## Niddah Daf 50b

###### Niddah 50b:1
[Niddah 50b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:1)

צְרִיכוֹת מַחְשָׁבָה לִכְשֶׁיִּתָּלְשׁוּ, קָסָבַר מַחְשֶׁבֶת חִבּוּר לֹא שְׁמָהּ מַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**they require intent** to be used for human consumption **once they are detached** from the ground, in order for them to be susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi Yoḥanan rules in this manner because he **holds** that **intent** to designate produce while it is **attached** to the ground **is not considered intent.**


###### Niddah 50b:2
[Niddah 50b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּנִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן: צְרִיכָה מַחְשָׁבָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר. אַלְמָא מַחְשֶׁבֶת חַיִּים לֹא שְׁמָהּ מַחְשָׁבָה, הָכָא נָמֵי מַחְשֶׁבֶת חִבּוּר לֹא שְׁמָהּ מַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: We learn** in a mishna (*Teharot* 1:1) **as well: Thirteen matters were stated with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird, and this is one of them:** In order for such a carcass to be susceptible to impurity and to be capable of imparting impurity to food through contact, it **requires** a person’s **intention** to eat it, **but it does not require** exposure to liquid to be **rendered susceptible** to impurity. Even if one had intent to eat the bird while it was still alive, intent is still required after it became a carcass for it to transmit impurity. Rava concludes: **Evidently, intent** that the bird be eaten while the bird is **alive is not considered intent. Here too, intent** to designate produce while it is **attached** to the ground **is not considered intent.**


###### Niddah 50b:3
[Niddah 50b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:3)

רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּגוֹזָל שֶׁנָּפַל מִן הָרוּם עָסְקִינַן, דְּלָא הֲוָה קַמַּן דְּלַחְשׁוֹב עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said:** Rava’s proof is inconclusive, as **here we are dealing with a young bird that fell from a height, where** the bird **was not before us** prior to it becoming a carcass, **so that** one could have had **intent that it** is food. Consequently, it requires intent afterward for it to impart impurity, but had there been intent while it was still alive, that would have sufficed.


###### Niddah 50b:4
[Niddah 50b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת שֶׁבְּיַבְנֶה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תַּרְנְגוֹל בָּרָא הֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rabbi Zeira: **What is there to say** about the case of the **chicken in Yavne?** In that instance the Sages deemed the chicken impure due to intent only after it became a carcass, despite the fact that it was present before them while it was alive. This apparently indicates that intent which occurred while the bird was alive is not considered intent. Rabbi Zeira **said to** Abaye: That **was** actually **a wild chicken,** which was not before them while it was alive, and therefore there was no intent that it should be food while it was alive.


###### Niddah 50b:5
[Niddah 50b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:5)

אַחִיכוּ עֲלֵיהּ: תַּרְנְגוֹל בָּרָא עוֹף טָמֵא הוּא, וְעוֹף טָמֵא מִי קָמְטַמֵּא? אֲמַר לְהוּ אַבָּיֵי: גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲמַר מִילְּתָא, לָא תְּחִיכוּ עֲלֵיהּ, בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת שֶׁמָּרְדָה, וּמַאי ״בָּרָא״? דְּאִיבְּרַאי מִמָּרַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Those who heard this comment **laughed at** Rabbi Zeira’s interpretation: **A wild chicken is a non-kosher bird, and does a non-kosher bird impart impurity? Abaye said to them: A great man has stated a matter; do not laugh at him.** Rabbi Zeira means that this is referring **to a chicken that rebelled** against its owner, ran away to the wild, and raised its kosher chicks there. One of those chicks subsequently returned from the wild. Consequently, it had not been present before the Sages while it was alive. **And what** did Rabbi Zeira mean when he mentioned **a wild [*bara*]** chicken? He meant one **that was created [*de’ivrai*] from** a chicken **that rebelled.**


###### Niddah 50b:6
[Niddah 50b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:6)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּאַגְמָא הֲוַאי. רַב פָּפָּא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תַּרְנְגוֹלָא דְּאַגְמָא אֲסִיר, תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּאַגְמָא שַׁרְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa stated** an alternative interpretation: **It was a marsh [*de’agma*] hen.** Since no one lives in a marsh, there was no opportunity for intent while it was alive, and therefore intent was necessary afterward. The Gemara adds: **Rav Pappa** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning** in this regard, **as Rav Pappa said:** The animal called **the marsh rooster is prohibited,** as it is a non-kosher bird, whereas **the marsh hen is** kosher and **permitted.**


###### Niddah 50b:7
[Niddah 50b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:7)

וְסִימָנָיךְ — ״עַמּוֹנִי וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית״. דָּרַשׁ מָרִימָר: תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּאַגְמָא אֲסִירָא. חַזְיוּהָ רַבָּנַן דְּדָרְסָה וְאָכְלָה, וְהַיְינוּ גֵּירוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And your mnemonic** to remember which animal is permitted and which is prohibited is the well-known statement of the Sages with regard to the verse: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4). **An Ammonite** man is unfit to enter the assembly **but not an Ammonite woman.** Here too, the animal with a female name is permitted, whereas the one with a male name is prohibited. **Mareimar taught: The marsh hen is prohibited,** contrary to the opinion of Rav Pappa, as **the Sages saw that it mauled and ate** its prey. **And this is** the ***geiruta*,** a non-kosher bird.


###### Niddah 50b:8
[Niddah 50b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:8)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גּוֹזָל שֶׁנָּפַל לַגַּת, וְחִשַּׁב עָלָיו לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ לְכוּתִי — טָמֵא, לְכֶלֶב — טָהוֹר. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף לְכֶלֶב — טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the case of a young kosher bird that fell and died, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **A young** kosher **bird that fell into a winepress** and died there, **where** the owner **intended to draw it up** from the press **for a Samaritan** to eat, is **ritually impure,** like any carcass of a kosher bird. If he intended to draw it up from the press **for a dog** to eat, it is **ritually pure. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Even** if he intended to draw it up from the press **for a dog** to eat, it is **impure,** as the bird does not require intent for it to be impure.


###### Niddah 50b:9
[Niddah 50b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, אִם מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחְשָׁבָה — לֹא יְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה קַלָּה שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחְשָׁבָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says** in explanation of his opinion: This *halakha* can be derived by the following ***a fortiori*** inference: **If** the carcass of a kosher bird **transmits severe** ritual **impurity,** i.e., it renders one’s garments impure when an olive-bulk of it is in the throat, **without thought,** i.e., even if no one had intent that a person should eat it, should it **not transmit a lenient impurity** of food, by touch alone, likewise **without thought?**


###### Niddah 50b:10
[Niddah 50b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:10)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ יוֹרֶדֶת לְכָךְ, תֹּאמַר בְּטוּמְאָה קַלָּה, שֶׁכֵּן יוֹרֶדֶת לְכָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: **No,** this is not a valid *a fortiori* inference. **If you said** that there is no requirement of intent **with regard to severe** ritual **impurity, that** is because severe ritual impurity **does not assume** its status **with that** requirement of thought, i.e., intent is not relevant to that type of impurity. **Shall you** also **say** that there is no requirement of thought **with regard to lenient impurity, which does assume** its status **with that** requirement of thought? The Gemara will soon explain the precise meaning of this concept of assuming its status with the requirement of thought.


###### Niddah 50b:11
[Niddah 50b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:11)

אָמַר לָהֶן: תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת שֶׁבְּיַבְנֶה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁיּוֹרֶדֶת לְכָךְ, וְטִמְּאוּהָ שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחְשָׁבָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה? כּוּתִים הָיוּ שָׁם, וְחִשְּׁבוּ עָלֶיהָ לַאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri **said to** the Rabbis: The case of the **chicken in Yavne can prove** that the question of whether or not intent is required does not depend on that factor. The case in Yavne involved an item **that does assume** its status **with that** requirement of thought, **and** yet the Sages **declared it impure without intent.** The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: Will you cite **proof from there?** In that case **there were Samaritans there, and** the people in Yavne **intended that it be eaten** by the Samaritans.


###### Niddah 50b:12
[Niddah 50b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:12)

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּכְרַכִּים, לְמָה לַהּ מַחְשָׁבָה? וְהָתְנַן: נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְנִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר וְהַחֵלֶב בַּכְּרַכִּים — אֵין צְרִיכִין לֹא מַחְשָׁבָה וְלֹא הֶכְשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the case of a young kosher bird that fell into a winepress: **What** type of situation **are we dealing with? If we say** that we are dealing **with cities,** where there are many people available to consume all sorts of food, including the carcass of a kosher bird, **why does it** require **intent? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Okatzin* 3:3): **An unslaughtered carcass of a kosher animal in any location,** whether the population is large or small, **and the carcass of a kosher bird or the fat** of a kosher animal found **in cities [*bakerakim*], require neither intent** for human consumption **nor** contact with liquid for them to be rendered **susceptible** to impurity?


###### Niddah 50b:13
[Niddah 50b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:13)

אֶלָּא בִּכְפָרִים, וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא מַחְשָׁבָה? וְהָתְנַן: נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְנִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר בַּכְּפָרִים — צְרִיכָה מַחְשָׁבָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be referring **to villages,** where the population is small and there are not many people who would eat the carcass. **But** this too is difficult: **Is there anyone who said that intent is not required** in the case of a carcass of a non-kosher bird for the impurity of food? **Didn’t we learn** in the beginning of that same mishna: **A carcass of a non-kosher animal** found **in any location, and an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird in the villages** both **require intent** to consume them, **but they do not require** contact with a liquid to become **susceptible** to ritual impurity?


###### Niddah 50b:14
[Niddah 50b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי זְעֵירָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: לְעוֹלָם בִּכְרַךְ, וְגִתּוֹ מֵאֲסַתּוּ, וַעֲשָׂאַתּוּ כִּכְפָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira bar Ḥanina says: Actually,** the *baraita* is referring to a case that occurred **in a city,** and even so intent is required. The reason is that the young bird fell into a winepress, **and** the **winepress rendered it disgusting and** thereby **rendered it like** the carcass of a kosher bird in **a village,** where there are few people who would eat it.


###### Niddah 50b:15
[Niddah 50b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, אִם מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, לֹא תְּטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה קַלָּה שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחְשָׁבָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the exchange cited above. **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says** that this *halakha* can be derived by **an *a fortiori*** inference: **If** the carcass of a kosher bird **transmits severe** ritual **impurity without thought,** should it **not transmit lenient impurity without thought?**


###### Niddah 50b:16
[Niddah 50b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:16)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ יוֹרֶדֶת לְכָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: **No,** this is not a valid *a fortiori* inference. **If you said** so **with regard to severe ritual impurity, that** is because it **does not assume** its status **with that** requirement of thought.


###### Niddah 50b:17
[Niddah 50b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50b:17)

מַאי ״אֵינָהּ יוֹרֶדֶת לְכָךְ״? אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the clause: It **does not assume** its status **with that** requirement of thought? In what manner is thought required for the lenient impurity of food it imparts in the case of a bird carcass but not required for the severe impurity it imparts when it is in the throat? **Rava said** that **this is what** the Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: **No, if you said** that there is no requirement of thought