Chullin 53a — the Talmud in English

Does a cat have derasa, or does a cat not have derasa?

He said to him: Even a weasel,

which is smaller than a cat,

has derasa,

and all the more so a cat.

They asked him further:

Does a weasel have derasa, or does a weasel not have derasa?

He said to him: Even a cat does not have derasa.

And all the more so a weasel, which is smaller than a cat; and below it will be explained what he said.

They asked him further:

As for a cat and a weasel—

do they have derasa, or do they not have derasa?

He said to him: A cat has derasa; a weasel does not have derasa.

And we explain:

And it is not difficult:

that which he said to him,

“Even a weasel has derasa,”

is with regard to birds.

That which he said to him, “Even a cat does not have derasa,”

is with regard to large sheep,

large sheep, among small cattle.

That which he said to him, “A cat has derasa; a weasel does not have derasa,”

is with regard to kids and lambs,

for they are very thin.

Rav Ashi raised a question: As for the other impure birds

[namely, apart from the sparrow hawk and the goshawk, which are predatory birds],

do they have derasa, or do they not have derasa?

Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: When we were in the academy of Rav Kahana, he said: The other impure birds have derasa.

And we object:

But we learned in the Mishna: “And the derasa of the sparrow hawk

is in a small bird.”

And it implies that the other impure birds do not have derasa!?

And we answer:

The derasa of the sparrow hawk

is in those like it,

for the sparrow hawk claws even large birds like itself;

but the others,

the other impure birds, only

in those smaller than themselves,

do they claw; but they do not claw those as large as themselves.

And there are those who say: The derasa of the sparrow hawk

even

in those larger than it,

in those larger than the sparrow hawk does it claw.

But the others

only—

in those like them,

in those similar to them in size.

Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: A fox does not have derasa.

And we object:

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

and the incident came

before the Sages, and they said: Does it have derasa?!

Rav Safra said: That one—

it was a cat.

There are those who say: Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: A fox does have derasa.

And we object:

Is that so! But when Rav Dimi came, he said: It happened that a fox clawed a ewe in the bathhouse of Beit Hini, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said: It does not have derasa?!

Rav Safra said: That one was a dog.

Rav Yosef said: We hold—

a dog does not have derasa.

Abaye said: We hold, there is derasa only with the hand,

which is the front leg.

To exclude the leg: no.

For if it clawed with the hind leg, this is not derasa.

There is derasa only with a claw. To exclude

a bite of

a tooth: no.

Because there is no venom in the animal’s teeth.

There is derasa only intentionally. To exclude unintentionally: no.

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

There is derasa only while alive. To exclude after death

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

no.

They said,

they raised an objection in the academy:

Now,

when the animal fell upon the animal,

unintentionally, you say that it did not

claw it.

After death, is it necessary to ask?!

And we answer:

It is necessary only where it clawed, and they severed its hand.

The living clawing animal’s hand was cut off before it withdrew its hand from the animal. And the “death” that they said here is not the death of the animal, but the death of that limb that was severed.

Lest you say,

immediately

at the time that it claws it casts its venom,

its venom, and it is consequently treifa.

It teaches us

that only

at the time that it withdraws,

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

does it cast its venom,

it casts its venom into it.

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

we do not suspect that perhaps a lion clawed it.

What is the reason?

Most lions claw, and a minority of them do not claw. And any one that claws does not have its claw detach.

And this claw,

since it is found as it sits in its back

, we have grounds to attribute it

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

And we object:

On the contrary,

most oxen

rub themselves, and a minority of them do not rub themselves,

and every

one that rubs itself does not have a claw sitting in its back. And this one, since a claw sits in its back—

say that a lion clawed it!

And we answer:

It can be said this way, and it can be said that way.

Therefore—

leave the matter on its presumption

that it was not clawed; rather,

it is a case of doubtful derasa, and Rav follows his own reasoning, for he said: We do not suspect doubtful derasa!

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, namely, the mark left by the claw remained,

we do suspect.

And the claw

that was found

also,

we said that we suspect

only

with a

moist claw; but if it is dry—

it can happen that it slips away.

And with a moist one also we said this

only when merely

one was found. But if two or three, we suspect. And that is when they are positioned

the embedded claws

in the row of its clawing.

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

It was stated: Rav said: We do not suspect doubtful derasa.

And Shmuel said: We do suspect doubtful derasa.

And the Gemara explains their dispute:

Everyone

holds that if it is

doubtful whether it went up,

whether the lion entered among the oxen,

doubtful whether it did not go up,

then—

say that it did not go up,

since the doubt is whether it entered at all, we leave the animals on their presumption of fitness and attribute it to the fact that it did not enter.

If it is doubtful whether a dog went up,

which does not have derasa,

and doubtful whether a cat went up,

which does have derasa—

say that a dog went up,

for we leave it on its presumption of fitness.

And even if the lion entered, but

was silent

when it went up,

and sat

and settled

among them—

say that it made peace.

There are lions that become like “civilized creatures” and behave peacefully with people and other animals.

And likewise, if the lion

cut off the head of one of them,

then by this it

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 mooing, they were frightened of one another ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page-location")

of one another,

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