Chullin Daf 53 צולין דַף 53

Abaye said: נקטינן אין דרוסה אלא ביד – we hold through tradition that the law of “a clawed [animal]” only applies where it was clawed by the predator’s paw, as opposed to the hind leg, which does not make it a tereifah. Furthermore, it only applies if it attacked בצפורן – with its claw, but not with its tooth. Also, דרוסה only applies if it clawed מדעת – with intent, but not if it clawed unintentionally. Finally, דרוסה only applies if it clawed מחיים – while alive, but not if it clawed after its death. The Gemara assumes this means where a dead predator fell onto its victim, and objects that if clawing unintentionally does not make a tereifah, obviously a dead predator falling onto an animal will not!? The Gemara answers that the case is where the predator clawed its victim, ופסקוה לידיה – and they chopped off its paw before it could pull it out. One might have thought that בהדי דדריס שדי זיהריה – it injects its poison as it [inserts its] claws into the victim, and the above case would be a tereifah; Abaye is teaching that בהדי דשליף שדי זיהריה – it injects its poison as it removes its claws, and the above case would not make a tereifah.

Amoraim argue about the status where it is uncertain if an animal was clawed. Rav says אין חוששין לספק דרוסה – we are unconcerned for an uncertain case of “a clawed [animal],” and Shmuel says we are concerned for ספק דרוסה. The Gemara limits their machlokes: ספק על ספק לא על – where it is uncertain whether or not [the predator] entered among the animals, all agree we assume it did not enter. If it is uncertain if the predator was a cat, or a dog (which does not fatally claw), we may assume it was a cat. If a lion entered but sat quietly beside the cows, אימר שלמא שוי – I may say it made peace with them and did not attack them. If it tore off the head of one of them, we assume its fury was calmed and it did not attack further. If the lion was roaring and the cows bellowing, we assume they were frightened of each other. Their argument is where the lion is quiet and the cows are mooing. Shmuel is concerned they are mooing because they were clawed, and Rav says they are simply afraid. Ameimar says the halachah follows Shmuel.

The sons of Rebbe Chiya said: דרוסה שאמרו – the “clawed one” about which [the Sages] spoke (e.g., an animal which was possibly clawed by a lion), צריכה בדיקה כנגד בני מעיים – requires examination around the internal organs (i.e., the back, belly, and the sides around the organs) for signs of reddened meat, which indicate an infusion of poison. Rav Yosef reported that this ruling was issued earlier by Rebbe Chanina ben Antigenos. Ilfa asked if the halachah of דרוסה also applies to the סימנים (the trachea and esophagus), or not (since their material is strong), and Rebbe Zeira said that this question was already resolved from Rav’s ruling, that a דרוסה requires examination כנגד בית החלל כולו – around the entire body cavity, ואפילו בסימנין – including the pipes themselves. [Thus, Rav requires a more extensive inspection than Shmuel.]