Chullin 53b — the Talmud in English

They disagree when it is silent, while they are screeching.

The Master,

Shmuel,

holds that it is performing

the act of clawing

upon them.

And the Master,

Rav,

holds that

they are not screeching because it clawed them, but only

because of its frightening them is what they are doing.

Ameimar said: The halakha is that

we are concerned about an uncertainty of clawing.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: This statement of Rav,

who said that we are not concerned about an uncertainty of clawing

, what

did you do with it, and why do you not decide in accordance with him?

He said to him: I have not heard it! That is to say, I do not hold accordingly!

And if you wish, say: Rav retracted his position in favor of Shmuel.

For there was that basket,

a basket full of birds,

that were of uncertainly clawed status,

for a hawk had entered among them,

which came before Rav. Rav sent them before Shmuel.

Shmuel strangled them

Shmuel

and cast them into the river.

And if it enters your mind that Rav had not retracted his position,

Rav

, he should have permitted them,

Rav, and why did he send them to Shmuel?!

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Rather, what

do you say,

that Rav retracted his position,

Rav, and held in accordance with Shmuel? If so, this too is difficult:

he should have forbidden them,

Rav himself?!

Rather,

it cannot be proved from the fact that Rav sent them to Shmuel that he decided in accordance with him. And the reason that he did not rule to permit them is that that place

was Shmuel’s site,

and it is not proper to permit something in a place where the local master forbids it.

And we inquire about it:

Why do I need

Shmuel

to strangle them? Let him cast them in this manner,

while they are alive,

into the river,

and they will drown in the river?!

And we answer:

They fly up and emerge,

and hunters would find them and sell them to a Jew.

And still we inquire about it: Why did Shmuel strangle them?

Let him leave them for twelve months,

and if they remain alive, that is a sign that they were not clawed?!

And we answer:

They would come into a situation of mishap through them.

And let him sell them to gentiles?!

They might come to sell them to a Jew.

And let him strangle them and cast them onto the refuse heap?!

And according to your reasoning, let him cast them to dogs?!

Rather,

Shmuel did this, going to the river, in order

to publicize the matter of the prohibition.

There was a certain duck that was in Rav Ashi’s house. It entered among the reeds,

between the reeds.

It emerged, and came with its

dirty

neck

its neck with

blood.

Rav Ashi said:

Does

one not say

when the uncertainty is

whether it was a dog or whether it was a cat—

say: It was a dog! Here too, whether it was a reed

that wounded it,

or whether it was a cat

that clawed it—

say: The reed struck it,

it struck it, and it was not clawed by a cat.

The sons of Rabbi Hiyya said: The clawing that they said

requires an examination corresponding to the intestines.

Rav Yosef said: This statement of the sons of Rabbi Hiyya

Shmuel already explained!

For Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus: The clawing that they said

requires an examination corresponding to the intestines.

Ilfa raised a question: Is there clawing with regard to the simanim,

if it was clawed opposite the simanim,

or is there no clawing with regard to the simanim?!

Do we say that the simanim are strong, and the clawing does not affect them? Or perhaps clawing opposite the simanim is also considered clawing?!

Rabbi Zeira said:

This question that Ilfa raised was already explained by

Rav Hanan bar Rava.

For Rav Hanan bar Rava said in the name of Rav: The clawing that they said

requires an examination corresponding to the entire body cavity, and even if it was clawed

opposite the

simanim.

Ilfa raised a question: The simanim that became detached—

to what extent?

Rabbi Zeira said:

This

question that Ilfa raised—

Rabba bar bar Hana already explained it.

For Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Shmuel: The simanim that became detached—

for the majority of them.

Rav Ami raised a question: The one that became mushy,

which was clawed in the thigh, not opposite the cavity, and afterward the flesh became detached—

What is the law? Rabbi Zeira said: This question that Rav Ami raised—

Rav Yehuda already explained it.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav concerning clawing—

until the flesh opposite the intestines becomes red.

If the flesh became mushy

in one place—

we view it as though it were not there.

And if it has the status of a terefa when it is entirely removed, such as at the tendon junction, it is a terefa. For when the flesh becomes mushy, it is as though it were removed from its place.

What are the circumstances of “became mushy”?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Any [flesh] that a physician scrapes away, leaving it on living flesh.

Rav Ashi said: When we were at Rav Kahana’s house, they brought before us a certain lung, for when they would set it down,

when they set it down in a sitting position,

it sat properly. And when they would lift it,

when they would hang it,

it would hang,

coming apart,

and it fell apart piece by piece,

pieces—pieces.

And we declared it a terefa on the basis of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

who said: Anything that a physician scrapes away is called “the one that became mushy.” And these pieces that are about to fall are considered as though they were removed from the lung, and it follows that the lung is deficient.

Rav Nahman said:

If it was clawed

by a thorn—

until

it perforates into the cavity,

there is no concern regarding the animal. But once the thorn reaches the animal’s cavity, there is concern lest it perforated the organs inside the cavity.

With regard to clawing—

from when the flesh opposite the intestines becomes red.

Rav Zevid taught it as follows: With regard to clawing—

from when the flesh opposite the intestines becomes red.

If it was clawed

opposite the simanim—

until the simanim themselves become red.

Rav Pappi said: Rav Bibi bar Abaye raised a question: