Chullin 52b (נב:) — the Talmud in English

A corpse imparts ritual impurity through a tent; that is, all those present in the tent of the corpse become impure, even though they did not touch the corpse itself.

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

How much deficiency

will there be

in the spinal column,

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

Beit Shammai say:

Once the spinal column is lacking

two vertebrae.

And Beit Hillel say:

Once it is lacking a bone of

one vertebra.

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

And likewise Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed

with regard to rendering an animal a tereifa.

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

Here—

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

We raise an objection:

Granted,

the removal of

a rib without

the removal of

a vertebra is possible. But

the removal of

a vertebra without a rib—

how is this possible?!

And we answer:

At the end of the pairs.

There are many vertebrae there without any ribs at all.

Rav Oshaya raised an objection:

If they also disagreed with regard to a tereifa, it follows that Beit Hillel are more stringent, declaring an animal a tereifa when one vertebra is missing, while Beit Shammai are more lenient.

Let them teach

this dispute between 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 more stringent in declaring the animal a tereifa when one vertebra is missing!?

Rav said to him: When the question was asked

in the beit-midrash, in tractate Eduyot, as to how much deficiency there must be in a spinal column,

it was asked with regard to ritual impurity

through the tent of a corpse.

It was asked,

and Beit Shammai therefore emerged as the stringent opinion, since when one vertebra is removed it still imparts impurity.

We learned in the Mishna:

And a skull that has been crushed over most of its area:

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question:

Does this refer to a skull whose

majority of height

has been crushed, from the eyes upward,

or the majority of its circumference,

which is greater than the majority of its height!?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

And flesh covering most of the rumen—when most of it is affected:

Rav Ashi raised a question:

Is the animal rendered a tereifa when

the majority

of the flesh is

torn,

or when

the majority

of the flesh is

removed?

Resolve it

that it refers to the majority being torn,

as we learned

above (42a):

The inner rumen—

if it was punctured, or if the majority of the outer one was torn.

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

And if so,

what is the outer rumen?—

The flesh that covers most of the rumen.

And it is evident that the reference is to a tear, for we say, “or if the majority of the [rumen’s] outer one was torn,” and they said in the West that this means that the majority of the flesh covering the rumen was torn.

And we reject this:

Is that the reason?

The entire reason that we raised the question whether the flesh was torn or removed was

only with regard to Shmuel,

who said above that if a rib was originally removed, and the flesh covering most of the rumen was affected over most of it, the animal is a tereifa. But Shmuel does not explain our Mishna as referring to the outer rumen as the majority of the flesh covering most of the rumen, for

didn’t Rabbi Yaakov bar Naḥmani say that Shmuel said,

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

a place where there is no hair?

Rather, Shmuel adds to our Mishna the tereifa status of flesh covering most of the rumen, and it is according to Shmuel that Rav Ashi raised the question whether the majority was torn or the majority was removed.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the clawing of a wolf:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to an animal,

from a wolf and larger

it is considered clawing, and the wolf itself is included. But animals smaller than a wolf do not have venom capable of killing an animal; they can claw only birds.

And with regard to birds,

from a hawk and larger

it has the power to claw.

The Gemara asks: As for what Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, that with regard to an animal it is “from a wolf and larger,”

what does this exclude?

If you say it excludes a cat,

meaning that its clawing is not considered clawing, this was already

taught in the Mishna: “

And the clawing of a wolf,”

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

And if you would say

that one might explain that from the Mishna alone we would have said that the clawing of a cat is also considered clawing, and that the tanna mentioned the clawing of a wolf

to teach us that a wolf

even

in

an

animal of large stature also claws,

and therefore Rav had to teach us that this is not so, but that clawing is considered clawing only from a wolf and larger.

This cannot be explained in this manner, because

we learned: Rabbi Yehuda says: The clawing of a wolf—

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

in a large animal.

It is evident from the Mishna that a wolf claws only a small animal, and Rav did not need to teach us that clawing is considered clawing only from a wolf and larger.

And if you would say

that one can explain that

Rabbi Yehuda is indeed disagreeing,

and according to the first tanna a wolf claws even a large animal, this too cannot be explained in this manner, because

didn’t Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet say that Rabbi Ila’a said: Rabbi Yehuda did not come

to disagree,

but

he came

to explain the statement of the Sages?!

And we answer: Is it a matter of

one person against another person—

Rabbi Ila’a against Rav—

that you raise?!

Rather, Rav disagrees with Rabbi Ila’a and maintains that Rabbi Yehuda is indeed disagreeing. And according to the first tanna, a wolf claws even a large animal. Therefore Rav had to teach us that a cat does not claw even a small animal, so that we would not say that the tanna mentioned a wolf only to teach us that a wolf claws even a large animal, while in a small animal even a cat claws; Rav therefore teaches us that a cat’s clawing is not considered clawing even in a small animal.

Alternatively, you may say: Actually,

the tanna of the Mishna mentioned a wolf

to exclude a cat.

And this is precisely 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 tanna mentioned a wolf only as

the ordinary manner of stating the matter,

and did not intend to exclude anything. Therefore

he teaches us

Rav,

that the wolf was mentioned specifically, in order to exclude a cat.

Rav Amram said that Rav Ḥisda said: The clawing of a cat and a weasel—

in kids and lambs!

The clawing of a rat—

in birds!

Meytivi:

The following was taught in a beraita:

The clawing of a cat, a hawk, or a weasel

does not render the animal a tereifa

until it punctures into the body cavity,

at which point it is a tereifa by virtue of the puncture.

And we infer:

But clawing,

which renders the animal a tereifa because of the venom,

they do not have,

the cat, hawk, and weasel.

We raise an objection:

But can this be understood?

Is it possible that

a hawk does not claw?! Didn’t we learn: And the clawing of a hawk?!

And we answer:

This is not difficult. Here, with regard to birds,

there is clawing by a hawk.

Here, with regard to kids and lambs,

there is no clawing by a hawk.

In any event, this is difficult for Rav Ḥisda?!

And we answer:

He stated his opinion in accordance with this tanna:

As it was taught in a beraita: Barיבי

[the name of a Sage]

says: They said that there is no clawing

by a cat

only in a place where there is no one to rescue

the bird or the kid from its grasp, in which case the cat is not so angry and does not inject potent venom.

But in a place where there is someone to rescue it,

it claws with potent venom, and therefore

there is

for a cat

clawing.

We raise an objection:

A

nd is it true that

in a place where there is no one to rescue it, there is no clawing

by a cat!?

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

the cat pursued it,

and it entered the chamber,

and the chicken entered a room,

and the door closed,

and the door closed by itself

in its presence,

opposite the cat.

And it struck it,

and the cat struck

the door,

on 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. Since the cat’s venom is so potent, it is certainly the case that it has clawing!?

And we answer:

Rescuing itself also

is considered like rescuing another.

In such a case it injects potent venom.

And we challenge this:

But the Rabbis,

who maintain that there is no clawing by a cat—do they not face a difficulty from the incident involving the cat whose door was closed in front of it!?

And we answer:

Venom,

it indeed

has—

but its venom does not burn.

However, it does not have the kind of venom that burns.

Some say:

Rav Ḥisda said that there is clawing by a cat in every circumstance, even when there is no one to rescue the victim from its grasp. The Mishna, in which the tanna mentioned a wolf, is referring to large lambs, which a cat does not claw. As for the beraita, which teaches that a cat’s clawing is not considered clawing unless it punctures the body cavity, in which case it is a tereifa by virtue of the puncture,

who is this? It is Barיבי.

As it was taught in a beraita: Barיבי says: They said that there is clawing

by a cat

only in a place where there is someone to rescue

the victim from its grasp;

but in a place where there is no one to rescue it—

there is no clawing.

And the Rabbis disagree with him and maintain that even in a place where there is no one to rescue the victim, there is clawing by a cat.

And we challenge Barיבי:

A

nd is it true that

in a place where there is no one to rescue it—

there is no clawing?!

But there was that chicken that was in the house of Rav Kahana, and a cat ran after it, entered the chamber, the door closed in front of it, and it struck the door with its paw,

with its palm,

and five drops of blood were found on it?!

And we answer:

Rescuing itself also is considered like rescuing another.

Rav Kahana asked Rav: