Chullin Daf 53 (חולין דף נ״ג)
Daf: 53 | Amudim: 53a – 53b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (53a)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא — המשך שאלות רב כהנא לרב
Continuing Rav Kahana’s questions to Rav: which predators claw effectively, and two seemingly opposite answers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by completing the series of questions Rav Kahana put to Rav (begun at the end of 52b) about which predators claw effectively. The two answers here look flatly contradictory: in the first, Rav says even a weasel (the smaller animal) claws, implying a cat certainly does; in the second, he says even a cat (the larger animal) does not claw, implying a weasel certainly does not. The tension is deliberate, and the Gemara will resolve it in segment 3 by showing that each answer addressed a different kind of prey.
Key Terms:
- דְּרוּסָה (derisa) = clawing by a venomous predator that injects venom (zihara) into the prey, rendering it a tereifa
- חָתוּל (chatul) = a cat
- חוּלְדָּה (chulda) = a weasel (smaller than a cat)
Segment 2
TYPE: בעיא — שאלה שלישית
A third question that distinguishes cat from weasel — adding a third datum to be reconciled
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְחָתוּל וּלְחוּלְדָּה, יֵשׁ לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה אוֹ אֵין לָהֶן דְּרוּסָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְחָתוּל יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה, לְחוּלְדָּה אֵין דְּרוּסָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third question asks about the cat and the weasel together, and Rav now draws a distinction between them: the cat claws, but the weasel does not. This produces a third answer that must be squared with the first two. We now have three statements: weasel claws; cat does not claw; cat claws but weasel does not. The contradiction is sharpest between the second and third, where the cat both does and does not claw, setting up the reconciliation that follows.
Key Terms:
- לְחָתוּל יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה (le-chatul yesh derisa) = a cat does have effective clawing — true with respect to mid-sized prey
- לְחוּלְדָּה אֵין דְּרוּסָה (le-chulda ein derisa) = a weasel does not have effective clawing — relative to that same prey
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ — חילוק לפי גודל הטרף
Resolving all three answers: the size of the prey determines which predator claws
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara dissolves the contradiction by recognizing that each of Rav’s three answers addressed prey of a different size. Against small, vulnerable birds, even the weasel claws effectively. Against large adult sheep, even the cat is too weak to claw effectively. And against mid-sized prey — kids and lambs — the line falls between the two, so the cat claws but the weasel does not. The governing principle is that the effectiveness of derisa is relative to the proportion between predator and prey.
Key Terms:
- עוֹפוֹת (ofot) = birds — small enough that even a weasel can claw them effectively
- אִימְּרֵי רַבְרְבֵי (imrei ravrevei) = large adult sheep — too big even for a cat to claw effectively
- גְּדָיִים וּטְלָאִים (gedayim u-tela’im) = kids and lambs — the mid-sized case where the cat claws but the weasel does not
Segment 4
TYPE: בעיא — דריסת שאר עופות טמאים
Rav Ashi asks whether non-kosher birds other than the hawk also claw; Rav Hillel answers from tradition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna singled out the netz (hawk) as the bird whose clawing makes a small bird a tereifa, so Rav Ashi asks whether other non-kosher birds of prey also claw effectively. Rav Hillel answers from a tradition he heard in Rav Kahana’s academy: yes, other non-kosher birds claw as well. This will immediately provoke an objection from the wording of the mishna, which seems to mention only the hawk.
Key Terms:
- שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת טְמֵאִין (she’ar ofot teme’in) = the other non-kosher (predatory) birds besides the hawk
- נֵץ (netz) = the hawk, the one predatory bird named in the mishna for derisa
- בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא (bei Rav Kahana) = the study hall of Rav Kahana, the source of the tradition Rav Hillel reports
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — מהמשנה
Objection from the mishna’s wording, resolved by distinguishing the size of prey each bird can claw
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: ״וּדְרוּסַת הַנֵּץ בְּעוֹף הַדַּק״! דְּרוּסַת הָנֵץ בְּדִכְוָותֵיהּ, וְאִינָךְ בִּדְזוּטְרָא מִינַּיְיהוּ. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דְּרוּסַת הַנֵּץ בִּדְרַבִּי מִינֵּיהּ, וְאִינָךְ בְּדִכְוָותַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is that the mishna seems to grant derisa-power only to the hawk. The Gemara answers that the mishna singles out the hawk not because it alone claws, but because it is the most potent clawer: the hawk claws a bird even one as large as itself, whereas other predatory birds only claw prey smaller than themselves. The alternate version (ika de’amri) goes further, holding the hawk claws even prey larger than itself, while the others claw prey at most as large as they are. Either way, the size-relativity principle from segment 3 is now applied to birds.
Key Terms:
- בְּדִכְוָותֵיהּ (bi-dechavateih) = a prey as large as the predator itself — what the hawk can claw
- בִּדְזוּטְרָא מִינַּיְיהוּ (bi-dezutra minaihu) = prey smaller than them — the limit for the other predatory birds
- בִּדְרַבִּי מִינֵּיהּ (bi-derabbi mineih) = prey larger than it — what the hawk can claw according to the alternate version
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא ומעשה — אין דרוסה לשועל
Rav Kahana: a fox does not claw; the Beit Hini bathhouse incident challenges this, resolved by Rav Safra
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana, citing Rav Shimi bar Ashi, adds the fox (shu’al) to the list of animals that do not claw effectively. The Gemara challenges this from a reported incident (ma’aseh): Rav Dimi brought a tradition that a fox clawed a ewe at the Beit Hini bathhouse and the Sages ruled it a case of derisa. Rav Safra defends Rav Kahana by reinterpreting the incident: the predator there was actually a cat, not a fox, so the ruling that it was derisa stands without contradicting the rule about foxes.
Key Terms:
- שׁוּעָל (shu’al) = a fox — here ruled not to claw effectively
- מַעֲשֶׂה (ma’aseh) = a reported incident/precedent brought as a halakhic challenge
- בֵּית הִינֵי (Beit Hini) = the location of the bathhouse where the clawing incident occurred
Segment 7
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא — יש דרוסה לשועל
Alternate version: a fox does claw; the incident is reinterpreted as a dog; Rav Yosef: a dog does not claw
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The alternate version (ika de’amri) inverts Rav Kahana’s ruling: here he holds a fox does claw effectively. The same Beit Hini incident is now cited the opposite way — the Sages ruled it was not derisa — and Rav Safra resolves it by saying the predator was actually a dog, not a fox. Rav Yosef seals this with a received tradition (naktinan) that a dog does not claw effectively, which both explains the Sages’ lenient ruling and adds the dog to the list of non-clawers.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי (ika de’amri) = an alternate version of the exchange, here reversing whether a fox claws
- כֶּלֶב (kelev) = a dog — ruled not to claw effectively
- נָקְטִינַן (naktinan) = we hold by tradition — a received, authoritative ruling
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא — ארבעת תנאי הדריסה
Abaye’s four-part definition of effective derisa: foreleg, claw, intent, while alive
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye now lays out, as a received tradition, the four conditions that must all hold for clawing to render the prey a tereifa. It must be done with the foreleg (yad), not the hind leg; with the claw (tzipporen), not the tooth, since teeth carry no venom; intentionally (mida’at), not by accident; and while the predator is alive (mechayim), not after its death. The unifying rationale is that derisa works by the injection of venom, which only happens under these conditions. The Gemara will probe the last two clauses in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- יָד (yad) = the foreleg — the only limb whose clawing counts (not the regel, hind leg)
- צִפּוֹרֶן (tzipporen) = a claw — the only instrument that injects venom (not the shen, tooth)
- מִדַּעַת (mida’at) = intentionally — accidental clawing does not inject venom
- מֵחַיִּים (mechayim) = while alive — clawing after the predator’s death is ineffective
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — מתי משליך הזיהר
Why state mechayim separately? For a claw severed mid-strike: venom is injected on withdrawal, not insertion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why mechayim (only while alive) needs stating separately, since clawing after death is obviously unintentional and already excluded. The answer reveals a precise physiological teaching: the clause is needed for a case where the predator clawed while alive but its paw was cut off before it could finish. One might think the venom is injected as the claw enters (bahadei de’daris); Abaye teaches that the venom is in fact injected only as the predator withdraws its claws (bahadei de’shaleif). Therefore, if the predator is killed or its paw severed before withdrawal, no venom was injected and the prey remains kosher.
Key Terms:
- זִיהֲרָא (zihara) = the venom the predator injects; the mechanism by which derisa makes prey a tereifa
- בַּהֲדֵי דְּשָׁלֵיף (bahadei de’shaleif) = at the moment it withdraws (its claws) — when the venom is actually injected
- פַּסְקוּהָ לִידֵיהּ (paskuha li-deih) = they cut off its hand/paw (mid-strike), the case that requires the mechayim clause
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא — צפורן בגב השור
Rav: a claw found in an ox’s back after a lion entered the herd is not a concern for derisa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav, via Rabba bar Rav Huna, rules a striking case: a lion got in among the oxen, and afterward a loose claw is found embedded in an ox’s back. One might assume the lion clawed it, but Rav says there is no concern. His reasoning hinges not on the majority of lions but on a fact about clawing itself: when a lion does claw, its claw stays attached and is not torn out. So the very presence of a detached claw in the back argues the lion did not claw this ox; rather, the ox must have rubbed against a wall in which a stray claw was lodged. This launches a dialectical analysis of competing presumptions.
Key Terms:
- אֲרִי (ari) = a lion
- צִפּוֹרֶן יוֹשֶׁבֶת בְּגַבּוֹ (tzipporen yoshevet be-gabbo) = a claw sitting (embedded) in its back — the evidence to be interpreted
- בַּכּוֹתֶל נִתְחַכֵּךְ (ba-kotel nitchakech) = it rubbed against the wall — Rav’s alternative explanation for the embedded claw
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא — אדרבה
Counter-argument: the same logic, run from the oxen’s side, points to clawing instead
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַדְּרַבָּה, רוֹב שְׁוָורִים מִתְחַכְּכִין, וּמִיעוּטָן אֵין מִתְחַכְּכִין, וְכׇל הַמִּתְחַכֵּךְ – אֵין צִפּוֹרֶן יוֹשֶׁבֶת לוֹ בְּגַבּוֹ, וְזֶה, הוֹאִיל וְצִפּוֹרֶן יוֹשֶׁבֶת לוֹ בְּגַבּוֹ, אֵימַר אֲרִי דְּרָסוֹ!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses the opposite presumption, mirroring Rav’s reasoning from the oxen’s side. Granted most oxen rub against walls, the relevant fact is that when an ox rubs against a wall, a claw does not normally end up lodged in its back. Since this ox does have a claw in its back, the more natural inference is that the lion clawed it. The two arguments are structurally symmetric, each invoking a behavioral majority and then a fact that cuts against the obvious conclusion.
Key Terms:
- אַדְּרַבָּה (adrabba) = on the contrary — marker introducing the symmetric counter-argument
- מִתְחַכְּכִין (mitchakchin) = rub themselves (against a wall) — the ordinary behavior of oxen invoked here
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ — אוקי תורא אחזקיה
Resolution: the arguments balance, so leave the ox in its presumed permitted status; Rav follows his own view on sfek derisa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי, וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי – אוֹקֵי (מִילְּתָא) [תּוֹרָא] אַחֶזְקֵיהּ, הָוֵה לֵיהּ סְפֵק דְּרוּסָה; וְרַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Since the two arguments are evenly matched and neither prevails, the Gemara falls back on the ox’s chazaka — its established status as a permitted, healthy animal — and leaves it there (oki tora a-chezkeih). The situation is therefore a sfek derisa, an uncertain clawing, and the leniency rests on Rav’s broader principle, stated independently below, that we are not concerned for sfek derisa. Rav is thus consistent (le-ta’ameih) with his own ruling. This connects the lion case to the major machloket between Rav and Shmuel that follows.
Key Terms:
- אוֹקֵי תּוֹרָא אַחֶזְקֵיהּ (oki tora a-chezkeih) = leave the ox in its presumptive (permitted, healthy) status when the evidence is balanced
- סְפֵק דְּרוּסָה (sfek derisa) = an uncertain case of clawing — the central category of this sugya
- רַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ (Rav le-ta’ameih) = Rav is consistent with his own (broader) ruling that we are not concerned for sfek derisa
Segment 13
TYPE: אוקימתא — סייגי אביי
Abaye qualifies Rav’s leniency: only an actual claw, and only a moist one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא צִפּוֹרֶן, אֲבָל מְקוֹם צִפּוֹרֶן – חוֹשְׁשִׁין, וְצִפּוֹרֶן נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לַחָה, אֲבָל יְבֵשָׁה – עָבְדָה דְּמִשְׁתַּמְטָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye narrows Rav’s lenient ruling with two conditions. First, the leniency applies only when an actual detached claw is found; if there is merely a claw-mark or hole (mekom tzipporen) with no claw, one must be concerned, because a hole could perfectly well be a clawing wound. Second, even a found claw exonerates the lion only if it is moist (lacha), indicating it was firmly attached and would not have torn loose during clawing; a dry claw, which can detach during clawing, leaves room for concern. These qualifications refine exactly when the embedded-claw evidence proves the lion is innocent.
Key Terms:
- מְקוֹם צִפּוֹרֶן (mekom tzipporen) = the mere spot/mark of a claw (a perforation) without an actual claw — here one must be concerned
- לַחָה (lacha) = moist (claw) — firmly attached, so it would not tear out during clawing
- יְבֵשָׁה (yeveisha) = dry (claw) — liable to detach during clawing, so concern remains
Segment 14
TYPE: אוקימתא — המשך סייגי אביי
A further qualification: only one claw exonerates; two or three in a row raise concern
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלַחָה נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא חֲדָא, אֲבָל תַּרְתֵּי וּתְלָת – חָיְישִׁינַן, וְהוּא דְּקָיְימָא בְּדָרָא דְּסִיחוּפֵיהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye adds a third condition: even a moist claw exonerates the lion only when a single claw is found. If two or three claws are embedded in the back, one must be concerned, since it is implausible that several stray claws happened to be lodged in a wall at once — this pattern points to clawing. The qualifier dara de-sichufeih sharpens it: the concern arises specifically when the claws are lined up in a row, exactly as they sit in a lion’s paw, which all but identifies them as a single clawing strike.
Key Terms:
- חֲדָא (chada) = a single (claw) — the only configuration that exonerates the lion
- דָּרָא דְּסִיחוּפֵיהּ (dara de-sichufeih) = (claws) in a row, as arranged in the lion’s paw — the pattern that signals an actual clawing strike
Segment 15
TYPE: מחלוקת — רב ושמואל בספק דרוסה
The core dispute: Rav is not concerned for an uncertain clawing; Shmuel is and requires inspection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now formally states (itamar) the foundational machloket that has been operating in the background of the lion case. Rav holds we are not concerned for sfek derisa — an uncertain clawing is treated leniently and the animal is permitted. Shmuel holds we are concerned, so the animal must undergo inspection before it can be eaten. This dispute governs the entire remainder of the sugya, and the Gemara will next map out precisely where they agree and where they part ways.
Key Terms:
- אִיתְּמַר (itamar) = it was stated — formula introducing a recorded amoraic dispute
- אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין (ein chosheshin) = we are not concerned — Rav’s lenient position on uncertain clawing
- חוֹשְׁשִׁין (chosheshin) = we are concerned (and require inspection) — Shmuel’s stringent position
Segment 16
TYPE: אוקימתא — תיחום המחלוקת
Spelling out the cases where everyone agrees there is no concern, isolating the true point of dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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
English Translation:
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
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara catalogues a series of cases where even Shmuel concedes there is no concern, in order to isolate the precise point on which he and Rav actually disagree. All agree to be lenient when it is uncertain whether any predator even entered; when it is unclear whether the intruder was a (non-clawing) dog or a cat; when a predator entered but sat quietly, suggesting it made peace; and when it killed only one animal, since its rage was then spent. The list builds toward the borderline scenario — a quiet predator while the birds are agitated — which spills over into 53b and is the real seam of the dispute.
Key Terms:
- סָפֵק עָל סָפֵק לָא עָל (safek al safek lo al) = uncertain whether it even entered — all agree we assume it did not
- שְׁלָמָא שַׁוִּי (shelama shavi) = it made peace (sat quietly among them) — taken as a sign it did not claw
- נָח מֵרִיתְחֵיהּ (nach me-ritcheih) = its rage subsided (after killing one) — so it would not have clawed the rest
Amud Bet (53b)
Segment 1
TYPE: אוקימתא — נקודת המחלוקת
The actual point of dispute: a quiet predator while the birds are agitated — clawing or mere fear?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַהֲדָדֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דְּאִיהוּ קָא שָׁתֵיק וְאִינְהוּ קָמְקַרְקְרָן: מָר סָבַר מַעֲשֶׂה קָא עָבֵיד בְּהוּ, וּמָר סָבַר מֵחֲמַת בִּעֲתוּתֵיהּ הוּא דְּקָא עָבְדָן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having cleared away all the agreed cases, the Gemara pinpoints the single scenario where Rav and Shmuel actually divide: the predator sits silent while the birds cluck in distress. Shmuel reads the birds’ agitation as evidence that the predator is actively clawing them (ma’aseh ka aveid). Rav reads the same agitation as mere terror at the predator’s presence (bi’atuteih), proving nothing about actual clawing. This perfectly distills their broader disagreement over how to treat ambiguous evidence of derisa.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲשֶׂה קָא עָבֵיד בְּהוּ (ma’aseh ka aveid behu) = it is performing an act on them (clawing) — Shmuel’s reading of the birds’ clucking
- בִּעֲתוּתֵיהּ (bi’atuteih) = (out of) fear of it — Rav’s reading: the birds are merely terrified, not clawed
Segment 2
TYPE: הלכתא — פסק אמימר
Ameimar rules in accordance with Shmuel; Rav Ashi asks about Rav’s contrary view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הִלְכְתָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: הַאי דְּרַב מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, כְּלוֹמַר, לָא סְבִירָא לִי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ameimar issues the practical ruling (hilkheta): the halakha follows Shmuel — we are concerned for sfek derisa and require inspection. Rav Ashi presses him: how can he rule against Rav, who held we are not concerned? Ameimar’s reply, lo shemia li, literally means I have not heard it, but the Gemara glosses it as a polite way of saying lo sevira li — I do not accept it. He thus stands by his ruling against Rav rather than reconcile the two.
Key Terms:
- הִלְכְתָא (hilkheta) = the practical, binding halakhic ruling
- לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי / לָא סְבִירָא לִי (lo shemia li / lo sevira li) = I have not heard it = I do not hold by it — a courteous formula for rejecting a cited view
Segment 3
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא ומעשה — הדר ביה רב
Alternate resolution: Rav retracted and conceded to Shmuel; proof from the basket of doubtfully-clawed birds
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rather than have Ameimar simply reject Rav, the Gemara offers a second resolution (i ba’eit eima): Rav himself retracted (hadar bei) and conceded to Shmuel. The proof is a story: a basket (sharkafa) of doubtfully-clawed birds came before Rav, and instead of ruling on it he sent it to Shmuel, who strangled the birds and threw them in the river. The Gemara reasons: if Rav still held his lenient view, he should simply have permitted the birds himself — the fact that he passed the case to Shmuel suggests he no longer held his own position. The next segment will refine this inference.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַר בֵּיהּ (hadar bei) = he retracted (his ruling) and conceded to the other view
- שַׁרְקָפָא (sharkafa) = a basket (here, of doubtfully-clawed birds)
- אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא (i ba’eit eima) = if you wish, say instead — marker introducing an alternate explanation
Segment 4
TYPE: דחיה — אתריה דשמואל
Refining the proof: he sent them not because he retracted but because it was Shmuel’s jurisdiction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מַאי הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? לֵיסְרִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא, אַתְרֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הֲוָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tightens the logic from both directions. The earlier inference is incomplete: if Rav truly retracted, he could simply have prohibited the birds himself, so the mere fact that he forwarded them does not by itself prove a retraction either way. The real explanation is that the case arose in Shmuel’s locale (atreih di-Shmuel); out of respect for the local authority, Rav deferred to Shmuel rather than issue a ruling — lenient or stringent — on Shmuel’s turf. This neutralizes the story as evidence about Rav’s actual opinion, leaving the retraction theory as one possible reading rather than a proof.
Key Terms:
- אַתְרֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל (atreih di-Shmuel) = Shmuel’s place/jurisdiction — where Rav defers to the local authority
- לֵיסְרִינְהוּ (leisrinhu) = let him prohibit them (himself) — the alternative had Rav genuinely retracted
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — למה לחנקן
Why strangle the birds first? Lest they fly out of the river and reach an unwitting Jew
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמָה לִּי לְמִיחְנְקִינְהוּ? לִישְׁדִּינְהוּ הָכִי בְּנַהֲרָא! מְפָרְחָן וְסָלְקָן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now examines the details of Shmuel’s disposal of the prohibited birds, beginning with why he strangled them rather than just throwing them in the river alive. The answer is practical: live birds would simply fly out (mefarchan ve-salkan) and could later be caught and eaten by an unwitting Jew, defeating the purpose of removing them. Killing them first ensures the prohibited animals cannot re-enter circulation.
Key Terms:
- לְמִיחְנְקִינְהוּ (le-michnekinhu) = to strangle them — Shmuel’s method of killing the prohibited birds
- מְפָרְחָן וְסָלְקָן (mefarchan ve-salkan) = they would fly and leave (the river) — the risk of throwing them in alive
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — חלופות אחרות
Why not wait twelve months, or sell to gentiles? Each risks a stumbling block
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְשַׁהִינְהוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ? אָתֵי בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה. וְלִיזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְגוֹיִם? אָתוּ לְזַבּוֹנִינְהוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes two seemingly milder alternatives to destroying the birds. Why not keep them twelve months — the principle being that a true tereifa typically cannot survive a full year, so survivors would prove permitted? Because in the interim someone might forget and eat them, a takkala (stumbling block). Why not at least sell them to gentiles, recovering their value? Because the gentiles might resell them to Jews, again risking that a Jew eats a prohibited bird. Each humane option is rejected to eliminate any chance of mishap.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ (shneim asar chodesh) = twelve months — a tereifa generally cannot survive this long, so survival proves it kosher
- תַקָּלָה (takkala) = a stumbling block — the risk that someone eats the prohibited birds
- לִיזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְגוֹיִם (lizabninhu le-goyim) = let him sell them to gentiles — rejected lest they resell to Jews
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — לפרסומי מילתא דאיסורא
Why the river and not the garbage? To publicize the prohibition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיחְנְקִינְהוּ וְלִישְׁדִּינְהוּ לְאַשְׁפָּה? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, נִישְׁדִּינְהוּ לִכְלָבִים! אֶלָּא, לְפַרְסוֹמֵי מִלְּתָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final objection asks why Shmuel chose the river rather than simply discarding the strangled birds in the trash. The Gemara turns the question back (ve-li-ta’amaikh): by that logic he should have given them to the dogs and gotten some benefit. The real motive emerges: Shmuel cast them into the river — a conspicuous, public place — specifically to publicize the prohibition (le-farsumei milta de-issura), so that everyone would learn that such doubtfully-clawed birds are forbidden. The disposal was thus also a teaching act.
Key Terms:
- לְפַרְסוֹמֵי מִלְּתָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא (le-farsumei milta de-issura) = to publicize the matter of the prohibition — Shmuel’s reason for the public river
- וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ (ve-li-ta’amaikh) = and according to your reasoning — a dialectical move turning the questioner’s logic against itself
Segment 8
TYPE: מעשה — בר אווזא דרב אשי
Rav Ashi’s duck: a bloodied throat after entering reeds — assume a reed, not a cat, struck it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara records a case in Rav Ashi’s own house: a duck went into the reeds and emerged with its throat bloodied. Rav Ashi applies the agreed leniency from the earlier list — when it is uncertain whether the attacker was a dog or a cat we assume the (harmless) dog — to a new pairing. Here the uncertainty is whether a cat clawed the duck or a reed merely struck and scratched it; Rav Ashi rules we assume the reed (kanya machyeih), so the duck is kosher. This shows how the sfek-kalba-sfek-shunra principle extends to any benign alternative cause.
Key Terms:
- בַּר אֲוָוזָא (bar avoza) = a duck
- מְמַסְמַס קוֹעֵיהּ דְּמָא (memasmes koeih dema) = its throat smeared/oozing with blood — the ambiguous wound
- אֵימַר קַנְיָא מַחְיֵיהּ (eimar kanya machyeih) = say a reed struck it — the benign explanation assumed in the doubt
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא — בדיקת הדרוסה
The sons of R’ Chiyya: a clawed animal must be inspected opposite the intestines
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established when we are concerned for clawing, the sugya turns to how a clawed animal is actually checked. The sons of R’ Chiyya teach that such an animal requires inspection (bedika) of the flesh opposite the intestines (keneged bnei me’ayim). The diagnostic sign is reddening of that flesh: if it has reddened, the venom is judged to be spreading and will eventually perforate the intestines, so the animal is a tereifa. This gives the abstract category of derisa a concrete, anatomical test.
Key Terms:
- בְּדִיקָה (bedika) = inspection — the examination required to clear or condemn a clawed animal
- כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים (keneged bnei me’ayim) = opposite/adjacent to the intestines — the region inspected for reddening
- בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא (bnei Rabbi Chiyya) = the sons of R’ Chiyya (Yehuda and Chizkiyya), who transmit this rule
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא — מקור קדום לדין הבדיקה
Rav Yosef: Shmuel, citing R’ Chanina ben Antignos, had already stated this rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָא דִּבְנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא – כְּבָר פָּירְשַׁהּ שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef notes that the sons of R’ Chiyya’s rule is not new: Shmuel had already taught it in the name of the Tanna R’ Chanina ben Antignos, in nearly identical wording. This is the first of a recurring pattern on the rest of the daf — a later dilemma or statement is shown to have already been settled by an earlier authority (kevar peirshah). Anchoring the inspection rule in a Tannaitic source lends it greater weight.
Key Terms:
- כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ (kevar peirshah) = it was already explained/resolved earlier — a recurring formula on this daf
- רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס (Rabbi Chanina ben Antignos) = the Tanna whose teaching Shmuel cites as the source for the inspection rule
Segment 11
TYPE: בעיא — דרוסה בסימנים
Ilfa asks whether venom reaches the simanim; R’ Zeira: Rav already said the whole cavity, including the simanim, is checked
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ilfa raises the first of three dilemmas, each of which R’ Zeira shows was already answered. He asks whether the venom of derisa affects the simanim (the gullet and windpipe) as it does the intestines. R’ Zeira responds that Rav Chanan bar Rava already taught in Rav’s name that a clawed animal must be inspected opposite the entire body cavity, explicitly including the simanim. So yes, there is concern for clawing to the simanim, and they must be checked along with the rest of the cavity.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנִים (simanim) = the gullet (veshet) and windpipe (kaneh), the organs severed in shechita
- בֵּית הֶחָלָל כּוּלּוֹ (beit he-chalal kullo) = the entire body cavity — the full scope of the required inspection
- אִילְפָא (Ilfa) = the Amora who poses this series of dilemmas about the bounds of derisa
Segment 12
TYPE: בעיא — סימנים שנדלדלו
Ilfa asks how much detachment of the simanim disqualifies; R’ Zeira: a majority, per Shmuel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ilfa’s second dilemma shifts from venom to mechanical damage: if the simanim have become detached (nidaldelu) from their connective tissue, how much detachment is disqualifying? R’ Zeira again points to an existing ruling — Rabba bar bar Chana in the name of Shmuel held that the animal is a tereifa once the simanim are detached in their majority (rubban). A minority detachment does not disqualify; the threshold is more than half.
Key Terms:
- נִדַּלְדְּלוּ (nidaldelu) = became detached/loosened (the simanim from their surrounding tissue)
- בְּרוּבָּן (rubban) = in their majority — the threshold of detachment that renders the animal a tereifa
Segment 13
TYPE: בעיא — בשר שנתמסמס
Rav Ami asks about rotted flesh; R’ Zeira: Rav Yehuda already said we view rotted flesh as absent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ami’s dilemma concerns flesh that has not merely reddened but rotted/decomposed (nitmasmes). R’ Zeira answers from Rav Yehuda in Rav’s name: ordinarily a clawed animal is a tereifa only once the flesh opposite the intestines reddens, but rotted flesh is treated under a different rule — we view it as if it is not there (ro’in oto ke’ilu eino). The practical upshot is that wherever a missing piece of flesh would itself render the animal a tereifa, rotted flesh in that spot disqualifies it too, since the rot is functionally equivalent to absence.
Key Terms:
- נִתְמַסְמֵס (nitmasmes) = rotted/decomposed (flesh that has lost its integrity)
- רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ (ro’in oto ke’ilu eino) = we view it as if it is not there — the principle applied to rotted flesh
Segment 14
TYPE: מימרא ומעשה — הגדרת נתמסמס
Defining rotted flesh, and Rav Ashi’s disintegrating-lung case applying the principle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now defines the threshold of nitmasmes: per Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, flesh is considered rotted when a doctor would scrape it away down to the underlying live, healthy flesh. Rav Ashi illustrates with a striking case from Rav Kahana’s academy: a lung that sat intact when laid down but crumbled into pieces (tilchei tilchei) when lifted. Applying the ke’ilu eino principle, since an animal missing its lung is a tereifa (see 42a), this disintegrating lung is treated as absent and the animal is a tereifa too. The definition thus extends beyond derisa to flesh integrity generally.
Key Terms:
- הָרוֹפֵא גּוֹרְדוֹ (ha-rofei gordo) = a doctor would scrape it (down to live flesh) — the test for rotted flesh
- בָּשָׂר חַי (basar chai) = live, healthy flesh — the layer beneath the rot
- תִּילְחֵי תִּילְחֵי (tilchei tilchei) = into pieces/shreds — how the rotted lung disintegrated when lifted
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא ומחלוקת בגירסה — קוץ לעומת דרוסה
Rav Nachman contrasts a thorn-wound with derisa; Rav Zevid’s variant on clawing in the simanim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman contrasts two kinds of injury to underscore how severe derisa is. A simple thorn-wound (kotz) renders the animal a tereifa only if it actually perforates through to the body cavity. But clawing is far more dangerous because of its venom: mere reddening of the flesh opposite the intestines suffices, without any perforation. Rav Zevid transmits a variant teaching that adds a refinement for the simanim — there, reddening of the surrounding flesh is not enough; the simanim themselves must redden before the animal is a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- קוֹץ (kotz) = a thorn — a non-venomous wound, disqualifying only if it perforates the cavity
- עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לֶחָלָל (ad she-tinakev le-chalal) = until it perforates into the body cavity — the threshold for a thorn-wound
- עַד שֶׁיַּאֲדִימוּ סִימָנִים עַצְמָם (ad she-ya’adimu simanim atzmam) = until the simanim themselves redden — Rav Zevid’s stricter test for clawing in the simanim
Segment 16
TYPE: בעיא — פתיחת שאלה (המשך בדף נ״ד)
Rav Pappi introduces a dilemma of Rav Beivai bar Abaye — the text breaks off and continues on 54a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי, בָּעֵי רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי:
English Translation:
Rav Pappi said: Rav Beivai bar Abaye raises a dilemma:
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf ends mid-sentence on a cliffhanger: Rav Pappi begins to report a dilemma raised by Rav Beivai bar Abaye, but the question itself is cut off and continues on 54a. This is a common feature of the daf division, where a sugya is split across the page boundary. The dilemma will pick up the thread of how to assess clawing and inspection that has occupied the latter half of this daf.
Key Terms:
- רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי (Rav Beivai bar Abaye) = the Amora whose dilemma is introduced here and stated on the next daf
- בָּעֵי (ba’ei) = raises a dilemma/inquiry — the opening of a question to be resolved