Niddah 50b (נ:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

he holds that

Rabbi Yohanan’s

thought concerning something attached —

the thought he had concerning the oleanders while they were still attached to the ground—

is not considered a thought

to change them from animal food into human food.

Rava said: We too have learned

something similar:

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

It requires thought

to eat it, so that it will acquire the status of food and become susceptible to impurity,

but it does not require preparation.

That is, it is unnecessary for water to come upon it in order for it to become fit to contract impurity and to impart food impurity to other foods. Moreover, it is unnecessary for a creeping creature to touch it in order for it to be impure with food impurity, since, as it will ultimately contract severe impurity when it is eaten [so that even the garments of the one who eats it become impure], it itself imparts food impurity even if no creeping creature touches it.

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

it is evident that thought while it is alive is not considered thought,

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

Here too,

when one thinks about oleanders that he planted for animal food, intending them to become human food,

thought concerning something attached is not considered thought,

because while they are attached to the ground they are not fit to contract food impurity. Therefore, he must think of them as food again after they have been detached.

Rabbi Zeira said:

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

Rather,

here

we are dealing

with a fledgling that fell from above [

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

as it was not before us [

before it died]

so that one could think of it

while it was alive as food. Therefore, it now requires thought that it be eaten.

Abaye said to him,

to Rabbi Zeira:

What can be said about the hen 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 that it be eaten after it became a carcass?

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

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira: There,

it was a wild rooster [

the wild species of rooster]

that it was.

Therefore, while alive it was not designated as food.

They laughed at him:

Abaye’s students mocked him, for

a wild rooster is an impure bird.

And does an impure bird impart impurity

in the throat [for this novel ruling—that while it is being eaten, when it is in the throat, it imparts severe impurity—was stated only with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird]? And below, the case of the hen in Yavne is also discussed with regard to impurity in the throat. This is impossible with regard to a wild rooster!?

Abaye said to them,

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

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

Rather, delve into his words and understand his intention.

For Rabbi Zeira’s intention was

a hen [

an ordinary one]

that rebelled

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

And what

did Rabbi Zeira mean by “a rooster

of the wild”

? He meant

one that had rebelled [

that had rebelled against its master and fled into the wilderness].

Rav Pappa said:

The hen in Yavne

was a marsh hen,

and therefore it requires thought, because it is not designated for consumption.

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

because it is an impure species.

A marsh hen is permitted,

as it is a kosher species [and this does not refer to male and female of one species, but to two different species] , known by these names.

And your mnemonic is,

to distinguish between the kosher and impure types:

an Ammonite man, but not an Ammonite woman [

the marsh rooster—that is, the species designated by the masculine term, like “Ammonite man”—is forbidden, whereas the marsh hen, designated by the feminine term, like “Ammonite woman,” is not].

Mirmar taught: A marsh hen is forbidden [

and he disagrees with Pappa], because

the Sages saw it claw and eat,

and clawing is one of the signs of an impure bird.

And this is the

gira

explained in the Gemara as an impure bird.

The Sages taught: A fledgling

of a kosher bird

that fell into a winepress

of wine and died there,

and one thought to bring it up

in order to give it

to a Samaritan,

who would eat it, it is

impure

with food impurity. But if one thought to give it

to a dog, it is

pure

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Even

if he thought to give it

to a dog, it is

impure

with food impurity, because in itself it is fit for human consumption and does not require thought that it be eaten in order to render it impure with food impurity. And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, it is impure even if he did not think of it at all—not for a person and not even for a dog.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: This is a kal va-chomer

that it imparts impurity even without thought:

If

the carcass of a kosher bird

imparts severe impurity [

when it is eaten in the throat, rendering the garments of the one who eats it impure]

without thought,

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

should it not impart

the carcass of an impure bird

the impurity

of food, which is

less severe,

as it renders only food and liquids impure,

without thought!?

They said to him: No. If you say this with regard to severe impurity, since it does not descend to that status, can you say this with regard to less severe impurity, since it does descend to that status!

The Gemara will explain the meaning of these words below.

He said to them: The hen in Yavne proves it, since it does descend to that status,

as the Gemara will explain 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 as food.

And the Gemara discusses this:

What are we dealing with?

If you say it is in cities,

where there are many people, including people who eat everything,

why does it require thought?

But we learned: The carcass of a kosher animal,

which

everywhere

is destined for consumption,

and

likewise

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

where there are people who eat them,

require neither thought nor preparation!

Rather,

we are dealing

with villages,

where there are not many people, and the carcass of a kosher bird and forbidden fat are not presumed to be destined for consumption.

And we challenge this:

But 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 everywhere

is not presumed to be destined for consumption [and it does not impart food impurity. Although it imparts impurity as a carcass, there is a practical difference when it is less than the size of an egg, since then it cannot combine with other foods to complete the measure of an egg, which is the measure required for food impurity],

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

because it will ultimately impart severe impurity].

Rabbi Zeira bar Ḥanina said: Actually, it is in a city, and

nevertheless, according to the Sages it requires thought, because

its winepress rejected it

and it became repulsive from falling into the wine,

making it like a village,

where food is not presumed to be available.

And now we explain their dispute:

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: This is a kal va-chomer: If it imparts severe impurity without thought, should it not impart less severe impurity without thought?

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

And the Gemara discusses this:

What does the phrase

“it does not descend to that status” mean?