Talmud - Hullin 52b חולין נ״ב ב׳

How much is considered a deficiency in the spine of a corpse so that it will not be considered a full corpse that would render one impure in a tent? Beit Shammai say: Two missing vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: One vertebra. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa, i.e., according to Beit Hillel an animal missing only one vertebra is a tereifa. Evidently, Shmuel holds that a missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa, but a dislocated rib does not.

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, where Shmuel says that a rib ripped from its root renders the animal a tereifa, he is referring to a case where the rib was torn out without the vertebra. There, where he says that a missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa according to Beit Hillel, he is referring to a case where the vertebra was missing without the rib being dislocated. But if the rib itself was ripped from its root, the animal is a tereifa.

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a case where a rib was dislocated without the vertebra, you find this commonly. But how can you find a case of a missing vertebra without a dislocated rib? The Gemara responds: This can occur at the ends of the flanks, where there are vertebrae with no ribs attached to them.

Shmuel said that just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa. Rav Oshaya objects to this statement: But if that is so, then the opinion of Beit Hillel is the more stringent one, as they hold that even one missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa. Accordingly, let the tanna teach this dispute along with the list of leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel in tractate Eduyyot. Rav said to him: When the question was asked, it was asked with regard to the ritual impurity of a corpse. That is the source of the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, and on that matter, Beit Shammai constitute the stringent opinion. The parallel disagreement with regard to tereifot is not mentioned explicitly in any mishna or baraita, and it was therefore omitted from the list in tractate Eduyyot.

The Gemara returns to Shmuel’s statement: Or if the skull was crushed in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Is this referring to the majority of its height or the majority of its circumference? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Shmuel also said: Or if the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was damaged in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Is this referring even to a case where the majority of the length of the flesh was torn? Or is it referring only to a case where the majority of the flesh was removed, but if it was torn along the majority of its length the animal remains kosher?

The Gemara responds: Resolve the dilemma from that which we learned in the mishna: If the internal rumen was perforated or most of the external rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa. And in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: The entire rumen is the internal rumen. And if so, which is the external rumen? It is the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen. Apparently, the animal is a tereifa even if the flesh is torn in its majority.

The Gemara rejects the proof: This explanation is meant only to clarify the statement of Shmuel, and Shmuel does not agree with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as this is what Rabbi Ya’akov bar Naḥmani said that Shmuel said: The case of: Most of the external rumen was torn, mentioned in the mishna, where the animal is a tereifa, is not referring to where the flesh enveloping the majority of the rumen was torn, but rather where the majority of the rumen itself was torn. The internal rumen is the place in the rumen that has no wool, i.e., downy projections on the inside of the rumen. Accordingly, one cannot prove anything about the statement of Shmuel based on an explanation of the mishna offered by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.

§ The mishna states: And an animal that was clawed by a wolf is a tereifa. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of an animal, it is a tereifa if it was clawed by any predator from the size of a wolf and upward. And with regard to birds, they are tereifot if they were clawed by any predator from the size of a hawk and upward.

The Gemara asks: What does this statement of Rav, that an animal is a tereifa if it was clawed by a predator at least as large as a wolf, serve to exclude? If we say it serves to exclude a cat that clawed an animal, since it is smaller than a wolf, we already learned in the mishna: And an animal clawed by a wolf is a tereifa. One can infer from this that cats do not render an animal a tereifa. And if you would say: This mishna teaches us that a wolf can also effectively claw a large animal, e.g., cattle, but it may still be that a cat can render a small animal a tereifa, this cannot be; didn’t we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was clawed by a wolf in the case of a small animal, or clawed by a lion in the case of a large animal, the animal is a tereifa?

And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis, and they hold that a wolf can also render large livestock tereifa by clawing, this too is impossible, as doesn’t Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet say that Rabbi Ela says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna comes only to explain the statement of the Rabbis?

The Gemara responds: Are you setting the statement of one man against the statement of another man? Even if Rabbi Ela holds that Rabbi Yehuda comes only to explain the statement of the Rabbis, Rav may still hold that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis. Or, if you wish, say instead: Actually, everyone agrees that a wolf can render only a small animal a tereifa through clawing. Nevertheless, the statement of Rav serves to exclude a cat from the ability to render even a small animal a tereifa. Lest you say that the mishna taught about a wolf only because this is the manner in which the matter typically occurs, but a cat may in fact render a small animal a tereifa, Rav teaches us that it is referring specifically to a wolf.

§ Rav Amram says that Rav Ḥisda says: If an animal was clawed by a cat or a mongoose, in the case of kids or lambs, which are very small, it is a tereifa. If it was clawed by a weasel in the case of birds, it is a tereifa. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An animal clawed by a cat, hawk, or mongoose is not rendered a tereifa until one of its internal organs is perforated to its recesses. One may infer: But they, i.e., a cat, hawk, and mongoose, do not have the ability to render an animal a tereifa through the clawing itself.

The Gemara questions the inference: And can you understand that a hawk does not effectively claw an animal? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And a small bird clawed by a hawk is rendered a tereifa? The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. Here, where the mishna states that a hawk can effectively claw, it is with regard to birds, while there, where the baraita states that a hawk does not effectively claw, it is with regard to kids and lambs.

The Gemara returns to its initial objection: In any case, the baraita poses a difficulty for Rav Ḥisda, who says that a cat may render kids and lambs tereifot through clawing. The Gemara responds: Rav Ḥisda states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is not effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are none present to save it. But in a place where there are bystanders trying to save the kid, it is effectively clawed, since the cat is angered and injects venom into the wound. Rav Ḥisda is referring specifically to the latter case.

The Gemara asks: And in a place where there are none to save the kid, is it not effectively clawed? But there was a certain hen that was in the house of Rav Kahana, which a cat pursued, and the cat entered after it into a small room, and the door shut in the cat’s face, and it struck the door with its paws in anger. And afterward, five drops of blood, i.e., venom, were found on the door. Apparently a cat is venomous even if no one is present to save its prey.

The Gemara responds: For a cat, saving itself is also considered like saving others. Since the cat felt threatened, it acted as it would if there had been someone present to defend the hen. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who state in the baraita that a cat can never effectively claw a small animal, even when there are bystanders attempting to save its prey, how do they explain this incident? The Gemara responds: According to the Rabbis, a cat does have venom, but its venom does not burn enough to render the animal a tereifa.

There are those who state the details of this exchange differently: After raising an objection to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from the baraita that states that a cat cannot effectively claw kids and lambs, the Gemara responds: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Distinguished One, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are bystanders present to save it. But in a place where there are none present to save the kid, it is not effectively clawed. The baraita, then, discusses a case where there are none present to save it. Rav Ḥisda agrees with the Rabbis that a cat can effectively claw an animal even when there are none present to save it.

The Gemara asks: But in a place where there are none present to save the kid, is it not effectively clawed? But there was a certain hen that was in the house of Rav Kahana, which a cat pursued, and the cat entered after it into a small room, and the door shut in the cat’s face, and it struck the door with its paws in anger. And afterward, five drops of blood, i.e., venom, were found on the door. The Gemara responds: For a cat, saving itself is also considered like saving others.

The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana asked Rav:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Chullin 52b examines Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel's dispute over missing spinal vertebrae, linking corpse impurity rules to tereifa status in animals.