Chullin 53bחולין נ״ג ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Chullin 53b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
53bנ״ג ב

אהדדי כי פליגי דאיהו קא שתיק ואינהו קמקרקרן מר סבר מעשה קא עביד בהו ומר סבר מחמת בעתותיה הוא דקא עבדן

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.

אמר אמימר הלכתא חוששין לספק דרוסה א"ל רב אשי לאמימר האי דרב מאי א"ל לא שמיע לי כלומר לא סבירא לי

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.

ואי בעית אימא הדר ביה רב לגבי דשמואל דההוא שרקפא דספק דרוסות דאתא לקמיה דרב שדרינהו לקמיה דשמואל חנקינהו ושדנהו בנהרא ואי ס"ד לא הדר ביה לישרינהו

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?

אלא מאי הדר ביה ליסרינהו אלא אתריה דשמואל הוה

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.

למה לי למיחנקינהו לישדינהו הכי בנהרא מפרחן וסלקן

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.

ולשהינהו שנים עשר חודש אתי בהו לידי תקלה וליזבנינהו לעובדי כוכבים אתו לזבנינהו לישראל

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.

וליחנקינהו ולישדינהו לאשפה וליטעמיך נישדינהו לכלבים אלא לפרסומי מלתא דאיסורא

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.

ההוא בר אווזא דהוה בי רב אשי על לביני קניא נפק אתא כי ממסמס קועיה דמא אמר רב אשי לא אמרינן ספק כלבא ספק שונרא אימר כלבא ה"נ ספק קניא ספק שונרא אימר קניא מחייה

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.

אמרי בני רבי חייא דרוסה שאמרו צריכה בדיקה כנגד בני מעיים

§ 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.

אמר רב יוסף הא דבני ר' חייא כבר פירשה שמואל דאמר שמואל משום ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס דרוסה שאמרו צריכה בדיקה כנגד בני מעיים

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.

בעי אילפא יש דרוסה לסימנים או אין דרוסה לסימנים א"ר זירא הא דבעי אילפא כבר פירשה רב חנן בר רבא דאמר רב חנן בר רבא אמר רב דרוסה שאמרו צריכה בדיקה כנגד בית החלל כולו ואפילו בסימנין

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.

בעי אילפא סימנין שנדלדלו בכמה אמר רבי זירא הא דבעי אילפא כבר פירשה רבה בר בר חנה דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר שמואל סימנים שנדלדלו ברובן

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.

בעי רב אמי המסמסה מהו א"ר זירא הא דבעי רב אמי כבר פירשה רב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב בדרוסה עד שיאדים בשר כנגד בני מעיים נתמסמס הבשר רואין אותו כאילו אינו

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.

ה"ד נתמסמס אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כל שהרופא גורדו ומעמידו על בשר חי אמר רב אשי כי הוינן בי רב כהנא אייתו קמן ההיא ריאה דכי הוו מיתבי לה יתבה שפיר וכי הוו מדלו לה הוה (תלחה ונפלה תילחי תילחי) וטריפנא לה מדרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע

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.

רב נחמן אמר בקוץ עד שתינקב לחלל בדרוסה משיאדים בשר כנגד בני מעיים רב זביד מתני הכי בדרוסה משיאדים בשר כנגד בני מעיים בסימנים עד שיאדימו סימנים עצמם

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.

אמר רב פפי בעי רב ביבי בר אביי

Rav Pappi said: Rav Beivai bar Abaye raises a dilemma: