The Talmud is now discussing the question of when an animal is rendered a treifa by virtue of being clawed by another animal. Arguably, this discussion comes closest to what the Torah has in mind, given that the verbal root underlying the word treifa, tet-resh-pey, means “to tear.” The question today is about an animal that may or may not have been clawed — we aren’t sure.
Rav says: One need not be concerned in a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed.
Shmuel says: One must be concerned in a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed.
When we know there’s a possibility that an animal was clawed by a predator, but there’s no clear indication that the animal has been physically harmed, Rav says we default to a permissive stance. Shmuel thinks that if there’s any meaningful uncertainty, “one must be concerned” — i.e., the animal needs to be inspected carefully after slaughter.
The Gemara goes on to clarify, with great specificity, when there might actually be meaningful uncertainty as to whether an animal has been clawed:
Everyone agrees that in a case where it is uncertain whether a predator entered the pen or coop and uncertain whether it did not enter, I will say that it did not enter. If it is known that an animal entered but it is uncertain whether it was a dog or a cat, I will say that it was a dog.
According to the stam, the anonymous voice in the Gemara, there’s no concern in a case where we are unsure whether the animal even came into contact with a predator. In such a case, everyone agrees the animal is permitted. Furthermore, even if we know for certain an animal did enter the coop, but we’re uncertain as to the species of animal, we can default to assuming it’s an animal that doesn’t render other animals treifot, such as a dog (who isn’t believed to have “venom” in its claws, unlike the cat).
Furthermore:
Even if a predator entered, but it was quiet and sat among the animals, I will say it made peace with them.
Even if we know that a true predator, like a cat, entered the coop, we do not assume it attacked. If it perched there quietly, and none of the animals made a ruckus, we can assume they are not maimed. We don’t assume the cat engaged in some surreptitious clawing. Rather, we can assume it “made peace” with the chickens.
But even if the cat wasn’t “peaceful,” that’s not necessarily a problem:
If it decapitated one of them, I will say that its anger subsided. And if it was roaring and they were clucking, I will say that they are only frightening each other.
If the cat somehow managed to decapitate one chicken but all the others appear untouched, we assume only this chicken was attacked, and the cat had its fill of violence. The other chickens are permitted. Maharam Schiff, a 17th-century commentator, explains the logic: If the animal’s method of attack is decapitation, why would it have decapitated one chicken and merely clawed the others? Therefore, if one chicken was gruesomely killed and the rest seem completely intact, everyone assumes they’re okay.
And even if there’s a ruckus from all these animals — it’s still fine! If the predator is roaring and the chickens are clucking in fear, we also need not worry that the chickens were harmed. Rashi picks up on the Gemara’s curious language, suggesting that — implausible as it may sound — if the animals are both screaming at one another, perhaps the predator is also afraid! So they merely engaged in a screaming stand-off.
So, when is there actual doubt about whether an animal has been clawed by a predator? After all these limitations, we finally arrive at the scenario that’s disputed:
They disagree when the predator is quiet and the birds are clucking. One sage, Shmuel, holds that they are clucking because it is acting upon them. And one sage, Rav, holds that they are doing this out of fear of the predator.
Shmuel assumes that the clucking of the domestic animals is a response to the predator’s violence, whereas Rav sees it as a sign of fear — but not necessarily harm.
Ultimately, we rule like Shmuel, despite the fact that Rav generally wins their disputes in matters of issurim, prohibitions. However, with all the limitations on today’s daf, the distance between their opinions is significantly narrowed.
Read all of Chullin 53 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on June 22, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world. With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
