Chullin — Daf 53a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the clawing by a cat of consequence1 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 other2 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?3 — 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,4 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;5 and that the clawing must be by a living animal, thus excluding the clawing by a dead animal.6 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. 7 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.8 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 not9 [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 rule10 applies only if the nail was moist [with blood], but if it was dry it is quite usual for it to fall loose.11 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.12 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.13 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.14 If the lion was roaring and the cattle were lowing, we may assume that they are trying to frighten time when the poison is discharged the limb was already dead. suggest that the animal got the nail lodged in its back from having scratched itself against a wall in which this nail protruded. MS.M., and are evidently redundant. V., however, Glosses of Samuel Strashun.