵין דְּרוּסָה.
Does a cat render an animal a tereifa through clawing, or does a cat not render it a tereifa through clawing? Rav said to him: Even a weasel, which is smaller than a cat, does render an animal a tereifa through clawing. Rav Kahana also asked him: Does a weasel render an animal a tereifa through clawing, or does a weasel not render it a tereifa through clawing? Rav said to him: Even a cat does not render an animal a tereifa through clawing.
לְחָתוּל וּלְחוּלְדָּה, יֵשׁ לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה אוֹ אֵין לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְחָתוּל יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה, לְחוּלְדָּה אֵין דְּרוּסָה.
Rav Kahana also asked him: With regard to a cat and a weasel, do they render an animal a tereifa through clawing, or do they not render it a tereifa through clawing? Rav said to him: A cat does render an animal a tereifa through clawing, but a weasel does not render it a tereifa through clawing.
וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״אַף לְחוּלְדָּה יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה״ – בְּעוֹפוֹת, הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״אַף לְחָתוּל אֵין דְּרוּסָה״ – בְּאִימְּרֵי רַבְרְבֵי, הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״לְחָתוּל יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה, לְחוּלְדָּה אֵין דְּרוּסָה״ – בִּגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים.
The Gemara clarifies: And the apparent contradiction between these responses is not difficult. That which Rav said to him: Even a weasel does render an animal a tereifa through clawing, was stated about a case of clawed birds. That which he said to him: Even a cat does not render an animal a tereifa through clawing, was stated about a case of adult sheep. That which Rav said to him: A cat does render an animal a tereifa through clawing, but a weasel does not render it a tereifa through clawing, was stated about a case of kids and lambs.
בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין, יֵשׁ לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה אוֹ אֵין לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הִלֵּל לְרַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, אֲמַר: שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין יֵשׁ לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה.
§ The mishna states that a small bird clawed by a hawk is a tereifa. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: With regard to other non-kosher birds beside a hawk, do they render a bird a tereifa through clawing, or do they not render it a tereifa through clawing? Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana, he said: Other non-kosher birds do render a bird a tereifa through clawing.
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: ״וּדְרוּסַת הַנֵּץ בְּעוֹף הַדַּק״! דְּרוּסַת הָנֵץ בְּדִכְוָותֵיהּ, וְאִינָךְ בִּדְזוּטְרָא מִינַּיְיהוּ. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דְּרוּסַת הַנֵּץ בִּדְרַבִּי מִינֵּיהּ, וְאִינָךְ בְּדִכְוָותַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: Or if it was clawed by a hawk in the case of a small bird, it is a tereifa? Apparently, only a hawk renders a small bird a tereifa through clawing. The Gemara responds: The mishna means that a small bird clawed by a hawk is rendered a tereifa even in a case where it is as large as the hawk. But these other non-kosher birds can render a small bird a tereifa only in a case where it is smaller than them. And there are those who say: A small bird clawed by a hawk is rendered a tereifa even in a case where it is larger than the hawk. But these other non-kosher birds can render a small bird a tereifa only in a case where it is, at most, as large as them.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: אֵין דְּרוּסָה לְשׁוּעָל. אִינִי? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂה וְדָרַס שׁוּעָל רָחֵל בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל בֵּית הִינֵי, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְאָמְרוּ: יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה! אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: הָהִיא חָתוּל הֲוָה.
§ Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: A fox does not render an animal a tereifa through clawing. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: There was an incident in which a fox clawed a ewe in the bathhouse of Beit Hini, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said: This is a case of clawing. Rav Safra said in response: In that case the predator was a cat, not a fox.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה לְשׁוּעָל. אִינִי? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: מַעֲשֶׂה וְדָרַס שׁוּעָל רָחֵל בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל בֵּית הִינֵי, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְאָמְרוּ: אֵין דְּרוּסָה! אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: הָהוּא כֶּלֶב הֲוָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: נָקְטִינַן אֵין דְּרוּסָה לְכֶלֶב.
There are those who say the above exchange differently: Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: A fox does render an animal a tereifa through clawing. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: There was an incident in which a fox clawed a ewe in the bathhouse of Beit Hini, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said: This is not a case of clawing. Rav Safra said in response: In that case the predator was a dog, not a fox. And Rav Yosef said: We have a tradition that a dog does not render an animal a tereifa through clawing.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נָקְטִינַן, אֵין דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא בַּיָּד, לְאַפּוֹקֵי רֶגֶל דְּלָא. אֵין דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא בְּצִפּוֹרֶן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי שֵׁן דְּלָא. אֵין דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת, לְאַפּוֹקֵי שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת דְּלָא. אֵין דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא מֵחַיִּים, לְאַפּוֹקֵי לְאַחַר מִיתָה דְּלָא.
§ With regard to the definition of clawing that renders an animal a tereifa, Abaye said: We have a tradition: Clawing is only with the foreleg, to the exclusion of clawing with the hind leg, which does not render the animal a tereifa. Additionally, clawing is only with the claw, to the exclusion of savaging with the tooth, which does not render the animal a tereifa, because the teeth contain no venom. And clawing is only through an intentional act, to the exclusion of an unintentional act, which does not render the animal a tereifa, e.g., if the predator accidentally fell on the prey with its claws outstretched. And clawing is only while the predator is alive, to the exclusion of a case where it clawed an animal after death, which does not render the animal a tereifa.
אָמְרִי: הַשְׁתָּא שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת אָמְרַתְּ לָא, לְאַחַר מִיתָה מִיבַּעְיָא? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּדָרֵיס וּפַסְקוּהָ לִידֵיהּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בַּהֲדֵי דְּדָרֵיס שָׁדֵי זִיהֲרֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: בַּהֲדֵי דְּשָׁלֵיף שָׁדֵי זִיהֲרֵיהּ.
The Sages say: Now that you said that an unintentional act of clawing does not render an animal a tereifa, is it necessary to say that clawing after death is ineffective? The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha for a case where the predator clawed while still alive, and they cut off its hand with its claws still inside the prey’s flesh. Lest you say: It injects its venom while it claws, Abaye teaches us that it injects its venom while it withdraws its claws. Accordingly, where the venom has yet to be injected before its death, i.e., before its hand is severed, the animal is kosher.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אֲרִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵין הַשְּׁוָורִים, וְנִמְצָא צִפּוֹרֶן בְּגַבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא אֲרִי דְּרָסוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? רוֹב אֲרָיוֹת דּוֹרְסִין וּמִיעוּטָן אֵין דּוֹרְסִין, וְכׇל הַדּוֹרֵס – אֵין צִפׇּרְנוֹ נִשְׁמֶטֶת, וְזֹאת, הוֹאִיל וְצִפּוֹרֶן יוֹשֶׁבֶת לוֹ בְּגַבּוֹ – אֵימַר בַּכּוֹתֶל נִתְחַכֵּךְ.
§ Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: If a lion entered among the oxen, and afterward a claw was found stuck in the back of one of the oxen, one need not be concerned that perhaps the lion clawed it. What is the reason for this? Even though a majority of lions claw their prey and only a minority of them do not claw, still, it is known with regard to any lion that claws that its claw is not ripped out in the process. And therefore, with regard to this ox, since a claw sits in its back, say that it rubbed against a wall that had a claw embedded in it.
אַדְּרַבָּה, רוֹב שְׁוָורִים מִתְחַכְּכִין, וּמִיעוּטָן אֵין מִתְחַכְּכִין, וְכׇל הַמִּתְחַכֵּךְ – אֵין צִפּוֹרֶן יוֹשֶׁבֶת לוֹ בְּגַבּוֹ, וְזֶה, הוֹאִיל וְצִפּוֹרֶן יוֹשֶׁבֶת לוֹ בְּגַבּוֹ, אֵימַר אֲרִי דְּרָסוֹ!
The Gemara objects: On the contrary, say that even though a majority of oxen rub against the wall and only a minority do not rub, still, it is known with regard to any ox that rubs that a claw does not sit in its back. And therefore, with regard to this ox, since a claw sits in its back, say that the lion clawed it.
אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי, וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי – אוֹקֵי (מִילְּתָא) [תּוֹרָא] אַחֶזְקֵיהּ, הָוֵה לֵיהּ סְפֵק דְּרוּסָה; וְרַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
The Gemara responds: One can say this, and one can say that. Therefore, establish the matter according to its presumptive status, in which case the ox is not a tereifa. Accordingly, the ox is permitted because this case is one of uncertainty as to whether the animal was clawed, and Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: One need not be concerned in a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא צִפּוֹרֶן, אֲבָל מְקוֹם צִפּוֹרֶן – חוֹשְׁשִׁין, וְצִפּוֹרֶן נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לַחָה, אֲבָל יְבֵשָׁה – עָבְדָה דְּמִשְׁתַּמְטָא.
Abaye said: We said that one need not be concerned that the lion clawed the ox only when the claw was found in its back, since it is known that a claw is not ripped out during clawing. But if only the spot of a claw was found, i.e., a perforation, one must be concerned. And even if the claw was found in its back, we said that one need not be concerned only when it was moist, since this indicates it was well connected to the flesh. Accordingly, if the lion had clawed the ox, this claw would not have been ripped out. But if the claw was dry, one must be concerned, because it happens that such a claw is ripped out during clawing.
וְלַחָה נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא חֲדָא, אֲבָל תַּרְתֵּי וּתְלָת – חָיְישִׁינַן, וְהוּא דְּקָיְימָא בְּדָרָא דְּסִיחוּפֵיהּ.
And with regard to a moist claw as well, we said that one need not be concerned only when one claw was found in its back. But if there were two or three claws embedded in its back, we must be concerned, because multiple claws were not likely to be embedded in the wall. And this is the halakha only where they are situated in a row as they are in the paw of a lion.
אִיתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
§ It was stated: Rav says: One need not be concerned in a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed. And Shmuel says: One must be concerned in a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed, and the animal must be inspected.
דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, סָפֵק עָל, סָפֵק לָא עָל – אֵימָא לָא עָל. סְפֵק כַּלְבָּא, סְפֵק שׁוּנָרָא – אֵימָא כַּלְבָּא. עָל, שְׁתֵיק וְיָתֵיב בֵּינַיְיהוּ – אֵימַר שְׁלָמָא שַׁוִּי. קְטַע רֵישֵׁיהּ דְּחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ – נָח מֵרִיתְחֵיהּ. אִיהוּ קָא מְעַוֵּאי וְאִינְהוּ קָמְקַרְקְרָן – בַּעוֹתֵי קָא מְבַעֲתִי
The Gemara explains: Everyone agrees that in a case where it is uncertain whether a predator entered the pen or coop and uncertain whether it did not enter, I will say that it did not enter. Furthermore, if it is known that an animal entered but it is uncertain whether it was a dog and uncertain whether it was a cat, I will say that it was a dog, which cannot render an animal a tereifa through clawing. And even if a predator entered, but it was quiet and sat among the animals, I will say it made peace with them, as though it were tame, and did not claw them. And if it decapitated one of them, I will say that its anger subsided afterward, and it did not claw other animals. And if it was roaring and they were clucking, I will say that they are only frightening
אַהֲדָדֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דְּאִיהוּ קָא שָׁתֵיק וְאִינְהוּ קָמְקַרְקְרָן: מָר סָבַר מַעֲשֶׂה קָא עָבֵיד בְּהוּ, וּמָר סָבַר מֵחֲמַת בִּעֲתוּתֵיהּ הוּא דְּקָא עָבְדָן.
each other, and one need not be concerned. They disagree when the lion is quiet and the birds are clucking. One Sage, Shmuel, holds: They are clucking because it is acting upon them, i.e., clawing them, and one Sage, Rav, holds that they are doing this out of fear of the predator, but it is not necessarily clawing them.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הִלְכְתָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: הַאי דְּרַב מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, כְּלוֹמַר, לָא סְבִירָא לִי.
Ameimar said: The halakha is that one must be concerned in a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What about this statement of Rav that one need not be concerned? Ameimar said to him: I did not hear that statement; that is to say, I do not hold in accordance with it.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַב לְגַבֵּי דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּהָהוּא שַׁרְקָפָא דִּסְפֵק דְּרוּסוֹת, דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, שַׁדְּרִינְהוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַנְקִינְהוּ וּשְׁדָנְהוּ בְּנַהֲרָא. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ – לִישְׁרִינְהוּ?
Or if you wish, say instead that Rav retracted his statement and conceded to Shmuel that one must be concerned in a case of uncertainty. As there was a certain basket of birds concerning which there was uncertainty as to whether they had been clawed by a hawk that entered among them, which came before Rav. Rav sent them before Shmuel to issue a ruling, and Shmuel strangled them and threw them in the river. And if it enters your mind that Rav did not retract his statement, then let him permit them for consumption. Why did he send them to Shmuel?
אֶלָּא מַאי הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? לֵיסְרִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא, אַתְרֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הֲוָה.
The Gemara rejects this: Rather, what will you say, that Rav really did retract? If so, let him prohibit them for consumption without sending them to Shmuel. Rather, he sent the birds to Shmuel because it was Shmuel’s place, and although Rav disagreed with Shmuel, it would be improper to issue a contradictory ruling.
לְמָה לִּי לְמִיחְנְקִינְהוּ? לִישְׁדִּינְהוּ הָכִי בְּנַהֲרָא! מְפָרְחָן וְסָלְקָן.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need Shmuel to strangle the birds? Let him simply throw them into the river as is. The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned lest they fly and leave the river and eventually end up in the possession of an unwitting Jew.
וּלְשַׁהִינְהוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ? אָתֵי בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה. וְלִיזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְגוֹיִם? אָתוּ לְזַבּוֹנִינְהוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
The Gemara objects: But let him delay killing them for twelve months. If they survive it will prove that they are not tereifot, and they will be permitted. The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned lest people encounter a stumbling block, as they might forget that these birds are prohibited and eat them before twelve months have passed. The Gemara asks: But let him sell them to gentiles so that they will not be a stumbling block. The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned that perhaps the gentiles will come to sell them back to Jews.
וְלִיחְנְקִינְהוּ וְלִישְׁדִּינְהוּ לְאַשְׁפָּה? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, נִישְׁדִּינְהוּ לִכְלָבִים! אֶלָּא, לְפַרְסוֹמֵי מִלְּתָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.
The Gemara objects: But let him strangle them and throw them into the garbage. Why did Shmuel throw them into the river? The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, we should throw them to the dogs, as at least then they will come to some use. Rather, Shmuel threw them into the river, a public place, in order to publicize the matter of the prohibition.
הָהוּא בַּר אֲוָוזָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רַב אָשֵׁי, עָל לְבֵינֵי קְנַיָּא, נְפַק אֲתָא כִּי מְמַסְמַס קוֹעֵיהּ דְּמָא. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא אָמְרִינַן סְפֵק כַּלְבָּא סְפֵק שׁוּנָרָא – אֵימַר כַּלְבָּא? הָכָא נָמֵי, סְפֵק קַנְיָא סְפֵק שׁוּנָרָא – אֵימַר קַנְיָא מַחְיֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates that there was a certain duck that was in the house of Rav Ashi. The duck entered between the reeds, and it came out with its throat stained with blood. Rav Ashi said: Do we not say: If it is uncertain whether the predator was a dog and uncertain whether it was a cat, I will say that it was a dog, which cannot claw an animal effectively? Here, too, since it is uncertain whether the duck was injured by a reed and uncertain whether it was injured by a cat, I will say that a reed struck it, and the duck is not a tereifa.
אָמְרִי בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.
§ The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, said: A clawed animal, about which the Sages said one must be concerned, requires inspection of the flesh adjacent to the intestines. If the flesh surrounding the intestines reddened, the animal is a tereifa, because the venom will eventually penetrate the body cavity and perforate the intestines themselves.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָא דִּבְנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא – כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.
Rav Yosef said: This statement of the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya was already explained by Shmuel, as Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus: A clawed animal, about which they said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines.
בָּעֵי אִילְפָא: יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה לְסִימָנִים אוֹ אֵין דְּרוּסָה לְסִימָנִים? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי אִילְפָא – כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא, דְּאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא אָמַר רַב: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הֶחָלָל כּוּלּוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּסִימָנִין.
Ilfa raises a dilemma: Is there clawing with regard to the simanim, or is there no clawing with regard to the simanim? Does the venom penetrate the simanim as it does the intestines? Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Ilfa raises was already explained by Rav Ḥanan bar Rava, as Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: A clawed animal, about which they said one must be concerned, requires inspection of the flesh adjacent to the entire body cavity, and even in the area of the simanim.
בָּעֵי אִילְפָא: סִימָנִין שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ, בְּכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי אִילְפָא – כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרוּבָּן.
Ilfa raises another dilemma: With regard to simanim that were detached, how much detachment renders the animal a tereifa? Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Ilfa raises was already explained by Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Shmuel says: With regard to simanim that were detached, if they were detached in their majority the animal is a tereifa.
בָּעֵי רַב אַמֵּי: הֲמַסְמָסָה מַהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי רַב אַמֵּי – כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ רַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בִּדְרוּסָה, עַד שֶׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים; נִתְמַסְמֵס הַבָּשָׂר – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ.
Rav Ami raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to an animal that was clawed in an area not surrounding the body cavity, such as the legs, and rot was found in the flesh of that area? Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Rav Ami raises was already explained by Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to a clawed animal, the injury does not render it a tereifa unless the flesh adjacent to the intestine reddens; but if the flesh rotted, one views the rotten area as if it does not exist. If the animal would be a tereifa when missing this flesh, it is also a tereifa if the flesh rotted.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי נִתְמַסְמֵס? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּל שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא גּוֹרְדוֹ וּמַעֲמִידוֹ עַל בָּשָׂר חַי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, אַיְיתוֹ קַמַּן הָהִיא רֵיאָה, דְּכִי הֲווֹ מוֹתְבִי לַהּ – יָתְבָה שַׁפִּיר, וְכִי הֲווֹ מַדְלוּ לַהּ – הֲוָה תָּלְחָה וְנָפְלָה תִּילְחֵי תִּילְחֵי, וְטָרֵיפְנָא לַהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Gemara asks: What is considered rotten flesh? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is any flesh in such a state that the doctor scrapes it off and leaves the animal with its raw flesh exposed so that it will heal. Rav Ashi said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana they brought before us a certain lung that, when they would set it down, would sit well, but when they would pick it up it would disintegrate and fall into pieces. And we deemed it a tereifa based on the statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, that one views rotten flesh as if it does not exist. Since the animal would be a tereifa if missing the lung (see 42a), it is also a tereifa if the lung is rotten.
רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: בְּקוֹץ – עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לֶחָלָל, בִּדְרוּסָה – מִשֶּׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים. רַב זְבִיד מַתְנֵי הָכִי: בִּדְרוּסָה – מִשֶּׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים, בְּסִימָנִים – עַד שֶׁיַּאֲדִימוּ סִימָנִים עַצְמָם.
Rav Naḥman said: If an animal was pierced by a thorn, it is not a tereifa until it is perforated to the cavity of the body. But in the case of a clawed animal, once the flesh adjacent to the intestines reddens, it is a tereifa. Rav Zevid would teach the halakha in this manner: In the case of a clawed animal, once the flesh adjacent to the intestines reddens it is a tereifa; but if it was clawed in the simanim, it is not a tereifa unless the simanim themselves redden. If only the flesh around them reddens, the animal is kosher, since the venom may not penetrate to the simanim themselves.
אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי, בָּעֵי רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי:
Rav Pappi said: Rav Beivai bar Abaye raises a dilemma:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
New York, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Los Angeles, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Chullin 53
יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה לְחָתוּל אוֹ אֵין דְּרוּסָה לְחָתוּל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף לְחוּלְדָּה יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה. יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה לְחוּלְדָּה אוֹ אֵין דְּרוּסָה לְחוּלְדָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף לְחָתוּל אֵין דְּרוּסָה.
Does a cat render an animal a tereifa through clawing, or does a cat not render it a tereifa through clawing? Rav said to him: Even a weasel, which is smaller than a cat, does render an animal a tereifa through clawing. Rav Kahana also asked him: Does a weasel render an animal a tereifa through clawing, or does a weasel not render it a tereifa through clawing? Rav said to him: Even a cat does not render an animal a tereifa through clawing.
לְחָתוּל וּלְחוּלְדָּה, יֵשׁ לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה אוֹ אֵין לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְחָתוּל יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה, לְחוּלְדָּה אֵין דְּרוּסָה.
Rav Kahana also asked him: With regard to a cat and a weasel, do they render an animal a tereifa through clawing, or do they not render it a tereifa through clawing? Rav said to him: A cat does render an animal a tereifa through clawing, but a weasel does not render it a tereifa through clawing.
וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״אַף לְחוּלְדָּה יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה״ – בְּעוֹפוֹת, הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״אַף לְחָתוּל אֵין דְּרוּסָה״ – בְּאִימְּרֵי רַבְרְבֵי, הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״לְחָתוּל יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה, לְחוּלְדָּה אֵין דְּרוּסָה״ – בִּגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים.
The Gemara clarifies: And the apparent contradiction between these responses is not difficult. That which Rav said to him: Even a weasel does render an animal a tereifa through clawing, was stated about a case of clawed birds. That which he said to him: Even a cat does not render an animal a tereifa through clawing, was stated about a case of adult sheep. That which Rav said to him: A cat does render an animal a tereifa through clawing, but a weasel does not render it a tereifa through clawing, was stated about a case of kids and lambs.
בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין, יֵשׁ לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה אוֹ אֵין לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הִלֵּל לְרַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, אֲמַר: שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין יֵשׁ לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה.
§ The mishna states that a small bird clawed by a hawk is a tereifa. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: With regard to other non-kosher birds beside a hawk, do they render a bird a tereifa through clawing, or do they not render it a tereifa through clawing? Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana, he said: Other non-kosher birds do render a bird a tereifa through clawing.
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: ״וּדְרוּסַת הַנֵּץ בְּעוֹף הַדַּק״! דְּרוּסַת הָנֵץ בְּדִכְוָותֵיהּ, וְאִינָךְ בִּדְזוּטְרָא מִינַּיְיהוּ. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דְּרוּסַת הַנֵּץ בִּדְרַבִּי מִינֵּיהּ, וְאִינָךְ בְּדִכְוָותַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: Or if it was clawed by a hawk in the case of a small bird, it is a tereifa? Apparently, only a hawk renders a small bird a tereifa through clawing. The Gemara responds: The mishna means that a small bird clawed by a hawk is rendered a tereifa even in a case where it is as large as the hawk. But these other non-kosher birds can render a small bird a tereifa only in a case where it is smaller than them. And there are those who say: A small bird clawed by a hawk is rendered a tereifa even in a case where it is larger than the hawk. But these other non-kosher birds can render a small bird a tereifa only in a case where it is, at most, as large as them.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: אֵין דְּרוּסָה לְשׁוּעָל. אִינִי? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂה וְדָרַס שׁוּעָל רָחֵל בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל בֵּית הִינֵי, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְאָמְרוּ: יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה! אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: הָהִיא חָתוּל הֲוָה.
§ Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: A fox does not render an animal a tereifa through clawing. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: There was an incident in which a fox clawed a ewe in the bathhouse of Beit Hini, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said: This is a case of clawing. Rav Safra said in response: In that case the predator was a cat, not a fox.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה לְשׁוּעָל. אִינִי? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: מַעֲשֶׂה וְדָרַס שׁוּעָל רָחֵל בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל בֵּית הִינֵי, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְאָמְרוּ: אֵין דְּרוּסָה! אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: הָהוּא כֶּלֶב הֲוָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: נָקְטִינַן אֵין דְּרוּסָה לְכֶלֶב.
There are those who say the above exchange differently: Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: A fox does render an animal a tereifa through clawing. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: There was an incident in which a fox clawed a ewe in the bathhouse of Beit Hini, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said: This is not a case of clawing. Rav Safra said in response: In that case the predator was a dog, not a fox. And Rav Yosef said: We have a tradition that a dog does not render an animal a tereifa through clawing.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נָקְטִינַן, אֵין דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא בַּיָּד, לְאַפּוֹקֵי רֶגֶל דְּלָא. אֵין דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא בְּצִפּוֹרֶן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי שֵׁן דְּלָא. אֵין דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת, לְאַפּוֹקֵי שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת דְּלָא. אֵין דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא מֵחַיִּים, לְאַפּוֹקֵי לְאַחַר מִיתָה דְּלָא.
§ With regard to the definition of clawing that renders an animal a tereifa, Abaye said: We have a tradition: Clawing is only with the foreleg, to the exclusion of clawing with the hind leg, which does not render the animal a tereifa. Additionally, clawing is only with the claw, to the exclusion of savaging with the tooth, which does not render the animal a tereifa, because the teeth contain no venom. And clawing is only through an intentional act, to the exclusion of an unintentional act, which does not render the animal a tereifa, e.g., if the predator accidentally fell on the prey with its claws outstretched. And clawing is only while the predator is alive, to the exclusion of a case where it clawed an animal after death, which does not render the animal a tereifa.
אָמְרִי: הַשְׁתָּא שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת אָמְרַתְּ לָא, לְאַחַר מִיתָה מִיבַּעְיָא? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּדָרֵיס וּפַסְקוּהָ לִידֵיהּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בַּהֲדֵי דְּדָרֵיס שָׁדֵי זִיהֲרֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: בַּהֲדֵי דְּשָׁלֵיף שָׁדֵי זִיהֲרֵיהּ.
The Sages say: Now that you said that an unintentional act of clawing does not render an animal a tereifa, is it necessary to say that clawing after death is ineffective? The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha for a case where the predator clawed while still alive, and they cut off its hand with its claws still inside the prey’s flesh. Lest you say: It injects its venom while it claws, Abaye teaches us that it injects its venom while it withdraws its claws. Accordingly, where the venom has yet to be injected before its death, i.e., before its hand is severed, the animal is kosher.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אֲרִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵין הַשְּׁוָורִים, וְנִמְצָא צִפּוֹרֶן בְּגַבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא אֲרִי דְּרָסוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? רוֹב אֲרָיוֹת דּוֹרְסִין וּמִיעוּטָן אֵין דּוֹרְסִין, וְכׇל הַדּוֹרֵס – אֵין צִפׇּרְנוֹ נִשְׁמֶטֶת, וְזֹאת, הוֹאִיל וְצִפּוֹרֶן יוֹשֶׁבֶת לוֹ בְּגַבּוֹ – אֵימַר בַּכּוֹתֶל נִתְחַכֵּךְ.
§ Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: If a lion entered among the oxen, and afterward a claw was found stuck in the back of one of the oxen, one need not be concerned that perhaps the lion clawed it. What is the reason for this? Even though a majority of lions claw their prey and only a minority of them do not claw, still, it is known with regard to any lion that claws that its claw is not ripped out in the process. And therefore, with regard to this ox, since a claw sits in its back, say that it rubbed against a wall that had a claw embedded in it.
אַדְּרַבָּה, רוֹב שְׁוָורִים מִתְחַכְּכִין, וּמִיעוּטָן אֵין מִתְחַכְּכִין, וְכׇל הַמִּתְחַכֵּךְ – אֵין צִפּוֹרֶן יוֹשֶׁבֶת לוֹ בְּגַבּוֹ, וְזֶה, הוֹאִיל וְצִפּוֹרֶן יוֹשֶׁבֶת לוֹ בְּגַבּוֹ, אֵימַר אֲרִי דְּרָסוֹ!
The Gemara objects: On the contrary, say that even though a majority of oxen rub against the wall and only a minority do not rub, still, it is known with regard to any ox that rubs that a claw does not sit in its back. And therefore, with regard to this ox, since a claw sits in its back, say that the lion clawed it.
אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי, וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי – אוֹקֵי (מִילְּתָא) [תּוֹרָא] אַחֶזְקֵיהּ, הָוֵה לֵיהּ סְפֵק דְּרוּסָה; וְרַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
The Gemara responds: One can say this, and one can say that. Therefore, establish the matter according to its presumptive status, in which case the ox is not a tereifa. Accordingly, the ox is permitted because this case is one of uncertainty as to whether the animal was clawed, and Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: One need not be concerned in a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא צִפּוֹרֶן, אֲבָל מְקוֹם צִפּוֹרֶן – חוֹשְׁשִׁין, וְצִפּוֹרֶן נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לַחָה, אֲבָל יְבֵשָׁה – עָבְדָה דְּמִשְׁתַּמְטָא.
Abaye said: We said that one need not be concerned that the lion clawed the ox only when the claw was found in its back, since it is known that a claw is not ripped out during clawing. But if only the spot of a claw was found, i.e., a perforation, one must be concerned. And even if the claw was found in its back, we said that one need not be concerned only when it was moist, since this indicates it was well connected to the flesh. Accordingly, if the lion had clawed the ox, this claw would not have been ripped out. But if the claw was dry, one must be concerned, because it happens that such a claw is ripped out during clawing.
וְלַחָה נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא חֲדָא, אֲבָל תַּרְתֵּי וּתְלָת – חָיְישִׁינַן, וְהוּא דְּקָיְימָא בְּדָרָא דְּסִיחוּפֵיהּ.
And with regard to a moist claw as well, we said that one need not be concerned only when one claw was found in its back. But if there were two or three claws embedded in its back, we must be concerned, because multiple claws were not likely to be embedded in the wall. And this is the halakha only where they are situated in a row as they are in the paw of a lion.
אִיתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
§ It was stated: Rav says: One need not be concerned in a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed. And Shmuel says: One must be concerned in a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed, and the animal must be inspected.
דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, סָפֵק עָל, סָפֵק לָא עָל – אֵימָא לָא עָל. סְפֵק כַּלְבָּא, סְפֵק שׁוּנָרָא – אֵימָא כַּלְבָּא. עָל, שְׁתֵיק וְיָתֵיב בֵּינַיְיהוּ – אֵימַר שְׁלָמָא שַׁוִּי. קְטַע רֵישֵׁיהּ דְּחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ – נָח מֵרִיתְחֵיהּ. אִיהוּ קָא מְעַוֵּאי וְאִינְהוּ קָמְקַרְקְרָן – בַּעוֹתֵי קָא מְבַעֲתִי
The Gemara explains: Everyone agrees that in a case where it is uncertain whether a predator entered the pen or coop and uncertain whether it did not enter, I will say that it did not enter. Furthermore, if it is known that an animal entered but it is uncertain whether it was a dog and uncertain whether it was a cat, I will say that it was a dog, which cannot render an animal a tereifa through clawing. And even if a predator entered, but it was quiet and sat among the animals, I will say it made peace with them, as though it were tame, and did not claw them. And if it decapitated one of them, I will say that its anger subsided afterward, and it did not claw other animals. And if it was roaring and they were clucking, I will say that they are only frightening
אַהֲדָדֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דְּאִיהוּ קָא שָׁתֵיק וְאִינְהוּ קָמְקַרְקְרָן: מָר סָבַר מַעֲשֶׂה קָא עָבֵיד בְּהוּ, וּמָר סָבַר מֵחֲמַת בִּעֲתוּתֵיהּ הוּא דְּקָא עָבְדָן.
each other, and one need not be concerned. They disagree when the lion is quiet and the birds are clucking. One Sage, Shmuel, holds: They are clucking because it is acting upon them, i.e., clawing them, and one Sage, Rav, holds that they are doing this out of fear of the predator, but it is not necessarily clawing them.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הִלְכְתָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: הַאי דְּרַב מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, כְּלוֹמַר, לָא סְבִירָא לִי.
Ameimar said: The halakha is that one must be concerned in a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What about this statement of Rav that one need not be concerned? Ameimar said to him: I did not hear that statement; that is to say, I do not hold in accordance with it.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַב לְגַבֵּי דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּהָהוּא שַׁרְקָפָא דִּסְפֵק דְּרוּסוֹת, דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, שַׁדְּרִינְהוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַנְקִינְהוּ וּשְׁדָנְהוּ בְּנַהֲרָא. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ – לִישְׁרִינְהוּ?
Or if you wish, say instead that Rav retracted his statement and conceded to Shmuel that one must be concerned in a case of uncertainty. As there was a certain basket of birds concerning which there was uncertainty as to whether they had been clawed by a hawk that entered among them, which came before Rav. Rav sent them before Shmuel to issue a ruling, and Shmuel strangled them and threw them in the river. And if it enters your mind that Rav did not retract his statement, then let him permit them for consumption. Why did he send them to Shmuel?
אֶלָּא מַאי הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? לֵיסְרִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא, אַתְרֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הֲוָה.
The Gemara rejects this: Rather, what will you say, that Rav really did retract? If so, let him prohibit them for consumption without sending them to Shmuel. Rather, he sent the birds to Shmuel because it was Shmuel’s place, and although Rav disagreed with Shmuel, it would be improper to issue a contradictory ruling.
לְמָה לִּי לְמִיחְנְקִינְהוּ? לִישְׁדִּינְהוּ הָכִי בְּנַהֲרָא! מְפָרְחָן וְסָלְקָן.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need Shmuel to strangle the birds? Let him simply throw them into the river as is. The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned lest they fly and leave the river and eventually end up in the possession of an unwitting Jew.
וּלְשַׁהִינְהוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ? אָתֵי בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה. וְלִיזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְגוֹיִם? אָתוּ לְזַבּוֹנִינְהוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
The Gemara objects: But let him delay killing them for twelve months. If they survive it will prove that they are not tereifot, and they will be permitted. The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned lest people encounter a stumbling block, as they might forget that these birds are prohibited and eat them before twelve months have passed. The Gemara asks: But let him sell them to gentiles so that they will not be a stumbling block. The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned that perhaps the gentiles will come to sell them back to Jews.
וְלִיחְנְקִינְהוּ וְלִישְׁדִּינְהוּ לְאַשְׁפָּה? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, נִישְׁדִּינְהוּ לִכְלָבִים! אֶלָּא, לְפַרְסוֹמֵי מִלְּתָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.
The Gemara objects: But let him strangle them and throw them into the garbage. Why did Shmuel throw them into the river? The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, we should throw them to the dogs, as at least then they will come to some use. Rather, Shmuel threw them into the river, a public place, in order to publicize the matter of the prohibition.
הָהוּא בַּר אֲוָוזָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רַב אָשֵׁי, עָל לְבֵינֵי קְנַיָּא, נְפַק אֲתָא כִּי מְמַסְמַס קוֹעֵיהּ דְּמָא. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא אָמְרִינַן סְפֵק כַּלְבָּא סְפֵק שׁוּנָרָא – אֵימַר כַּלְבָּא? הָכָא נָמֵי, סְפֵק קַנְיָא סְפֵק שׁוּנָרָא – אֵימַר קַנְיָא מַחְיֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates that there was a certain duck that was in the house of Rav Ashi. The duck entered between the reeds, and it came out with its throat stained with blood. Rav Ashi said: Do we not say: If it is uncertain whether the predator was a dog and uncertain whether it was a cat, I will say that it was a dog, which cannot claw an animal effectively? Here, too, since it is uncertain whether the duck was injured by a reed and uncertain whether it was injured by a cat, I will say that a reed struck it, and the duck is not a tereifa.
אָמְרִי בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.
§ The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, said: A clawed animal, about which the Sages said one must be concerned, requires inspection of the flesh adjacent to the intestines. If the flesh surrounding the intestines reddened, the animal is a tereifa, because the venom will eventually penetrate the body cavity and perforate the intestines themselves.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָא דִּבְנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא – כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.
Rav Yosef said: This statement of the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya was already explained by Shmuel, as Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus: A clawed animal, about which they said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines.
בָּעֵי אִילְפָא: יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה לְסִימָנִים אוֹ אֵין דְּרוּסָה לְסִימָנִים? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי אִילְפָא – כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא, דְּאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא אָמַר רַב: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הֶחָלָל כּוּלּוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּסִימָנִין.
Ilfa raises a dilemma: Is there clawing with regard to the simanim, or is there no clawing with regard to the simanim? Does the venom penetrate the simanim as it does the intestines? Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Ilfa raises was already explained by Rav Ḥanan bar Rava, as Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: A clawed animal, about which they said one must be concerned, requires inspection of the flesh adjacent to the entire body cavity, and even in the area of the simanim.
בָּעֵי אִילְפָא: סִימָנִין שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ, בְּכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי אִילְפָא – כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרוּבָּן.
Ilfa raises another dilemma: With regard to simanim that were detached, how much detachment renders the animal a tereifa? Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Ilfa raises was already explained by Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Shmuel says: With regard to simanim that were detached, if they were detached in their majority the animal is a tereifa.
בָּעֵי רַב אַמֵּי: הֲמַסְמָסָה מַהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי רַב אַמֵּי – כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ רַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בִּדְרוּסָה, עַד שֶׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים; נִתְמַסְמֵס הַבָּשָׂר – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ.
Rav Ami raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to an animal that was clawed in an area not surrounding the body cavity, such as the legs, and rot was found in the flesh of that area? Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Rav Ami raises was already explained by Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to a clawed animal, the injury does not render it a tereifa unless the flesh adjacent to the intestine reddens; but if the flesh rotted, one views the rotten area as if it does not exist. If the animal would be a tereifa when missing this flesh, it is also a tereifa if the flesh rotted.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי נִתְמַסְמֵס? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּל שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא גּוֹרְדוֹ וּמַעֲמִידוֹ עַל בָּשָׂר חַי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, אַיְיתוֹ קַמַּן הָהִיא רֵיאָה, דְּכִי הֲווֹ מוֹתְבִי לַהּ – יָתְבָה שַׁפִּיר, וְכִי הֲווֹ מַדְלוּ לַהּ – הֲוָה תָּלְחָה וְנָפְלָה תִּילְחֵי תִּילְחֵי, וְטָרֵיפְנָא לַהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Gemara asks: What is considered rotten flesh? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is any flesh in such a state that the doctor scrapes it off and leaves the animal with its raw flesh exposed so that it will heal. Rav Ashi said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana they brought before us a certain lung that, when they would set it down, would sit well, but when they would pick it up it would disintegrate and fall into pieces. And we deemed it a tereifa based on the statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, that one views rotten flesh as if it does not exist. Since the animal would be a tereifa if missing the lung (see 42a), it is also a tereifa if the lung is rotten.
רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: בְּקוֹץ – עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לֶחָלָל, בִּדְרוּסָה – מִשֶּׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים. רַב זְבִיד מַתְנֵי הָכִי: בִּדְרוּסָה – מִשֶּׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים, בְּסִימָנִים – עַד שֶׁיַּאֲדִימוּ סִימָנִים עַצְמָם.
Rav Naḥman said: If an animal was pierced by a thorn, it is not a tereifa until it is perforated to the cavity of the body. But in the case of a clawed animal, once the flesh adjacent to the intestines reddens, it is a tereifa. Rav Zevid would teach the halakha in this manner: In the case of a clawed animal, once the flesh adjacent to the intestines reddens it is a tereifa; but if it was clawed in the simanim, it is not a tereifa unless the simanim themselves redden. If only the flesh around them reddens, the animal is kosher, since the venom may not penetrate to the simanim themselves.
אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי, בָּעֵי רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי:
Rav Pappi said: Rav Beivai bar Abaye raises a dilemma:
