## Chullin Daf 53b

###### Chullin 53b:1
[Chullin 53b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:1)

אַהֲדָדֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דְּאִיהוּ קָא שָׁתֵיק וְאִינְהוּ קָמְקַרְקְרָן: מָר סָבַר מַעֲשֶׂה קָא עָבֵיד בְּהוּ, וּמָר סָבַר מֵחֲמַת בִּעֲתוּתֵיהּ הוּא דְּקָא עָבְדָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**each other,** and one need not be concerned. **They disagree when** the lion **is quiet and** the birds **are clucking.** One **Sage,** Shmuel, **holds:** They are clucking because **it is acting upon them,** i.e., clawing them, **and** one **Sage,** Rav, **holds** that **they are doing this out of fear of** the predator, but it is not necessarily clawing them.


###### Chullin 53b:2
[Chullin 53b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:2)

אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הִלְכְתָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: הַאי דְּרַב מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, כְּלוֹמַר, לָא סְבִירָא לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ameimar said: The *halakha*** is that **one must be concerned** in a case of **uncertainty** as to whether an animal was **clawed. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What** about **this** statement **of Rav** that one need not be concerned? Ameimar **said to him: I did not hear** that statement; **that is to say, I do not hold** in accordance with it.


###### Chullin 53b:3
[Chullin 53b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:3)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַב לְגַבֵּי דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּהָהוּא שַׁרְקָפָא דִּסְפֵק דְּרוּסוֹת, דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, שַׁדְּרִינְהוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַנְקִינְהוּ וּשְׁדָנְהוּ בְּנַהֲרָא. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ – לִישְׁרִינְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or if you wish, say** instead that **Rav retracted** his statement and conceded **to Shmuel** that one must be concerned in a case of uncertainty. **As** there was **a certain basket of** birds concerning which there was **uncertainty** as to whether they had been **clawed** by a hawk that entered among them, **which came before Rav.** Rav **sent them before Shmuel** to issue a ruling, and Shmuel **strangled them and threw them in the river. And if it enters your mind that** Rav **did not retract** his statement, then **let him permit them** for consumption. Why did he send them to Shmuel?


###### Chullin 53b:4
[Chullin 53b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:4)

אֶלָּא מַאי הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? לֵיסְרִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא, אַתְרֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Rather, what** will you say, that Rav really did **retract?** If so, **let him prohibit them** for consumption without sending them to Shmuel. **Rather,** he sent the birds to Shmuel because **it was Shmuel’s place,** and although Rav disagreed with Shmuel, it would be improper to issue a contradictory ruling.


###### Chullin 53b:5
[Chullin 53b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:5)

לְמָה לִּי לְמִיחְנְקִינְהוּ? לִישְׁדִּינְהוּ הָכִי בְּנַהֲרָא! מְפָרְחָן וְסָלְקָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need Shmuel **to strangle** the birds? **Let him** simply **throw them into the river as is.** The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned lest **they fly and leave** the river and eventually end up in the possession of an unwitting Jew.


###### Chullin 53b:6
[Chullin 53b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:6)

וּלְשַׁהִינְהוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ? אָתֵי בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה. וְלִיזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְגוֹיִם? אָתוּ לְזַבּוֹנִינְהוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But let him delay** killing **them** for **twelve months.** If they survive it will prove that they are not *tereifot*, and they will be permitted. The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned lest people **encounter a stumbling block,** as they might forget that these birds are prohibited and eat them before twelve months have passed. The Gemara asks: **But let him sell them to gentiles** so that they will not be a stumbling block. The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned that perhaps the gentiles **will come to sell them** back **to Jews.**


###### Chullin 53b:7
[Chullin 53b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:7)

וְלִיחְנְקִינְהוּ וְלִישְׁדִּינְהוּ לְאַשְׁפָּה? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, נִישְׁדִּינְהוּ לִכְלָבִים! אֶלָּא, לְפַרְסוֹמֵי מִלְּתָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But let him strangle them and throw them into the garbage.** Why did Shmuel throw them into the river? The Gemara responds: **And according to your reasoning, we should throw them to the dogs,** as at least then they will come to some use. **Rather,** Shmuel threw them into the river, a public place, in order **to publicize the matter of the prohibition.**


###### Chullin 53b:8
[Chullin 53b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:8)

הָהוּא בַּר אֲוָוזָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רַב אָשֵׁי, עָל לְבֵינֵי קְנַיָּא, נְפַק אֲתָא כִּי מְמַסְמַס קוֹעֵיהּ דְּמָא. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא אָמְרִינַן סְפֵק כַּלְבָּא סְפֵק שׁוּנָרָא – אֵימַר כַּלְבָּא? הָכָא נָמֵי, סְפֵק קַנְיָא סְפֵק שׁוּנָרָא – אֵימַר קַנְיָא מַחְיֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that there was **a certain duck that was in the house of Rav Ashi.** The duck **entered between the reeds,** and it **came out with its throat stained with blood. Rav Ashi said: Do we not say:** If it is **uncertain** whether the predator was **a dog** and **uncertain** whether it was **a cat, I will say** that it was **a dog,** which cannot claw an animal effectively? **Here, too,** since it is **uncertain** whether the duck was injured by **a reed** and **uncertain** whether it was injured by **a cat, I will say** that **a reed struck it,** and the duck is not a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 53b:9
[Chullin 53b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:9)

אָמְרִי בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya,** Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, **said: A clawed** animal, about **which** the Sages **said** one must be concerned, **requires inspection** of the flesh **adjacent to the intestines.** If the flesh surrounding the intestines reddened, the animal is a *tereifa*, because the venom will eventually penetrate the body cavity and perforate the intestines themselves.


###### Chullin 53b:10
[Chullin 53b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:10)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָא דִּבְנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא – כְּבָר פָּירְשַׁהּ שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: This** statement **of the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya** was **already explained** by **Shmuel, as Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus: A clawed animal,** about **which they said** one must be concerned, **requires inspection adjacent to the intestines.**


###### Chullin 53b:11
[Chullin 53b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:11)

בָּעֵי אִילְפָא: יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה לְסִימָנִים אוֹ אֵין דְּרוּסָה לְסִימָנִים? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי אִילְפָא – כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא, דְּאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא אָמַר רַב: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הֶחָלָל כּוּלּוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּסִימָנִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ilfa raises a dilemma: Is there clawing with regard to the *simanim*, or is there no clawing with regard to the *simanim*?** Does the venom penetrate the *simanim* as it does the intestines? **Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Ilfa raises** was **already explained** by **Rav Ḥanan bar Rava, as Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says** that **Rav says: A clawed animal,** about **which they said** one must be concerned, **requires inspection** of the flesh **adjacent to the entire** body **cavity, and even in** the area of **the *simanim*.**


###### Chullin 53b:12
[Chullin 53b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:12)

בָּעֵי אִילְפָא: סִימָנִין שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ, בְּכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי אִילְפָא – כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרוּבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ilfa raises** another **dilemma:** With regard to ***simanim* that were detached, how much** detachment renders the animal a *tereifa*? **Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Ilfa raises** was **already explained** by **Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Shmuel says:** With regard to ***simanim* that were detached,** if they were detached **in their majority** the animal is a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 53b:13
[Chullin 53b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:13)

בָּעֵי רַב אַמֵּי: הֲמַסְמָסָה מַהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי רַב אַמֵּי – כְּבָר פֵּירְשַׁהּ רַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בִּדְרוּסָה, עַד שֶׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים; נִתְמַסְמֵס הַבָּשָׂר – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ami raises a dilemma: What is** the *halakha* with regard to an animal that was clawed in an area not surrounding the body cavity, such as the legs, and **rot** was found in the flesh of that area? **Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Rav Ami raises** was **already explained** by **Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: With regard to a clawed** animal, the injury does not render it a *tereifa* **unless the flesh adjacent to the intestine reddens;** but if **the flesh rotted, one views** the rotten area **as if it does not exist.** If the animal would be a *tereifa* when missing this flesh, it is also a *tereifa* if the flesh rotted.


###### Chullin 53b:14
[Chullin 53b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:14)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי נִתְמַסְמֵס? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּל שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא גּוֹרְדוֹ וּמַעֲמִידוֹ עַל בָּשָׂר חַי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, אַיְיתוֹ קַמַּן הָהִיא רֵיאָה, דְּכִי הֲווֹ מוֹתְבִי לַהּ – יָתְבָה שַׁפִּיר, וְכִי הֲווֹ מַדְלוּ לַהּ – הֲוָה תָּלְחָה וְנָפְלָה תִּילְחֵי תִּילְחֵי, וְטָרֵיפְנָא לַהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is considered rotten** flesh? **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** It is **any** flesh in such a state that **the doctor scrapes it off and leaves** the animal **with** its **raw flesh** exposed so that it will heal. **Rav Ashi said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana they brought before us a certain lung that, when they would set it down, would sit well, but when they would pick it up it would disintegrate and fall into pieces. And we deemed it a *tereifa* based on** the statement **of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,** that one views rotten flesh as if it does not exist. Since the animal would be a *tereifa* if missing the lung (see 42a), it is also a *tereifa* if the lung is rotten.


###### Chullin 53b:15
[Chullin 53b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:15)

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: בְּקוֹץ – עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לֶחָלָל, בִּדְרוּסָה – מִשֶּׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים. רַב זְבִיד מַתְנֵי הָכִי: בִּדְרוּסָה – מִשֶּׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים, בְּסִימָנִים – עַד שֶׁיַּאֲדִימוּ סִימָנִים עַצְמָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said:** If an animal was pierced **by a thorn,** it is not a *tereifa* **until it is perforated to the cavity** of the body. But **in** the case of **a clawed** animal, **once the flesh adjacent to** the **intestines reddens,** it is a *tereifa*. **Rav Zevid** would **teach** the *halakha* in **this** manner: **In** the case of **a clawed** animal, **once the flesh adjacent to** the **intestines reddens** it is a *tereifa*; but if it was clawed **in the *simanim*,** it is not a *tereifa* **unless the *simanim* themselves redden.** If only the flesh around them reddens, the animal is kosher, since the venom may not penetrate to the *simanim* themselves.


###### Chullin 53b:16
[Chullin 53b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/53b:16)

אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי, בָּעֵי רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappi said: Rav Beivai bar Abaye raises a dilemma:**