XXVI.3
A. R. Kahana posed a question to Rab, [53a] “Does the rule of mauling [that renders an animal terefah] apply to a cat or not?” He said to him, “The rule of mauling applies even to a weasel.” [He said to him,] “Does the rule of mauling apply to a weasel?” He said to him, “The rule of mauling does not apply even to a cat.” [He said to him,] “Does the rule of mauling apply to a cat or to a weasel or not?” He said to him, “The rule of mauling applies to a cat but not to a weasel.”
B. And all this is not contradictory. That which he said, “The rule of mauling applies even to a weasel,” [refers to a case where it mauled] birds. That which he said, “The rule of mauling does not apply even to a cat,” [refers to a case of] large sheep. That which he stated, “The rule of mauling applies to a cat but not to a weasel,” [refers to a case of] kids and lambs.
XXVI.4
A. R. Ashi posed a question, “Does the rule of mauling apply to other kinds of unclean birds [of prey] or not?” Said R. Hillel to R. Ashi, “When I was in the house of R. Kahana he said that the rule of mauling applies to other unclean birds.”
B. But lo we have taught on Tannaite authority, One mauled by a hawk in the case of small fowl [M. 3:1 K]. [That means] the mauling of a hawk [renders terefah a bird] even its own size. But other [birds render terefah by mauling] only those birds that are smaller than them.
C. And some say: [That means] the mauling of a hawk [renders terefah a bird] even large than its own size. But other [birds render terefah by mauling] up to their own size.
XXVI.5
A. Said R. Kahana in the name of R. Shimi bar Ashi, “The rule of mauling does not apply to a fox.”
B. Is it not the case [that the rule does apply]? But lo when R. Dimi came [from Israel] he said, “There was an instance where a fox mauled a ewe in the bath house of Bet Hini. And the instance came before the sages [for a ruling]. And they said that the rule of mauling does apply [to the case of a fox].”
C. Said R. Safra, “This was [a case of] a cat [that mauled a ewe].”
D. Another version: Said R. Kahana in the name of R. Shimi bar Ashi, “The rule of mauling does apply to a fox.”
E. Is it not the case [that the rule does apply]? But lo when R. Dimi came [from Israel] he said, “There was an instance where a fox mauled a ewe in the bath house of Bet Hini. And the instance came before the sages [for a ruling]. And they said that the rule of mauling does not apply [to the case of a fox].”
F. Said R. Safra, “This was [a case of] a dog [that mauled a ewe].”
G. Said R. Joseph, “We obtained that the rule of mauling does not apply to a dog.” Said Abayye, “We obtained that the rule of mauling applies only [where the animal mauled with its] fore leg.” This excludes [any case where it mauled with] its hind leg [where the rule of mauling] does not apply.
H. The rule of mauling only applies [where the animal mauled with its] claw. This excludes [any case where it mauled with] its teeth [where the rule of mauling] does not apply.
I. The rule of mauling only applies [where the animal mauled] with intent. This excludes [any case where it mauled] without intent [where the rule of mauling] does not apply.
J. The rule of mauling only applies [where the animal mauled] while alive. This excludes [any case where it mauled by falling on the prey] after it died [where the rule of mauling] does not apply.
K. They said there: You said [any case where it mauled] without intent [the rule of mauling] does not apply. Is it necessary to state [that in any case where it mauled by falling on its prey] after it died [the rule of mauling does not apply]? [This appears to be redundant.]
L. No. It is necessary [to state both rules so as to include under the rule of mauling the case of an animal that] mauled and then its leg was cut off [before it could withdraw the leg from the animal]. What would you like to say? That in the act of mauling it injects the poison [into the prey]. [By teaching both rules] it makes the novel point that in the act of withdrawing [its leg from the prey] it injects the poison [that kills the prey].
XXVI.6
A. Said Rabbah bar R. Huna, said Rab, “If a lion entered the midst of a herd of oxen and then a claw was found in the back of one of them, we are not concerned that perhaps the lion mauled it.” What is the basis [for this conclusion]? [It is based on the principle that] the majority of lions do maul and the minority do not maul. And for any [species of] animal that mauls, its nail is not likely to come off [even if that particular animal is not wont to maul].
B. And this [ox] — since a nail was found in its back, we should say that it rubbed up against a wall [and a nail of a lion that had become stuck in the wall, became lodged in the back of the ox].
C. But the opposite conclusion is more reasonable [based on another principle, namely] the majority of oxen rub [their back] and the minority do not rub. And any animal that rubs [its back], it is not likely that a nail will remain lodged in its back. And this one since it has a nail lodged in its back, we should say that [it became lodged there when] a lion mauled it.
D. There is a basis to say [the inference must be drawn in accord with] this [line of reasoning in B] and there is a basis to say that [the inference must be drawn in accord] with that [line of reasoning in C]. Let us uphold the [validity of] the animal according to its presumptive status. It then is a case of an animal about which there is a doubt whether it was mauled. And Rab rules in accord with his own view [elsewhere]. For he said, “We are not concerned with the possibility of a case of a doubt as to whether the animal had been mauled.” [Cf. b. 43b, IV.1 B.]
E. Said Abayye, “We only said [that we are not concerned if in the animal's back they found] a nail. But if [they found a wound on the animal's back] the size of a nail, then we are concerned [that the animal was mauled].”
F. And with regard to the nail itself [that was found in the animal's back] we only said [that we are not concerned it was mauled] if it was moist [with blood and it is unlikely that a vital nail would come loose even during a mauling]. But if it was dried out, it is likely to be dislodged [from the animal's claw during a mauling].
G. And with regard to a moist nail we only said [that we are not concerned it was mauled] in the case where [they found in the animal's back] one nail. But where they found two or three [nails in its back] we are concerned [that it was mauled]. And this applies only where they were [lodged in the back] in a row, like a claw.
XXVII.1
A. It was stated: Rab said, “We are not concerned with the possibility of a case of a doubt as to whether the animal had been mauled.” And Samuel said, “We are concerned with the possibility of a case of a doubt as to whether the animal had been mauled.”
B. They all agree [regarding an animal that mauls, that in a case where] there is a doubt whether or not it went up [into the herd], it makes sense to say it did not go up. Where there is a doubt [about an instance of mauling] whether it was done by a dog or a cat, it makes sense to say that it was done by a dog. If it went up quietly and lay down among them, it makes sense to say that it made peace [with them and did not harm any of the herd]. If it decapitated one of them [it makes sense to say that its fierceness then subsided.
C. [And they all agree that] if it [the lion] was roaring and they [the oxen] were lowing [that means] they are facing off against one another [and no mauling has taken place yet]. Where do they dispute? Where it [the lion] is quiet and they [the oxen] are lowing. One authority [Samuel] reasons that [we must conclude the lion] has done the deed [i.e., attacked]. And the other authority [Rab] reasons that they are doing so as a response [to the presence of the lion but he has not yet attacked them].
D. Said Amemar, “The law follows in accord with the view that we are concerned with the possibility of a case of a doubt as to whether the animal had been mauled.”
E. Said R. Ashi to Amemar, “What about this opinion of Rab?” He said to him, “I did not hear it.” That is to say, “I do not reason in accord with it.”
F. And if you prefer, Rab retracted his view in favor of Samuel's. For there was a basket of birds about which there was a doubt as to whether they had been mauled that came before Rab [for a ruling]. They sent it before Samuel. He strangled them and threw them into the river. And if you conclude that he [Rab] did not retract his view [that they not to be deemed as if they were mauled] then he should have declared them permitted [for consumption]. Rather what [should he have done if he had retracted his view]? He should have declared them prohibited [on his own]. But this case was in the jurisdiction of Samuel [and Rab wanted to allow him to render the opinion].
G. Why did he have to strangle them? Why not throw them into the river as they were? Because they might fly off [and be consumed by another Israelite]. And why did he not leave them and wait twelve months [to see if they would live]? He might thereby transgress [in the interim by consuming them]. And why did he not sell them to an idolater? He might go and sell them back to an Israelite. And why did he not strangle them and throw them into the trash? And on this basis you could allow him to throw them to the dogs. [That is correct.] But [he threw them into the river] to publicize his prohibition.
XXVII.2
A. A duck that was at the house of R Ashi went up into the reeds. It came out with its neck covered with blood. Said R. Ashi, “Did we not say, `Where there is a doubt [about an instance of mauling] whether it was done by a dog or a cat, it makes sense to say that it was done by a dog'? Here too [we should say], `Where there is a doubt [about an instance of mauling] whether it was done by a reed or a cat, it makes sense to say that the injury was done by a reed.'”
B. Said the sons of R. Hiyya, “The mauled animal that they spoke of must be inspected around its intestines.” Said R. Joseph, “This rule of R. Joseph was already specified by Samuel.” For said Samuel in the name of R. Haninah b. Antigonus, “The mauled animal that they spoke of must be inspected around its intestines.”
XXVII.3
A. Ilfa posed a question: Does the rule of mauling apply to the organs [of the throat] or not? Said R. Zira, “The rule for that question which Ilfa posed was already specified by R. Hanan bar Raba.” For said R. Hanan bar Raba, said Rab, “The mauled animal that they spoke of must be inspected around the entire abdominal cavity including the organs [of the throat].”
B. Ilfa posed a question: Concerning the organs [of the throat] that were dangling: how much [must they dangle out of their normal position to render the animal terefah]? Said R. Zira, “The rule for the question which Ilfa posed was already specified by Rabbah bar bar Hannah.” For said Rabba bar bar Hannah, said Samuel, “Concerning the organs that were dangling: a majority [that dangles renders the animal terefah].”
C. R. Ammi posed a question: What is the rule regarding putrefaction [of the animal's flesh caused by mauling]. Said R. Zira, “The rule for the question which R. Ammi posed was already specified by R. Judah.” For said R. Judah, said Rab, “In regards to an animal that was mauled [there is no consequence unless the flesh around the intestines turns red. If the flesh putrefied we regard it as if it were not there at all.”
D. What is the definition of putrefaction? Any instance [of non-vital tissue] in which the physician would scrape it away to help restore the living flesh.
E. Said R. Ashi, “When we were in the house of R. Kahana they brought before us [for a ruling] a lung that when it was set down it sat perfectly well. But when they lifted it up it disintegrated. And we declared it terefah in accord with the rule of R. Huna the son of R. Joshua.”
XXVII.4
A. R. Nahman said, “A thorn — [the animal is not terefah] unless it has pierced the abdominal cavity. A mauling — [The animal is terefah] when the flesh around the intestines turns red.”
B. R. Zebid taught as follows, “A mauling — [The animal is terefah] when the flesh around the intestines turns red. The organs [of the throat] — [the animal is not terefah] until the organs themselves turn red.”
No comments:
Post a Comment