Parallel
חולין 53
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Is the clawing by a cat of consequence or not? — He replied: Even the clawing by a weasel is of consequence. And is the clawing by a weasel of consequence or not? — He replied. Even the clawing by a cat is of no consequence. And is the clawing by a cat or by a weasel of consequence or not? — He replied: The clawing by a cat is of consequence but the clawing by a weasel is not. Now there is really no contradiction between these replies. For when he said: ‘Even the clawing by a weasel is of consequence’, he meant with reference to birds; and when he said: ‘Even the clawing by a cat is of no consequence’, he meant with reference to large sheep; and when he said: ‘The clawing by a cat is of consequence but the clawing by a weasel is not’, he meant with reference to kids and lambs. R. Ashi asked: Is the clawing by the other unclean birds of consequence or not? — R. Hillel said to R. Ashi: When we were at the school of R. Kahana he taught us that the clawing by the other unclean birds was of consequence. But have we not learnt: SMALL FOWL IF CLAWED BY A HAWK? — It means, the clawing by a hawk is of consequence upon other [birds even as large] as itself, while the clawing by other birds is of consequence only upon others smaller than themselves. Others say that it means, the clawing by a hawk is of consequence upon others even larger than itself, while the clawing by other birds is of consequence only upon others as large as themselves. R. Kahana said in the name of R. Shimi b. Ashi: The clawing by a fox is of no consequence. But this is not so? For when R. Dimi came [from palestine] he related that there once happened a case where a ewe-lamb was clawed by a fox at the baths of Beth Hini, and when the case was brought to the Sages they ruled that the clawing was of consequence! — R. Safra answered: In that case it must have been a cat [and not a fox]. Others report it thus: R. Kahana said in the name of R. Shimi b. Ashi, The clawing by a fox is of consequence. But this is not so? For when R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he related that there once happened a case where a ewe-lamb was clawed by a fox, and when the case was brought to the Sages they ruled that the clawing was of no consequence! — R. Safra answered: It must have been a dog [and not a fox]. R. Joseph said: We have it on tradition that the clawing by a dog is of no consequence. Abaye said: We have it on tradition that clawing is only with the fore-leg, thus excluding the hind leg; that clawing is only with the claws, thus excluding the teeth; that the clawing must be intentional, thus excluding an unintentional act; and that the clawing must be by a living animal, thus excluding the clawing by a dead animal. But since you have already said it must not be unintentional, is it then at all necessary to say that it must not be by a dead animal? — It is indeed necessary for the case where the animal struck with its claw and it was immediately amputated. Now you might have thought that it discharges the poison at once when it strikes with the claw, we therefore learn that it discharges the poison only when it withdraws the claw. Rabbah son of R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If a lion had entered amidst oxen and later there was found a nail [from a lion's claw] lodged in the back of one of them, there is no fear that the lion had clawed it. Why? Because although most lions attack with their claws there are a few that do not; moreover, all that do claw do not usually lose a nail, therefore the fact that this ox has a nail lodged in its back suggests that it had rubbed itself against a wall. On the contrary, we should argue thus: Although most oxen rub themselves against a wall there are a few that do not; moreover, all that do rub themselves against a wall do not usually find a nail lodged in their backs, therefore the fact that this ox has a nail lodged in its back suggests that it was clawed by a lion! — One can argue this way and one can argue that way; therefore as there is a doubt whether [the ox] had been clawed or not [it is permitted, for] Rab is consistent in his view that we are in no way apprehensive of an animal about which there is a doubt whether it has been clawed or not. Abaye said: This is the rule only when the nail was actually there [protruding from the back of the ox], but if there was found the mark of the nail [of a claw upon the back], we are certainly apprehensive about it. And even when the nail was actually there this rule applies only if the nail was moist [with blood], but if it was dry it is quite usual for it to fall loose. And even when the nail was moist the rule applies only to a single nail, but if there were two or three nails [upon the back of the animal] we are apprehensive about it; provided, however, they were in the shape of a paw. It was stated: Rab says: We are in no way apprehensive of fan animal] about which there is a doubt whether it has been clawed or not; Samuel says. We are apprehensive about it. Now all agree as to the following: if there was a doubt whether it [the lion] entered [among the cattle] or not, we may assume that it did not enter. If there was a doubt whether [an animal had been clawed] by a dog or by a cat, we may assume that it was a dog. If it [the lion] entered, and quietly lay down among the cattle, we may assume that it became friendly with them. If it broke the head of one, we may assume that its fury has thereby been assuaged. If the lion was roaring and the cattle were lowing, we may assume that they are trying to frighten
—
each other. Their dispute arises only where the lion was silent and they were lowing; one [Samuel] is of the opinion that this is an indication that it has already attacked them, whereas the other [Rab] is of the opinion that they are lowing out of fear only. Amemar said: The law is that we must be apprehensive of [an animal] about which there was a doubt whether it had been clawed or not. Whereupon R. Ashi said to Amemar, But what about Rab's view? — He replied: I have not heard of it, by which I mean to say. I don't agree with it. Or else I can say that Rab withdrew his opinion in favour of Samuel's. For it once happened that a basket of [live] birds, about which there was a doubt whether they had been clawed or not, was brought before Rab. He thereupon sent it to Samuel, who at once strangled the birds and threw them into the river. Now if you were to say that Rab had not retracted his view, then why did he not permit them? But you hold, do you not, that Rab had retracted his view; why then did he not himself forbid them? Rather [what you must say is that] it happened in the town where Samuel lived. Why did he need to strangle them? He could have thrown them alive into the river? — They would then fly away. And why did he not keep them alive for twelve months? — One might fall into sin on account of them. And why did he not sell them to gentiles? — They might re-sell them to Israelites. And why did he not strangle them and throw them on to the dung heap? Then you might just as well ask: Why did he not throw them to the dogs? [The answer] rather [is that] he wanted to make known to all this prohibition. A duck belonging to R. Ashi went among the reeds and emerged with its neck smeared with blood. Said R. Ashi: We hold, do we not, that wherever there is a doubt whether the animal was clawed by a dog or by a cat it may be assumed that it was clawed by a dog? Here, too, there being a doubt whether it was injured by a reed or clawed by a cat, it may be assumed that it was injured by a reed. The sons of R. Hiyya said: The examination of which the Rabbis have spoken in the case of ‘clawing’, must be carried out in the region of the intestines. R. Joseph said: This statement of the sons of R. Hiyya was made long ago by Samuel, for Samuel said in the name of R. Hanina b. Antigonos. The examination of which [the Rabbis] have spoken in the case of clawing, must be carried out in the region of the intestines. Ilfa raised the question: Are the organs of the throat affected by clawing or not? — R. Zera said. The question raised by Ilfa was answered long ago by R. Hanan b. Raba, for R. Hanan b. Raba said in the name of Rab, The examination of which the Rabbis have spoken in the case of clawing, must be carried out over all the internal organs, including even the organs of the throat. Ilfa raised the question: How much of the organs of the throat must be torn loose [in order to render the animal trefah]? — R. Zera said: The question raised by Ilfa was answered long ago by Rabbah b. Bar Hana, for Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of Samuel, If the greater part [of the circumference] of the organs of the throat was torn loose [from its connection on top], the animal is trefah. R. Ammi asked: What is the law if decay set in [as a result of clawing]? — R. Zera said: The question raised by R. Ammi was answered long ago by Rab Judah, for Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, In the case of clawing [the animal is not trefah] unless the flesh in the region of the intestines became red. If the flesh decayed it is to be regarded as though it were gone entirely. What is meant by ‘decayed’? — R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: It is all such flesh as is scraped away by the surgeon in order to leave only healthy flesh. R. Ashi said: When we were at the school of R. Kahana there was brought before us a lung which when laid down lay firm, but when lifted up decomposed and fell to pieces, and we declared it to be trefah, in accordance with the view of R. Huna the son of R. Joshua. R. Nahman said: In the case of a thorn [the animal is not trefah] unless it penetrated into the [abdominal] cavity; in the case of clawing, unless the flesh in the region of the intestines became red. R. Zebid reported thus: In the case of clawing, [the animal is not trefah] unless the flesh in the region of the intestines became red; and if [clawed in the region of] the organs of the throat, unless the organs themselves became red. R. Papi reported that R. Bibi b. Abaye raised this question:
—