## Chullin Daf 52b

###### Chullin 52b:1
[Chullin 52b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:1)

כַּמָּה חִסָּרוֹן בְּשִׁדְרָה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי חוּלְיוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חוּלְיָא אַחַת, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְכֵן לִטְרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 52b:2
[Chullin 52b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:2)

הָכָא – צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא, הָתָם – חוּלְיָא בְּלֹא צֵלָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Chullin 52b:3
[Chullin 52b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:3)

בִּשְׁלָמָא צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא – מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, אֶלָּא חוּלְיָא בְּלֹא צֵלָע – הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? בְּשִׁילְהֵי כַּפְלֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 52b:4
[Chullin 52b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: וְלִתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי קוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב: כִּי אִיתְּשִׁיל – לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה אִיתְּשִׁיל, דְּהָווּ לְהוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Chullin 52b:5
[Chullin 52b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:5)

וְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה בְּרוּבָּהּ. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: רוֹב גּוֹבְהָהּ, אוֹ רוֹב הֶיקֵּיפָהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 52b:6
[Chullin 52b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:6)

וּבָשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה רוֹב הַכָּרֵס בְּרוּבּוֹ. בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּרוֹב קָרוּעַ, אוֹ בְּרוֹב נָטוּל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Chullin 52b:7
[Chullin 52b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:7)

תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדִּתְנַן: כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרַע רוֹב הַחִיצוֹנָה, וְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כׇּל הַכָּרֵס כּוּלּוֹ זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי, וְאֵי זֶהוּ כָּרֵס הַחִיצוֹנָה? בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 52b:8
[Chullin 52b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:8)

מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא, אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מֵילָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 52b:9
[Chullin 52b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:9)

וּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בִּבְהֵמָה – מִן הַזְּאֵב וּלְמַעְלָה, וּבְעוֹפוֹת – מִן הַנֵּץ וּלְמַעְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Chullin 52b:10
[Chullin 52b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:10)

לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי חָתוּל – תְּנֵינָא: ״וּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב״, וְכִי תֵּימָא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּזְאֵב בְּגַסָּה נָמֵי דָּרֵיס – וְהָא תְּנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: דְּרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב בַּדַּקָּה, וּדְרוּסַת אֲרִי בַּגַּסָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*?


###### Chullin 52b:11
[Chullin 52b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:11)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִפְלָג פְּלִיג, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: לֹא בָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא לְפָרֵשׁ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?**


###### Chullin 52b:12
[Chullin 52b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:12)

גַּבְרָא אַגַּבְרָא קָא רָמֵית? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם לְמַעוֹטֵי חָתוּל, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אוֹרְחָא דְּמִלְּתָא קָתָנֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 52b:13
[Chullin 52b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:13)

אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דְּרוּסַת חָתוּל וּנְמִיָּיה בִּגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים, דְּרוּסַת חוּלְדָּה בְּעוֹפוֹת. מֵיתִיבִי: דְּרוּסַת חָתוּל, נֵץ וּנְמִיָּיה עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לֶחָלָל, אֲבָל דְּרוּסָה לֵית לְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Chullin 52b:14
[Chullin 52b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:14)

וְתִסְבְּרָא נֵץ לָא דָּרֵיס? וְהָתְנַן: וּדְרוּסַת הַנֵּץ! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּעוֹפוֹת, כָּאן בִּגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 52b:15
[Chullin 52b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:15)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, לְרַב חִסְדָּא קַשְׁיָא, הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּרִיבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמְרוּ אֵין דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַצִּילִין – יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 52b:16
[Chullin 52b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:16)

וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין אֵין דְּרוּסָה? וְהָא הָהִיא (תרנגולת) [תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא] דַּהֲוַאי בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, דִּרְהַט חָתוּל בָּתְרַהּ, וְעָל לְאִידְּרוֹנָא, וְאִיתְּחִיד דַּשָּׁא בְּאַפֵּיהּ, וּמַחְיֵיהּ לְדַשָּׁא בְּסִיחוּפֵיהּ, וְאִשְׁתְּכַח עֲלַהּ חַמְשָׁה קוּרְטֵי דְּמָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 52b:17
[Chullin 52b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:17)

הַצָּלַת עַצְמָהּ נָמֵי כְּהַצָּלַת אֲחֵרִים דָּמֵי, וְרַבָּנַן – זִיהֲרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְלָא קָלֵי זִיהֲרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Chullin 52b:18
[Chullin 52b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:18)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא מַנִּי? בְּרִיבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּרִיבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמְרוּ יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַצִּילִין, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין – אִין דְּרוּסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 52b:19
[Chullin 52b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:19)

וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין אֵין דְּרוּסָה? וְהָא הָהִיא (תרנגולת) [תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא] דַּהֲוַאי בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, דִּרְהַט חָתוּל בָּתְרַהּ וְעַל לְאִידְּרוֹנָא, וְאִיתְּחִיד דַּשָּׁא בְּאַפֵּיהּ, וּמַחְיֵיהּ לְדַשָּׁא בְּסִיחוּפֵיהּ, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח עֲלֵיהּ חֲמִשָּׁה קוּרְטֵי דְּמָא. הַצָּלַת עַצְמָהּ נָמֵי כְּהַצָּלַת אֲחֵרִים דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 52b:20
[Chullin 52b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52b:20)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא מֵרַב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Kahana asked Rav:**