Chullin

each other.1 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.2 Why did he need to strangle them? He could have thrown them alive into the river? — They would then fly away.3 And why did he not keep them alive for twelve months?4 — One might fall into sin on account of them.5 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.6 The sons of R. Hiyya said: The examination of which the Rabbis have spoken in the case of ‘clawing’,7 must be carried out in the region of the intestines.8 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.9 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.10 R. Nahman said: In the case of a thorn [the animal is not trefah] unless it penetrated into the [abdominal] cavity;11 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: retracted his view. V. Rashi. that they are not trefah. taken and slaughtered. (v. infra). For a fuller explanation of the practical result that arises from this view v. R. Nissim a.l. certain that the animal was clawed), it must be examined for any red spots, for these indicate the presence of poison injected into the flesh by the claw. According to Maim. Yad, Shechitah V, 9, it means here that the decay of any flesh as the result of clawing is always regarded as trefah. therefore, it is regarded as though the lung was missing and the animal is trefah. organs will be of avail; for a perforation of the intestines would not be noticeable even on examination.