Chullin 53b (נג:) — the Talmud in English

They disagree when it is silent, while the others are shrieking.

Mar

Shmuel

held that it had performed

an act of trampling

upon them.

And

Rav

held

that they were not shrieking because it had trampled them, but only

because it frightened them.

Ameimar said: The halakha is—

we are concerned about an uncertain case of trampling.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What

did you do with Rav, who said that we are not concerned about an uncertain case of trampling

?

Why do you not rule 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 instead: Rav retracted his opinion in favor of Shmuel.

For there was that basket

full of birds,

which were of uncertainly trampled status,

as a hawk had entered among them,

which came before Rav. Rav sent them before Shmuel.

Shmuel strangled them

and

threw them into the river.

And if it enters your mind that Rav did not retract his opinion,

Rav

should have permitted them,

rather than sending them to Shmuel!?

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Rather, what

are you

saying?

That Rav retracted his opinion and held in accordance with Shmuel? If so, the difficulty arises:

Rav himself should have prohibited them

!?

Rather,

there is no proof from the fact that Rav sent them to Shmuel that he ruled in accordance with him. And the reason he did not rule to permit them is that that place

was Shmuel’s domain,

and it is not proper to permit something in a place where the local authority prohibits it.

We inquire:

Why did

Shmuel

need to strangle them? He could have thrown them as they were

alive

into the river,

and they would have drowned in the river!?

The Gemara answers:

They would fly away and rise,

and hunters would find them and sell them to Jews.

The Gemara still inquires: Why did Shmuel strangle them?

Let him wait twelve months,

and if they survived, that would be a sign that they had not been trampled!?

The Gemara answers:

They might thereby come to cause a mishap.

And let him sell them to gentiles?!

They might come to sell them to Jews.

And let him strangle them and throw them into a refuse heap?!

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

Rather,

Shmuel did this—he went 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 with its

dirty

neck

smeared

with blood.

Rav Ashi said:

Do

we not say

when there is

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

assume it was a dog? Here too, there is uncertainty whether the reeds

wounded it,

or whether it was a cat

that trampled it—

assume that the reeds struck it,

and that a cat did not trample it.

The sons of Rabbi Hiyya said: The trampling that they mentioned

requires an examination opposite the intestines.

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

was already explained by Shmuel!

As Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus: The trampling that they mentioned

requires an examination opposite the intestines.

Ilfa inquired: Is there trampling with regard to the windpipe and esophagus,

if it was trampled opposite the windpipe and esophagus,

or is there no trampling with regard to the windpipe and esophagus?!

Do we say that the windpipe and esophagus are tough, and trampling does not affect them? Or perhaps trampling opposite the windpipe and esophagus is also considered trampling!?

Rabbi Zeira said:

This inquiry of Ilfa

was already explained by Rav Hanan bar Rava.

As Rav Hanan bar Rava said in the name of Rav: The trampling that they mentioned—

requires an examination opposite the entire body cavity, and even

if it was trampled

opposite the windpipe and esophagus.

Ilfa inquired: If the windpipe and esophagus became detached—

to what extent?

Rabbi Zeira said:

This

inquiry of Ilfa—

was already explained by Rabba bar bar Hana.

As Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Shmuel: If the windpipe and esophagus became detached—

for the majority of their length.

Rav Ami inquired: In the case of tissue that became pulpy,

when it was trampled on the thigh, not opposite the body cavity, and the flesh subsequently became detached—

what is the halakha? Rabbi Zeira said: This inquiry of Rav Ami—

was already explained by Rav Yehuda.

As Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav with regard to trampling—

until the flesh opposite the intestines becomes red.

If the flesh became pulpy

in one place—

we view it as though it were absent.

If its complete removal would render the animal a tereifa, such as at the juncture of the tendons, it is a tereifa. For when the flesh becomes pulpy, it is as though it had been removed from its place.

What are the circumstances of “flesh that became pulpy”?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Any flesh that a physician can scrape away, leaving exposed living flesh.

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

in a sitting position,

it sat properly. But when they would lift it,

when they would suspend it,

it would hang loosely,

coming apart,

and it fell apart piece by piece,

pieces by pieces.

And we declared it a tereifa in accordance with Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

who said that anything a physician can scrape away is called “flesh that became pulpy.” And these pieces that were about to fall were considered as though they had been removed from the lung, so the lung was found to be lacking.

Rav Nahman said:

If it was trampled

by a thorn—

until

it punctures into the body cavity,

there is no concern for the animal. But once the thorn reaches the animal’s body cavity, there is concern that it may have punctured the organs within the cavity.

With regard to trampling—

once the flesh opposite the intestines becomes red.

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

once the flesh opposite the intestines becomes red.

If it was trampled

opposite the windpipe and esophagus—

until the windpipe and esophagus themselves become red.

Rav Pappi said: Rav Bibi bar Abaye inquired: