Chullin 53aחולין נ״ג א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Chullin 53a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
53aנ״ג א

יש דרוסה לחתול או אין דרוסה לחתול א"ל אף לחולדה יש דרוסה יש דרוסה לחולדה או אין דרוסה לחולדה א"ל אף לחתול אין דרוסה

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.

לחתול ולחולדה יש להן דרוסה או אין להן דרוסה א"ל לחתול יש דרוסה לחולדה אין דרוסה

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.

ול"ק הא דא"ל אף לחולדה יש דרוסה בעופות הא דא"ל אף לחתול אין דרוסה באימרי רברבי הא דא"ל לחתול יש דרוסה לחולדה אין דרוסה בגדיים וטלאים

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.

בעי רב אשי שאר עופות טמאין יש להן דרוסה או אין להן דרוסה א"ל רב הלל לרב אשי כי הוינן בי רב כהנא אמר שאר עופות טמאין יש להן דרוסה

§ 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.

והאנן תנן ודרוסת הנץ בעוף הדק דרוסת הנץ בדכוותיה ואינך בדזוטרא מינייהו ואיכא דאמרי דרוסת הנץ בדרבי מיניה ואינך בדכוותייהו

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.

אמר רב כהנא משמיה דרב שימי בר אשי אין דרוסה לשועל איני והא כי אתא רב דימי אמר מעשה ודרס שועל רחל במרחץ של בית היני ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו יש דרוסה אמר רב ספרא ההיא חתול הוה

§ 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.

איכא דאמרי אמר רב כהנא משמיה דרב שימי בר אשי יש דרוסה לשועל איני והא כי אתא רב דימי אמר מעשה ודרס שועל רחל במרחץ של בית היני ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו אין דרוסה אמר רב ספרא ההוא כלב הוה אמר רב יוסף נקטינן אין דרוסה לכלב

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.

אמר אביי נקטינן אין דרוסה אלא ביד לאפוקי רגל דלא אין דרוסה אלא בצפורן לאפוקי שן דלא אין דרוסה אלא מדעת לאפוקי שלא מדעת דלא אין דרוסה אלא מחיים לאפוקי לאחר מיתה דלא

§ 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.

אמרי השתא שלא מדעת אמרת לא לאחר מיתה מיבעיא לא צריכא דדריס ופסקוה לידיה מהו דתימא בהדי דדריס שדי זיהריה קמ"ל בהדי דשליף שדי זיהריה

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.

אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב ארי שנכנס לבין השוורים ונמצא צפורן בגבו של אחד מהן אין חוששין שמא ארי דרסו מאי טעמא רוב אריות דורסין ומיעוטן אין דורסין וכל הדורס אין צפרנו נשמטת וזאת הואיל וצפורן יושבת לו בגבו אימר בכותל נתחכך

§ 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.

אדרבה רוב שוורים מתחככין ומיעוטן אין מתחככין וכל המתחכך אין צפורן יושבת לו בגבו וזה הואיל וצפורן יושבת לו בגבו אימר ארי דרסו

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.

איכא למימר הכי ואיכא למימר הכי אוקי מילתא אחזקיה הו"ל ספק דרוסה ורב לטעמיה דאמר אין חוששין לספק דרוסה

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.

אמר אביי לא אמרן אלא צפורן אבל מקום צפורן חוששין וצפורן נמי לא אמרן אלא לחה אבל יבשה עבדה דמשתמטא

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.

ולחה נמי לא אמרן אלא חדא אבל תרתי ותלת חיישינן והוא דקיימא בדרא דסיחופיה

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.

איתמר רב אמר אין חוששין לספק דרוסה ושמואל אמר חוששין לספק דרוסה

§ 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.

דכולי עלמא ספק על ספק לא על אימא לא על ספק כלבא ספק שונרא אימא כלבא על שתיק ואיתוב בינייהו אימר שלמא שוי קטע רישיה דחד מינייהו נח מריתחיה איהו קא מעואי ואינהו קמקרקרן בעותי קא מבעתי

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