Niddah 50b — the Talmud in English

And we explain it:

he holds that

Rabbi Yohanan’s

thought of attachment —

that he thought about the chicory while it was still attached—

is not considered thought

to change it from animal food into human food.

Rava said: We too have likewise learned

similarly:

Thirteen matters were stated concerning the carcass of a kosher bird, and this is one of them:

It requires thought

to eat it, so that it should have the designation of food and become impure,

but it does not require preparation.

That is, it is unnecessary for water to come upon it in order for it to be fit to contract impurity and to render other foods impure with food impurity. And even more than this: it is unnecessary for a creeping creature to touch it in order for it to be impure with food impurity, since, because it will ultimately contract severe impurity when it is eaten [which renders even the eater’s garments impure], it renders food impurity by itself, even if no creeping creature touches it.

And from the fact that we learned that the carcass of a kosher bird requires thought to eat it, despite the fact that while it was alive it was destined to be eaten, for he thinks of slaughtering the bird and eating it,

it follows that thought while alive is not considered thought

because at the time when it is alive it is not fit to contract food impurity.

Here too,

when one thinks concerning chicory that was planted for an animal that it should be human food,

thought of attachment is not considered thought,

because while it is attached to the ground it is not fit to contract food impurity; therefore, one must think of it again for eating after it has been detached.

Rabbi Zeira said:

Actually, thought while alive is considered thought, and the carcass of a kosher bird does not require thought for eating after it has become a carcass, since while alive it was destined to be eaten.

Rather,

here

we are speaking

of a fledgling that fell from the height

[a wild bird that we had not previously seen, which fell from above]

we are dealing with it, since it was not before us

[before it died]

to think about it

while alive for eating; therefore, it now requires thought for eating.

Abaye said to him

to Rabbi Zeira:

What is to be said about the chicken in Yavne

[which, as will be explained below, they rendered impure through thought after it became a carcass], which was a designated bird and had been before us while alive?

What is there to say?

Why did they require thought to eat it after it became a carcass?

Rather, it is proven that every carcass of a kosher bird requires thought after it dies because it is not fit to contract food impurity while alive. The thought that they had about it while alive is ineffective.

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira: There,

it was a wild rooster

[the wild rooster]

that it was.

Therefore, while alive it was not designated for eating.

They laughed at him:

Abaye’s students mocked him, for

a wild rooster is an impure bird.

And does an impure bird render impure

in the throat-house [for this novelty—that at the time of eating, while it is in the throat-house, it renders severe impurity—is stated only with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird]? And below, in the case of the chicken in Yavne, the discussion also concerns impurity of the throat-house. This cannot apply to a wild rooster!?

Abaye said to them

to those who mocked Rabbi Zeira’s interpretation concerning a wild rooster:

A great man has said a matter; do not laugh at him!

Rather, delve into his words and understand his intention.

For Rabbi Zeira’s intention was

a chicken

[an ordinary one]

that rebelled

against its owners, went out into the wilderness, and raised chicks there; and one of those chicks returned and fell here. Therefore it requires thought for eating, since while it was in the wilderness it was not designated for human consumption, for no one had thought about it.

And what

was the intention of “a rooster

wild”

that Rabbi Zeira said?

That it had become wild through rebellion

[that it had rebelled against its master and fled to the wilderness].

Rav Pappa said:

The chicken in Yavne

was a marsh chicken,

and therefore it required thought, because it was not designated for eating.

Rav Pappa follows his own reasoning, for Rav Pappa said: A marsh rooster is forbidden,

because it is an impure species.

A marsh chicken is permitted,

for it is a kosher species [and we are not speaking of male and female but of two different species , called by these names].

And your sign is,

to distinguish between the kosher type and the impure one,

Ammonite and not Ammonitess

[the marsh rooster, namely, the species called in the masculine form, like “Ammonite,” is forbidden, whereas the marsh chicken, which is called in the feminine form, like “Ammonitess,” is permitted].

Marimer expounded: A marsh chicken is forbidden

[and he disagrees with Pappa], because

the Sages saw it strike and eat

and this striking is one of the signs of an impure bird.

And this is

“a griffin”

which is explained in the Gemara to be an impure bird.

The Sages taught: A fledgling

of a kosher bird

that fell into a winepress

of wine and died in it,

and he thought about lifting it

in order to give it

to a Samaritan

who would eat it, it is

impure

with food impurity. But if he thought of giving it

to a dog, it is

pure

from food impurity, since once it died he did not think of it as human food, unless he thought of giving it to a Samaritan.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: Even

if he thought of giving it

to a dog, it is

impure

with food impurity, because by its own nature it is fit for human consumption and it does not require thought for eating in order to render it impure with food impurity. And according to Rabbi Yohanan, it is impure even if he did not think about it at all—not for a person and not even for a dog.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: It is a kal va-chomer

that it renders impure even without thought:

If it renders impure

the carcass of a kosher bird

with severe impurity

[when it is eaten in the throat-house, rendering the eater’s garments impure]

without thought,

even if he did not think of it for eating [for example, he did not know that what he was eating was the carcass of a kosher bird, and therefore he did not regard it in his thought as something edible],

will it not render impure

the carcass of an impure bird

with the impurity

of foods, which is

light,

rendering only foods and liquids impure,

without thought!?

They said to him: No. If you have said this with regard to severe impurity, since it does not descend to this,

the Gemara will explain the meaning of these words below.

He said to them: The chicken in Yavne proves it, which does descend to this,

as will be explained by the Gemara below,

and they rendered it impure without thought.

They said to him: Is there proof from there? Samaritans were there, and they thought of it for eating.

And the Gemara discusses:

With what are we dealing?

If you say it is in cities,

where there are many people and among them are people who eat everything,

why does it require thought?

But we learned: The carcass of a kosher animal,

which

in every place

is destined for eating,

and

likewise

the carcass of a kosher bird and the milk in cities,

where there are people who eat them,

require neither thought nor preparation!

Rather,

we are speaking

of villages,

where there are not many people, and the carcass of a kosher bird and milk are not ordinarily destined there for eating.

And we challenge this:

And is there anyone who says that

the carcass of a kosher bird in villages

does not require thought?

But we learned: The carcass of an impure animal in every place

is not ordinarily destined for eating [and does not render food impure with food impurity. Although it renders things impure as a carcass, there is a practical difference when it is less than an egg-bulk, for then it cannot combine with other foods to complete the egg-bulk measure, which is the measure for food impurity],

and the carcass of a kosher bird in villages requires thought, but does not require preparation

[because it will ultimately render severe impurity].

Rabbi Zeira bar Hanina said: Actually, in a city, and

nevertheless, according to the Sages it requires thought because

its winepress rejected it,

so that it became repulsive from falling into the wine,

and made it like a village

that does not ordinarily have food.

And now we explain their dispute:

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: It is a kal va-chomer: If it renders severe impurity without thought, will it not render light impurity without thought?

They said to him: No. If you have said this with regard to severe impurity, since it does not descend to this.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the meaning of

“it does not descend to this”?