Chullin 52b — the Talmud in English

The dead impart impurity through a tent; that is, all those present in the tent of the dead become impure, even though they did not touch the dead himself.

The impurity of a tent applies also to the bones of the dead upon which no flesh of the dead remains, provided that among the bones there is a complete spinal column of the bones of the spine [or a complete skull, or the majority of the number and the majority of the structure of the bones of the dead].

How much deficiency

will there be

in the spinal column,

so that from then on it will not be called “a complete spinal column,” and it will no longer impart impurity through a tent [when it is without flesh], as does a corpse?

Beit Shammai say:

When the spinal column is lacking

two vertebrae.

And Beit Hillel say:

When a bone of

one vertebra is lacking.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel likewise disagreed

with regard to a tereifa.

And it is proven that according to Shmuel, the removal of a vertebra renders the animal a tereifa, but not the removal of a rib!? And we answer:

Here—

a rib without a vertebra; there—a vertebra without a rib.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted,

the removal of a

rib without

the removal of a

vertebra can be found. But

the removal of a

vertebra without a rib—

how can it be found?!

And we answer:

At the end of the loins.

There are many vertebrae there with no ribs at all.

Rav Oshaya raises an objection:

If they also disagreed with regard to a tereifa, it follows that Beit Hillel are stringent, rendering the animal a tereifa with one vertebra, while Beit Shammai are lenient.

And let him teach

this dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in Tractate Eduyot

among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel?!

For Beit Hillel are the ones who are stringent in rendering the animal a tereifa with one vertebra!?

Rav said to him: When the question was asked

in the beit-midrash, in Tractate Eduyot, concerning a deficiency of the spinal column, how much,

with regard to impurity

in the tent of the dead,

the question was asked,

for Beit Shammai consequently were stringent, since when one vertebra was removed it still imparts impurity.

We learned in the Mishna:

And a skull whose greater part was crushed:

Rabbi Yirmeya asked:

Does the reference concern one that was crushed

through the majority of its height

of the skull, from the eyes and above,

or the majority of its circumference

of the skull, which is greater than the majority of its height!?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

And flesh that covers the majority of the rumen—its majority:

Rav Ashi asked:

Is it

with the majority

of the flesh

torn

that the animal becomes a tereifa,

or with the majority

of the flesh

removed?

Resolve it for him

that the reference is to the majority being torn.

As we learned

above [42a]:

The inner rumen—

when it is perforated, or when the majority of the outer one is torn.

And they say in the West in the name of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina: The entire rumen, this is the inner rumen.

And if so,

what is the outer rumen?—

The flesh that covers the majority of the rumen.

And it is proven that the reference is to being torn, for we say, “or when the majority of [the rumen] the outer one is torn,” and they say in the West that this means the majority of the flesh that covers the rumen is torn.

And we reject this:

Is that the reason?

For the entire reason that we are uncertain whether it is torn or removed—we are uncertain

only according to Shmuel,

who said above: if a rib was removed at its root, and the flesh that covers the majority of the rumen was removed in its majority, it is a tereifa. And Shmuel does not interpret our Mishna as meaning that the outer rumen is the majority of the flesh that covers the majority of the rumen, for

did not Rabbi Yaakov bar Naḥmani say in the name of Shmuel

that the outer rumen is at the end of the inner rumen, which is

a place in which there is no hair.

And Shmuel adds to our Mishna the tereifot of flesh that covers the majority of the rumen, and according to Shmuel it is that which Rav Ashi asked: whether it is torn in its majority or removed in its majority.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the clawing of the wolf:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: In the case of an animal—

from a wolf and larger

there is drisa, and the wolf is included; but from a wolf and smaller, they do not have venom capable of killing an animal, but only birds.

And in the case of birds—

from a hawk and larger

it has the power to perform drisa.

And the Gemara discusses: What does Rav Yehuda say in the name of Rav by stating that with regard to an animal it is “from a wolf and larger”

to exclude what?

If you say, to exclude a cat,

to say that its drisa is not drisa, this has already been

taught:

“And the clawing of the wolf,”

which implies that only from a wolf and larger is it drisa!?

And if you would say

to answer that from the Mishna alone we might have said that the cat’s drisa is also drisa, and the reason the tan[n]ay stated the clawing of the wolf was

to teach us this, that a wolf

even

in

an

adult animal also performs drisa,

and therefore Rav needed to teach us that one should not say so, but only from the clawing of a wolf and larger is it drisa.

It is impossible to answer so, because

did we not learn: Rabbi Yehuda says, the clawing of a wolf—

in a small animal, and the clawing of a lion—

in an adult animal.

And it is proven from the Mishna that a wolf performs drisa only in a small animal, and Rav did not need to teach us that drisa applies only from the clawing of a wolf and larger.

And if you would say

to answer that

Rabbi Yehuda in fact disagrees,

and according to the first tanna a wolf performs drisa even in an adult animal, it is likewise impossible to answer so, because

did Rabbi Binyamin bar Yafet say in the name of Rabbi Ilaa: Rabbi Yehuda did not come

to disagree,

but

he came

to explain the words of the Sages?!

And we answer: What,

one man against another man,

Rabbi Ilaa against Rav,

are you bringing as an objection?!

Rather, Rav disagrees with Rabbi Ilaa, and holds that Rabbi Yehuda does in fact disagree. And according to the first tanna, a wolf performs drisa even in an adult animal. Therefore Rav needed to teach us that a cat does not perform drisa even in a small animal, so that we should not say that the reason the tan[n]a stated a wolf was only to teach us that a wolf performs drisa even in an adult animal, whereas in a small animal even a cat performs drisa; and Rav teaches us that a cat does not perform drisa even in a small animal.

Alternatively, if you wish, in truth

the tan[n]a of our Mishna stated a wolf

to exclude a cat.

And this itself is what Rav came to teach us: that this is the intention of the first tanna, to exclude a cat.

For

it might enter your mind

that the reason the tan[n]a stated a wolf was only

the ordinary manner of the matter he stated,

and he did not come to exclude anything. Therefore

he teaches us

Rav

, that he specifically stated a wolf, in order to exclude a cat.

Rav Amram said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The clawing of a cat and a marten—

in kids and lambs!

The clawing of a weasel—

in birds!

A challenge is raised

from that which was taught in a beraita:

The clawing of a cat, a hawk, and a marten

is not a tereifa

until it perforates into the cavity,

and then it is a tereifa by the law of perforation.

And we infer:

But drisa,

which renders it a tereifa because of the venom,

they do not have,

the cat, the hawk, and the marten.

And we raise a difficulty:

But can you understand this,

for

does a hawk not perform drisa?! And did we not learn: “and the clawing of the hawk”?!

And we answer:

This is not difficult. Here, with birds,

there is the drisa of a hawk.

Here, with kids and lambs,

there is no drisa of a hawk.

In any event, it is difficult according to Rav Ḥisda?!

And we answer:

He stated his ruling in accordance with this tanna:

As it was taught in a beraita: Baribi

[the name of a sage]

says: They said there is no drisa

for a cat

only in a place where they cannot rescue

the bird or the kid from its grasp, for then it is not so angry and does not inject strong venom.

But in a place where they can rescue,

it performs drisa with strong venom; therefore

there is

for the cat

drisa.

And we raise a difficulty:

A

if

in a place where they cannot rescue there is no drisa

for a cat!?

But there was that hen that was at the house of Rav Kahana, and a cat ran after it,

the cat chased after it,

and it entered the hallway,

and the hen entered the room,

and the door closed,

and the door closed on its own,

in its presence,

opposite it.

And it struck it,

and the cat struck

the door,

against the door,

with its paw,

with the palm of its hand,

and there were found on it

on the door

five drops of blood

from the venom. And since the cat’s venom is so strong, surely it has drisa!?

And we answer:

The rescue of itself also

is considered like the rescue of others.

For then it injects strong venom.

And we challenge:

But the Rabbis,

who hold that there is no drisa for a cat—should they not have a difficulty from the incident of the cat whose door was closed against it!?

And we answer:

Venom,

venom, indeed

it has—

but its venom does not burn.

However, it does not burn.

There are those who say,

Rav Ḥisda said that there is drisa for a cat in every circumstance, even when there is no one to rescue the prey from its grasp. And the Mishna, in which the tan[n]a stated a wolf, is because of large lambs, which a cat does not claw. Whereas the beraita that teaches that the clawing of a cat is not drisa unless it perforates, and that it is a tereifa by the law of perforation,

who is this? It is Baribi.

As it was taught in a beraita: Baribi says: They said there is drisa

for a cat

only in a place where they can rescue

from its grasp,

but in a place where they cannot rescue—

there is no drisa.

And the Rabbis disagree with him and hold that even in a place where they cannot rescue, there is drisa for a cat.

And we challenge Baribi:

A

if

in a place where they cannot rescue—

there is no drisa?!

But there was that hen that was at the house of Rav Kahana, and a cat ran after it, and it entered the hallway, and the door closed in its presence, and it struck the door with its paw,

with its palm,

and five drops of blood were found on it?!

And we answer:

The rescue of itself also is considered like the rescue of others.

Rav Kahana asked Rav: