Chullin 104

כמה חסרון בשדרה

What is considered a deficiency of the spine?

בית שמאי אומרים

Beth Shammai say.

שתי חוליות ובית הלל אומרים

If two vertebrae were missing; Beth Hillel say: If only one was missing'.

חוליא אחת

And Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel that their views are the same with regard to rendering the animal trefah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 42b. It is here taught that only the removal of a vertebra renders the animal trefah, but not the dislodgement of a rib.');">¹</span>

ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל

- Here we are speaking of a rib [being dislodged] but not the vertebra and there of a vertebra [being dislodged] but not the rib.

וכן לטרפה

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as soon as the vertebra is removed the ribs on each side of it are dislodged and fall apart.');">²</span>

הכא צלע בלא חוליא התם חוליא בלא צלע

- It can happen below at the loins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the lumbar region where there are vertebrae but no ribs.');">³</span>

בשלמא צלע בלא חוליא משכחת לה אלא חוליא בלא צלע היכי משכחת לה

R'Oshaia raised the question, Why is not this dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel as to what deficiency in the backbone would render the animal trefah; 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.');">⁴</span>

בשילהי כפלי

included in the list of differences<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In 'Ed. IV.');">⁵</span>

מתקיף לה רב אושעיא

wherein Beth Shammai adopt the more lenient view and Beth Hillel the stricter view? - Raba answered.

ולתנייה גבי קולי בית שמאי וחומרי בית הלל

Because the dispute arose originally with regard to the law of uncleanness and in this respect Beth Shammai hold the stricter view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they hold that the backbone of a corpse will still convey uncleanness to men and vessels in the same 'tent' although one vertebra thereof was missing.');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה רב

'If the greater portion of the skull was shattered'.

כי איתשיל לענין טומאה איתשיל דהוו להו בית שמאי לחומרא:

R'Jeremiah asked: Does it mean the greater portion of the height of the skull or the greater portion of its circumference?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., does the greater portion refer to the length of the skull commencing from the eyes rising upwards towards the top of the head, or to the width of the skull, i.e., the distance from ear to ear? (R. Gershom) .');">⁷</span>

וגולגולת שנחבסה ברובה:

This remains undecided.'

בעי רבי ירמיה רוב גובהה או רוב היקיפה

If the greater portion of the membrane which covers the greater part of the rumen [was torn]'.

תיקו:

R'Ashi asked: Does it mean that the greater portion was torn or that it was gone?

ובשר החופה רוב הכרס ברובו:

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.

בעי רב אשי

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.

ברוב קרוע או ברוב נטול

And what is the outer rumen?

תפשוט ליה מדתנן

It is the membrane which covers the greater part of the rumen!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the interpretation of the scholars in the West the Mishnah expressly teaches that if the greater portion of the membrane was torn, it is trefah.');">⁸</span>

כרס הפנימית שניקבה או שנקרע רוב החיצונה

- Was not this question raised on the statement of Samuel?

ואמרי במערבא משמיה דרבי יוסי בר' חנינא

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah according to Samuel does not deal with the membrane at all, but only with the actual rumen; it cannot therefore throw any light on the elucidation of Samuel's statement here.');">⁹</span>

כל הכרס כולו זו היא כרס הפנימי

IF IT WAS CLAWED BY A WOLF.

ואי זהו כרס החיצונה בשר החופה את רוב הכרס

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: In the case of cattle from the wolf and upwards,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Mishnah does not mean a wolf exclusively, but it means any other beast of prey which is larger and fiercer than the wolf. The same is the intention of the Mishnah in the case of birds.');">¹⁰</span>

מידי הוא טעמא אלא לשמואל

and in the case of birds from the hawk and upwards.

(הכי אמר) רבי יעקב בר נחמני אמר שמואל

What does this exclude?

מקום שאין בו מילת:

Should you say it excludes the cat, surely we have expressly learnt: IF IT WAS CLAWED BY A WOLF!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this clearly excludes the cat.');">¹¹</span>

ודרוסת הזאב:

And should you further say that the Mishnah merely wishes to teach that a wolf can claw even large cattle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is argued that the wolf was expressly stated not in order to exclude the cat but to teach that the clawing by a wolf can render even a large cattle, e.g., an ox, trefah. Small cattle however, e.g., sheep, can be clawed even by a cat.');">¹²</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב

surely [this is not so, for] our Mishnah adds: R'JUDAH SAYS.

בבהמה מן הזאב ולמעלה ובעופות מן הנץ ולמעלה

SMALL CATTLE IF CLAWED BY A WOLF, AND LARGE CATTLE IF CLAWED BY A LION.

למעוטי מאי

And should you further say that R'Judah differs [from the view of the first Tanna],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna being of the opinion that a wolf can claw even large cattle.');">¹³</span>

אילימא למעוטי חתול תנינא

surely [it is not so, for] R'Benjamin b Japhet has stated in the name of R'Ila'a<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In MS.M. as well as in Rashi the reading is 'R. Eleazar'.');">¹⁴</span>

ודרוסת הזאב

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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab does not agree with the view expressed above in the name of R. Ila'a but holds that R. Judah expressed a 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.');">¹⁵</span>

וכי תימא

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not to imply that the clawing by a cat is of no consequence.');">¹⁶</span>

הא קא משמע לן דזאב בגסה נמי דריס והא תנן רבי יהודה אומר

he therefore teaches us [that it is not so].

דרוסת הזאב בדקה ודרוסת ארי בגסה

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.

וכי תימא

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And pierced an internal organ. Accordingly the claw is on a par with a thorn or a needle, but it does render trefah solely by the clawing and the poisonous discharge that follows.');">¹⁷</span>

רבי יהודה מפלג פליג והאמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעא

Now it follows from this that the clawing itself is of no consequence! But how do you explain this?

לא בא רבי יהודה אלא לפרש דברי חכמים

Is the clawing by a hawk of no consequence?

גברא אגברא קא רמית

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.

איבעית אימא

For it was taught: Beribbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 22b.');">¹⁸</span>

לעולם למעוטי חתול

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in the cited Baraitha.');">¹⁹</span>

מהו דתימא אורחא דמלתא קתני קא משמע לן

but when some one was present to save [the attacked animal] the clawing [by a cat] is of consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The presence of a rescuer infuriates the cat so that it becomes fiercer in its attack and discharges its venom. R. Hisda concurs with this view, and only in these circumstances does he maintain that the clawing by a cat renders trefah.');">²⁰</span>

אמר רב עמרם אמר רב חסדא

Do you then hold that when no one is present to save [the animal], the clawing [by a cat] is of no consequence?

דרוסת חתול ונמייה בגדיים וטלאים דרוסת חולדה בעופות

But it once happened that a hen belonging to R'Kahana was being pursued by a cat and it ran into a room.

מיתיבי

The door shut in the face of the cat so that [in its fury] it struck the door with its paw.

דרוסת חתול נץ ונמייה עד שתינקב לחלל אבל דרוסה לית להו

There were then found on it f spots of blood!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., five red spots of venom were found on the door. This indicates that the cat discharges venom in its attack, even though no one was present to save the victim.');">²¹</span>

ותסברא נץ לא דריס

- When the attacked animal tries to save itself it is the same as when others are present to save it.

והתנן

But [does not this incident contradict the view of] the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis who differ from the view of Beribbi maintain that the clawing by a cat is of no consequence under any 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?');">²²</span>

ודרוסת הנץ

- They maintain that it has venom, but the venom does not burn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The discharged venom does not destroy any of the organs.');">²³</span>

הא לא קשיא

Others report the passage thus:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In answer to the objection raised above against R. Hisda from the Baraitha quoted.');">²⁴</span>

כאן בעופות כאן בגדיים וטלאים

The author of that Baraitha is Beribbi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But R. Hisda is of the opinion that in all circumstances the clawing by a cat renders trefah. And he maintains hat the Tanna of our Mishnah also concurs with this view.');">²⁵</span>

מכל מקום לרב חסדא קשיא

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.

הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא בריבי אומר

Do you then hold that when no one is present to save [the animal] the clawing [by a cat] is of no consequence?

לא אמרו אין דרוסה אלא במקום שאין מצילין אבל במקום שיש מצילין יש דרוסה

But it once happened that a hen belonging to R'Kahana was being pursued by a cat and it ran into a room.

ובמקום שאין מצילין אין דרוסה

The door shut in the face of the cat so that [in its fury] it struck the door with its paw.

והא ההיא תרנגולת דהואי בי רב כהנא דרהט חתול בתרה ועל לאידרונא ואיתחיד דשא באפיה ומחייה לדשא בסיחופיה ואשתכח עלה חמשה קורטי דמא

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.

הצלת עצמה נמי כהצלת אחרים דמי

R'Kahana enquired of Rab:

ורבנן זיהרא אית ליה ולא קלי זיהריה

איכא דאמרי

הא מני

בריבי היא דתניא בריבי אומר

לא אמרו יש דרוסה אלא במקום שיש מצילין אבל במקום שאין מצילין אין דרוסה

ובמקום שאין מצילין אין דרוסה

והא ההיא תרנגולת דהואי בי רב כהנא דרהט חתול בתרה ועל לאידרונא ואיתחיד דשא באפיה ומחייה לדשא בסיחופיה ואישתכח עליה חמשה קורטי דמא

הצלת עצמה נמי כהצלת אחרים דמיא

בעא מיניה רב כהנא מרב