Chullin

‘What is considered a deficiency of the spine? Beth Shammai say. If two vertebrae were missing; Beth Hillel say: If only one was missing’. And Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel that their views are the same with regard to rendering the animal trefah!1 — Here we are speaking of a rib [being dislodged] but not the vertebra and there of a vertebra [being dislodged] but not the rib. I can well understand a rib [being dislodged] without its vertebra but how can it happen that the vertebra [should become dislodged] without [dislodging at the same time] the ribs?2 — It can happen below at the loins.3 R. Oshaia raised the question, Why is not this dispute4 included in the list of differences5 wherein Beth Shammai adopt the more lenient view and Beth Hillel the stricter view? — Raba answered. Because the dispute arose originally with regard to the law of uncleanness and in this respect Beth Shammai hold the stricter view.6 ‘If the greater portion of the skull was shattered’. R. Jeremiah asked: Does it mean the greater portion of the height of the skull or the greater portion of its circumference?7 This remains undecided. ‘If the greater portion of the membrane which covers the greater part of the rumen [was torn]’. R. Ashi asked: Does it mean that the greater portion was torn or that it was gone? But you can surely answer this from our Mishnah which reads: IF THE INNER RUMEN WAS PIERCED OR THE GREATER PART OF THE OUTER COVERING WAS TORN. And this was interpreted by the scholars in the West [palestine] on the authority of R. Jose b. Hanina thus: The entire rumen is the inner rumen. And what is the outer rumen? It is the membrane which covers the greater part of the rumen!8 — Was not this question raised on the statement of Samuel? But R. Jacob b. Nahmani has reported in the name of Samuel that it [sc. the inner rumen] is that part of the rumen which has no downy lining.9 IF IT WAS CLAWED BY A WOLF. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: In the case of cattle from the wolf and upwards,10 and in the case of birds from the hawk and upwards. What does this exclude? Should you say it excludes the cat, surely we have expressly learnt: IF IT WAS CLAWED BY A WOLF!11 And should you further say that the Mishnah merely wishes to teach that a wolf can claw even large cattle,12 surely [this is not so, for] our Mishnah adds: R. JUDAH SAYS. SMALL CATTLE IF CLAWED BY A WOLF, AND LARGE CATTLE IF CLAWED BY A LION. And should you further say that R. Judah differs [from the view of the first Tanna],13 surely [it is not so, for] R. Benjamin b. Japhet has stated in the name of R. Ila'a14 that the sole purpose of R. Judah's statement was merely to explain [the words of the first Tanna but not to dissent therefrom]! — Do you point out a contradiction between one authority and another!15 If you wish, however, I can say that it [the Mishnah] indeed excludes the cat [and yet R. Judah's statement was necessary], for you might have said [the reason why the Mishnah mentions the wolf was because] it was the more common occurrence;16 he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. R. ‘Amram said in the name of R. Hisda: Goats and lambs [are trefah] if clawed either by a cat or a marten, birds if clawed by a weasel. An objection was raised: The clawing by a cat or a hawk or a marten [does not render trefah] unless the claw actually penetrated into [the abdominal] cavity.17 Now it follows from this that the clawing itself is of no consequence! But how do you explain this? Is the clawing by a hawk of no consequence? Surely we have learnt: IF CLAWED BY A HAWK! — This is no difficulty, for the statement [of our Mishnah] refers to birds [being clawed], whereas the statement [of the Baraitha] refers to goats and lambs; but against R. Hisda [this Baraitha] is indeed an objection! — He [R. Hisda] concurs with the view of the following Tanna. For it was taught: Beribbi18 said: Only in that case when no one was present to save [the attacked animal] did the Rabbis say that the clawing [by a cat] was of no consequence.19 but when some one was present to save [the attacked animal] the clawing [by a cat] is of consequence.20 Do you then hold that when no one is present to save [the animal], the clawing [by a cat] is of no consequence? But it once happened that a hen belonging to R. Kahana was being pursued by a cat and it ran into a room. The door shut in the face of the cat so that [in its fury] it struck the door with its paw. There were then found on it five spots of blood!21 — When the attacked animal tries to save itself it is the same as when others are present to save it. But [does not this incident contradict the view of] the Rabbis?22 — They maintain that it has venom, but the venom does not burn.23 Others report the passage thus:24 The author of that Baraitha is Beribbi.25 For it was taught: Beribbi said: Only in that case when there was some one present to save [the attacked animal] did the Rabbis say that the clawing [by a cat] was of consequence, but when no one was present to save [the attacked animal] the clawing by a cat is of no consequence. Do you then hold that when no one is present to save [the animal] the clawing [by a cat] is of no consequence? But it once happened that a hen belonging to R. Kahana was being pursued by a cat and it ran into a room. The door shut in the face of the cat so that [in its fury] it struck the door with its paw. There were then found on it five spots of blood! — When the attacked animal tries to save itself it is the same as when others are present to save it. R. Kahana enquired of Rab: of a rib. according to the former two vertebrae must be missing, and according to the latter only one. Thus Beth Shammai clearly hold the more lenient view. although one vertebra thereof was missing. of the head, or to the width of the skull, i.e., the distance from ear to ear? (R. Gershom). the membrane was torn, it is trefah. therefore throw any light on the elucidation of Samuel's statement here. than the wolf. The same is the intention of the Mishnah in the case of birds. can render even a large cattle, e.g., an ox, trefah. Small cattle however, e.g., sheep, can be clawed even by a cat. dissenting view, the first Tanna being of the opinion that the clawing by a wolf would render trefah even large cattle. Now it might have been inferred from this that the clawing by a cat would render trefah small cattle, e.g., sheep and goats; Rab therefore expressly teaches us that a cat is absolutely excluded, and its clawing is of no consequence. solely by the clawing and the poisonous discharge that follows. concurs with this view, and only in these circumstances does he maintain that the clawing by a cat renders trefah. though no one was present to save the victim. circumstances. The question is then, How will they explain away the presence of the venom on the door, which indicates that a cat does discharge venom in its attack? Tanna of our Mishnah also concurs with this view.