Chullin 53a (נג.) — the Talmud in English

Can a cat inflict a claw attack, or can a cat not inflict a claw attack?

He said to him: Even a weasel,

which is smaller than a cat,

can inflict a claw attack,

and all the more so a cat.

They asked him further:

Can a weasel inflict a claw attack, or can a weasel not inflict a claw attack?

He said to him: Even a cat cannot inflict a claw attack.

And all the more so a weasel, which is smaller than a cat. Later it will be explained what he meant.

They asked him further:

With regard to a cat and a weasel—

can they inflict a claw attack, or can they not inflict a claw attack?

He said to him: A cat can inflict a claw attack; a weasel cannot inflict a claw attack.

And we explain:

This is not difficult.

That which he said to him,

“Even a weasel can inflict a claw attack,”

refers to birds.

That which he said to him, “Even a cat cannot inflict a claw attack,”

refers to large rams,

large sheep, among small livestock.

That which he said to him, “A cat can inflict a claw attack; a weasel cannot inflict a claw attack,”

refers to kids and lambs,

which are particularly thin.

Rav Ashi raised a question: As for other impure birds

[namely, other than the hawk and the gaz, which are predatory birds],

can they inflict a claw attack, or can they not inflict a claw attack?

Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana, he said: Other impure birds can inflict a claw attack.

And we challenge this:

But did we not learn in the Mishna: “And the claw attack of a hawk

is in a small bird”?

This implies that other impure birds cannot inflict a claw attack!

And we answer:

The claw attack of a hawk

is against birds of its own kind,

as a hawk inflicts a claw attack even on birds as large as itself.

But the others,

the other impure birds, do so only

against those smaller than themselves,

and not against birds as large as themselves.

Some say: The claw attack of a hawk

is even

against those larger than itself;

it can inflict a claw attack on larger birds.

But the others

only

against those of their own size,

against birds similar to them in size.

Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: A fox cannot inflict a claw attack.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But when Rav Dimi came, he said: It once happened that a fox clawed a ewe in the bathhouse of Beit Hinei,

and the incident came

before the Sages, and they said: It can inflict a claw attack?!

Rav Safra said: That one

was a cat.

Some say: Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: A fox can inflict a claw attack.

And we challenge this:

Is that so! But when Rav Dimi came, he said: It once happened that a fox clawed a ewe in the bathhouse of Beit Hinei, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said: It cannot inflict a claw attack?!

Rav Safra said: That one was a dog.

Rav Yosef said: We have it as a received tradition:

A dog cannot inflict a claw attack.

Abaye said: We have it as a received tradition: A claw attack is only with the hand,

which is the foreleg.

To exclude the foot: it does not count.

If it clawed with its hind leg, this is not considered a claw attack.

A claw attack is only with a claw. To exclude

a bite of

a tooth: it does not count.

This is because the animal's teeth contain no venom.

A claw attack is only intentional. To exclude an unintentional act: it does not count.

For example, the attacking animal fell from the roof onto the animal, and the animal's claw became embedded in it. Since it fell upon it unintentionally, it does not inject venom into it.

A claw attack is only while the attacker is alive. To exclude after death,

for example, if a lion fell upon the animal after it had died,

it does not count.

They said,

they raised an objection in the study hall:

Now,

when the animal fell upon the animal

unintentionally, you said that it did not

claw it.

After death, is it necessary to say so?!

And we answer:

No, it is necessary only in a case where it clawed it, and they severed its hand.

The living attacker’s hand was cut off before it withdrew its hand from the animal. The “death” mentioned here is not the death of the animal, but the death of the severed limb.

Lest you say

that immediately

as it clawed it, it released its venom,

and the animal is consequently a tereifa,

it teaches us

that only

as it withdraws it,

at the moment it withdraws its hand from the animal it clawed, only then

does it release its venom,

does it inject its venom into it.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: If a lion entered among oxen, and a claw was found in the back of one of them,

we are not concerned that perhaps the lion clawed it.

What is the reason?

Most lions inflict claw attacks, and a minority do not inflict claw attacks. And whenever one inflicts a claw attack, its claw does not come loose.

And this claw,

since it was found embedded in its back

, we have grounds to assume

that the ox rubbed itself against a wall, and the claw that had been lodged in the wall became embedded in the body of the ox.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary,

most oxen

rub themselves against walls, and a minority do not rub themselves against walls,

and every

ox that rubs itself against a wall does not have a claw embedded in its back. And this one, since it has a claw embedded in its back—

say that a lion clawed it!

And we answer:

It is possible to say this, and it is possible to say that.

Therefore,

we uphold the matter according to its presumption

that it was not clawed; rather,

it is a case of uncertain clawing, and Rav follows his own reasoning, as he said: We are not concerned with uncertain clawing!

Abaye said: We said this only

when a

claw was found in the body of the ox.

But

if only

“the place of a claw”

was discernible in the ox—that is, the mark left by the claw remained—

we are concerned.

And as for the claw

that was found,

also,

we said that we are concerned

only

with a

moist claw; but a dry one—

it is liable to slip out.

And with regard to a moist claw as well, we said this

only when just

one was found. But if two or three were found, we are concerned. And this is so provided that they are positioned

the embedded claws

in the row of its claw marks,

in the order in which they are arranged on the lion's hand.

It was stated: Rav said: We are not concerned with uncertain clawing.

And Shmuel said: We are concerned with uncertain clawing.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

Everyone agrees

that if it is

uncertain whether it entered,

whether the lion entered among the oxen,

and uncertain whether it did not enter,

then

say that it did not enter,

because when the uncertainty is whether it entered at all, we leave the animals with their presumption of fitness and assume that it did not enter.

If it is uncertain whether a dog entered,

which cannot inflict a claw attack,

and uncertain whether a cat entered,

which can inflict a claw attack—

say that a dog entered,

because we leave the matter according to its presumption of fitness.

And even if the lion entered, but

was silent

when it entered,

and sat

and sat

among them—

say that it made peace.

Some lions become “tame” and behave peacefully with people and other animals.

And likewise, if the lion

cut off the head of one of them,

then it has thereby

calmed down from its fury,

and from then on there is no concern regarding the other oxen.

And if

it

the lion

was growling,

roaring,

and they,

the animals,

were bellowing, they were frightening one another

with one another,

the lion too was frightened by them, and according to everyone there is no claw attack here.