POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Chulin 53
CHULIN 51-54 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
1) VENOMOUS ANIMALS
(a) Question (Rav Kahana): Is a cat Matrif?
2) WHICH SCRATCHES ARE "MATRIF"?
(b) Answer (Rav): Even a weasel is Matrif, (all the more so,
(c) Question (Rav Kahana): Is a weasel Matrif? (All this will
be explained shortly.)
(d) Answer (Rav): Even a cat is not Matrif, (all the more so,
(e) Question (Rav Kahana): Are cats and weasels venomous?
(f) Answer (Rav): Cats are venomus, weasels are not.
(g) We can resolve the apparent contradictions:
1. Rav said that even a weasel is Matrif birds;
(h) (The Mishnah taught that a Netz is Matrif small birds, a
Gas (large hawk) is Matrif large birds.)
2. He said that even a cat is not Matrif large sheep;
3. He said that a cat is Matrif, but not a weasel, if
they clawed kids and lambs.
(i) Question (Rav Ashi): Are other Tamei birds venomous?
(j) Answer (Rav Hillel): Yes.
(k) Question (Mishnah): A Netz is Matrif small birds
(implying that other birds are not Matrif!)
(l) Answer #1: A Netz is Matrif birds its own size, any other
bird is Matrif only birds smaller than itself.
(m) Answer #2: A Netz is Matrif birds larger than itself, any
other bird is Matrif only birds its own size.
(n) Version #1 (Rav Kahana): A fox is not venomous.
(o) Question: But Rav Dimi reported that a fox was Dores a
ewe, and Chachamim ruled that it is Tereifah!
(p) Answer (Rav Safra): The case was, a cat was Dores it.
(q) Version #2 (Rav Kahana): A fox is venomous.
(r) Question: But Rav Dimi reported that a fox was Dores a
ewe, and Chachamim ruled that it is Kosher!
(s) Answer (Rav Safra): The case was, a dog was Dores it;
1. (Rav Yosef): A dog is not venomous.
(a) (Abaye): We are concerned only for an intentional scratch
with the claw of the foreleg, while the attacking animal
3) DOUBTFUL CASES OF "DERISAH"
1. Inference: We are not concerned for bites,
unintentional scratches, scratches with the (claws
of the) hind leg, or scratches after the attacker
(b) Question: Obviously, if unintentional scratches are not a
problem, we are not concerned after the attacker dies!
(c) Answer: The Chidush is when the foreleg was cut off
before it was withdrawn:
1. One might have thought, it poisons its victim when
it inserts the claw - Abaye teaches, this is not so,
rather, the venom comes when it withdraws the claw.
(a) (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing Rav): If a lion came amidst
cattle, and a claw was found in the back of one of them,
it is Kosher.
(b) Question: Why?
(c) Answer: Even though most lions Dores, a claw (Tosfos -
almost) never comes off. Since a claw came off, we assume
that the ox came upon this claw when it scratched itself
on the wall.
(d) Question: (Tosfos - most) oxen that scratch themselves
would not get a claw in their back - we should assume
that the lion clawed it!
(e) Conclusion: There are reasons to assume one way and the
other, this is like an even doubt, we leave the ox in its
Chazakah (it is Kosher.)
1. Rav generally holds, we are lenient in doubtful
cases of Derisah.
(f) (Abaye): This is only if a claw is found, but if only a
scratch mark is found, we are concerned.
1. Even when a claw is found, we are only lenient if it
is moist, not if it is dry, for dry claws often come
(g) (Rav): We are not concerned in doubtful cases of Derisah.
2. Even when it is moist, we are only lenient if one
was found, but if two or three are found like they
are positioned on the paw, we are concerned.
(h) (Shmuel): We are concerned.
(i) Both agree that we are not concerned in the following
1. If we are unsure whether or not the attacker entered
the herd, we assume that it did not;
2. If we do not know whether a dog or cat clawed the
victim, we assume that it was a dog;
3. If the attacker is sitting quietly among the herd,
we assume that it made peace with them;
4. If the attacker cut off a head, we assume that this
abated its rage, it was not Dores any others.
5. If the attacker and the herd are both 'talking' - we
assume that both are afraid of each other (it was
(j) They argue when the attacker is quiet, and the herd is
4) CHECKING A "DERUSAH"
1. Shmuel holds that they are noisy because one was
clawed; Rav holds that they are merely afraid.
(k) (Ameimar): The law is, we are concerned.
(l) Question (Rav Ashi): But Rav says that we are not
(m) Answer #1: Ameimar holds like Shmuel.
(n) Answer #2: Rav retracted and agreed with Shmuel.
(o) Support: The following episode shows that Rav retracted:
1. Some doubtfully Nidras birds were brought before
Rav; he sent them to Shmuel to give a ruling; Shmuel
choked them and threw them in the river.
(p) Answer (and rejection of support): Rather, Rav didn't
retract (therefore, he did not forbid them himself);
i. If Rav held that they are permitted, he would
have permitted them!
2. Question: If he retracted, and held they are
forbidden, he should have ruled on them himself!
1. He did not want to permit them, for this is contrary
to Shmuel, and the question was asked in Shmuel's
(q) A goose was bleeding from the neck.
2. Question: Why did Shmuel choke them before throwing
them in the river?
3. Answer: He was concerned lest they fly away (and
someone will find them, unaware that they were
4. Question: Why didn't he wait 12 months (if they
lived, that would prove that they were not
5. Answer: He was concerned lest someone (accidentally)
eat them in the interim.
6. Question: Why didn't he sell them to non-Jews?
7. Answer: He was concerned lest the non-Jew sell it to
8. Question: Why didn't he just throw them in the
wasteheap after choking them?
i. Counter-question: Why didn't he feed them to
9. Answer (to both): He wanted to publicize the law
that we are concerned for doubtful Derisah.
(r) (Rav Ashi): Just like when we are unsure if a scratch
came from a dog or cat, we assume that it came from a dog
- likewise, when unsure if it came from a cat or reed, we
assume that it came from a reed.
(a) (Bnei R. Chiya and Shmuel): One must check around the
innards of a clawed animal.
(b) Question (Ilfa): Are we concerned that venom can affect
the Kaneh and Veshet?
(c) Answer (R. Zeira): From Rav, we learn that we are
1. (Rav): One must check around the entire interior of
a Derusah, including the Simanim.
(d) Question (Ilfa): How much must Simanim be uprooted to
make the animal Tereifah?
(e) Answer (R. Zeira citing Rabah bar bar Chanah): The
majority must be uprooted.
(f) Question (R. Ami): If the flesh rotted near a scratch,
what is the law?
(g) Answer (R. Zeira): We learn this from (the second law of)
1. (Rav Yehudah): If an animal was Nidras, if the flesh
near the innards turned red, it is Tereifah;
(h) Question: What is considered rotted flesh?
2. If flesh rotted, we consider that it was removed (if
removal of that flesh would make an animal Tereifah,
it is Tereifah.)
(i) Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): If a doctor would
remove it, it is like rotted flesh.
(j) (Rav Ashi): Lungs were brought in front of Rav Kahana;
they were fine while resting flat, but when hung, they
started crumbling. Rav Kahana said, the animal is
Tereifah on account of Rav Huna's law.
(k) (Rav Nachman): We are concerned for a puncture of a thorn
only if the wound extends to the inside; we are concerned
for Derisah if the flesh reddens near the innards;
1. We are concerned for reddening of the Simanim
themselves (but not of the surrounding flesh.)