Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 12, 2019 | 讬状讚 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Niddah 50

There are those who can testify but not be judges – this is referring to one who is blind in one eye. However this is a source of debate. Are women able to be judges? There are foods that are suceptible to impurities but not obligated in tithes. There are those obligated in tithes and not in peah (leaving over the corner of the field). The gemara brings a statement of Rabbi Yochanan regarding impurity of foods and from there it’s derived that having intention that one wants to eat something that isn’t normally eaten is only effective once it is detached from the ground. Rava brings a proof for this from the mishna but his proof is rejected. The gemara brings a debate regarding a case of a kosher dead bird regarding the issue of intent to eat and the gemara clarifies in what case is there a debate.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 驻讬讛诐 讬讛讬讛 讻诇 专讬讘 讜讻诇 谞讙注 讜讻讬 诪讛 注谞讬谉 专讬讘讬诐 讗爪诇 谞讙注讬诐 诪拽讬砖 专讬讘讬诐 诇谞讙注讬诐 诪讛 谞讙注讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讬讜诐 讛专讗讜转 讘讜 讗祝 专讬讘讬诐 讘讬讜诐

It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to their word shall every dispute and every leprous mark be鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:5)? What do disputes have to do with leprous marks? The verse juxtaposes disputes to leprous marks, to teach that just as leprous marks are viewed by a priest only in the daytime, as it is written with regard to leprous marks: 鈥淎nd on the day when raw flesh appears in him he shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:14), so too, disputes are adjudicated only in the daytime.

讜诪讛 谞讙注讬诐 砖诇讗 讘住讜诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讻诇 诪专讗讛 注讬谞讬 讛讻讛谉 讗祝 专讬讘讬诐 砖诇讗 讘住讜诪讗 讜诪拽讬砖 谞讙注讬诐 诇专讬讘讬诐 诪讛 专讬讘讬诐 砖诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讗祝 谞讙注讬诐 砖诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讬诐

And just as leprous marks are seen by priests who can see, but not by blind priests, as it is written: 鈥淎s far as appears to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 13:12), which teaches that they must be viewed by priests who can see with both eyes, so too, disputes are not adjudicated by blind judges, even if they are blind in only one eye. And the verse juxtaposes leprous marks to disputes to teach that just as disputes may not be judged by relatives of the litigants, so too, leprous marks may not be viewed by a priest who is a relative of the afflicted party.

讗讬 诪讛 专讬讘讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讗祝 谞讙注讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 诪诪讜谞讜 讘砖诇砖讛 讙讜驻讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讜讘讗 讗诇 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讗讜 讗诇 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讗讞讚 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐

The baraita continues: If these two halakhot are compared, one can also say that just as disputes are judged specifically by three judges, so too, leprous marks must be viewed by three priests. And this suggestion is supported by a logical inference: If a case that only involves one鈥檚 money is adjudicated by three judges, all the more so is it not clear that leprous marks, which afflict the person himself, should be viewed by three priests? To counter this notion, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests鈥 (Leviticus 13:2). You have learned from this that even one priest may view leprous marks.

讛讛讜讗 住诪讬讗 讚讛讜讛 讘砖讘讘讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讛讜讛 拽讚讬讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讜诇讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain blind person who was living in the neighborhood of Rabbi Yo岣nan who would render judgments, and Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say anything to him. The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Yo岣nan do this? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan himself say that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna?

讜转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻砖专 诇讚讜谉 讻砖专 诇讛注讬讚 讜讬砖 讻砖专 诇讛注讬讚 讜讗讬谉 讻砖专 诇讚讜谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 住讜诪讗 讘讗讞转 诪注讬谞讬讜

And we learned in the mishna: Any person who is fit to adjudicate a case and serve as a judge is fit to testify as a witness, and there are those who are fit to testify but are not fit to adjudicate. And we said: What is added by this halakha, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It serves to add one who is blind in one of his eyes, as he is fit to testify but unfit to judge. Since Rabbi Yo岣nan evidently maintains that one who is blind even in one of his eyes is not fit to judge, why did he not admonish this judge?

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住转诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讚谞讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讙讜诪专讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan found another unattributed mishna which indicates a different conclusion. As we learned in the mishna in tractate Sanhedrin (32a): In cases of monetary law, the court judges during the daytime, and concludes the deliberations and issues their ruling even at night. This is not the halakha with regard to leprous marks, which may not be viewed at night at all. Accordingly, one does not compare judging cases of monetary law to viewing leprous marks. Since this comparison was the source for disqualifying a blind judge, one cannot derive from it that a blind judge is disqualified.

讜诪讗讬 讗讜诇诪讬讛 讚讛讗讬 住转诪讗 诪讛讗讬 住转诪讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住转诪讗 讚专讘讬诐 注讚讬祝 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽转谞讬 诇讛 讙讘讬 讛诇讻转讗 讚讚讬谞讬

The Gemara asks: And in what manner is the strength of that unattributed mishna in tractate Sanhedrin greater than the strength of this unattributed mishna here? Why did Rabbi Yo岣nan accept the ruling of that mishna? The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that an unattributed mishna that records the opinion of many Sages, as in Sanhedrin, is preferable, whereas the mishna here was established as in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Meir. And if you wish, say instead that it is because the mishna in Sanhedrin teaches this halakha in the context of the halakhot of judges. Since that chapter is the primary source for all of the halakhot of court matters, its rulings are of greater weight.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专讜转 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讬砖 砖诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专讜转

MISHNA: Any food from which one is obligated to separate tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food; and there is food that becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food but from which one is not obligated to separate tithes.

讙诪壮 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讘砖专 讜讚讙讬诐 讜讘讬爪讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by the last clause of this mishna? The Gemara answers: This serves to add meat, fish, and eggs. Although they are subject to the ritual impurity of food, one is not obligated to separate tithes from them.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘 讘驻讗讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讬砖 砖讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘驻讗讛

MISHNA: With regard to any produce from which one is obligated to designate produce in the corner of the field given to the poor [pe鈥檃], as commanded in the Torah (see Leviticus 19:9, 23:22), one is obligated to separate tithes from it; and there is produce from which one is obligated to separate tithes but from which one is not obligated to designate pe鈥檃.

讙诪壮 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 转讗谞讛 讜讬专拽 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘驻讗讛 讚转谞谉 讻诇诇 讗诪专讜 讘驻讗讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 讜谞砖诪专 讜讙讬讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜诇拽讬讟转讜 讻讗讞讚 讜诪讻谞讬住讜 诇拽讬讜诐 讞讬讬讘 讘驻讗讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by the last clause of the mishna? The Gemara answers: It serves to add figs and vegetables, for which one is not obligated to designate pe鈥檃, although the obligation of tithes does apply to them. As we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 1:4): The Sages stated a principle with regard to the halakhot of pe鈥檃: With regard to anything that is food, and is protected, and that grows from the earth, and is gathered as one, i.e., there is one fixed time for gathering it, and that one brings in to store for preservation, its owner is obligated to designate pe鈥檃.

讗讜讻诇 诇诪注讜讟讬 住驻讬讞讬 住讟讬诐 讜拽讜爪讛 讜谞砖诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛驻拽专 讜讙讬讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻诪讛讬诐 讜驻讟专讬讜转 讜诇拽讬讟转讜 讻讗讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 转讗谞讛 讜诪讻谞讬住讜 诇拽讬讜诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 讬专拽

The Gemara analyzes each criterion of the mishna. The clause: Anything that is food, serves to exclude the sefi岣n, produce that grew without being intentionally planted, of woad [setim] and safflower [vekotza]. These plants are used as dyes rather than for food. The clause: And is protected, serves to exclude ownerless crops, which no one protects. The clause: And grows from the earth, serves to exclude truffles and mushrooms, which do not draw sustenance from the ground. The clause: And is gathered as one, serves to exclude the fig tree, whose fruit is gathered over an extended period, as the figs do not all ripen at the same time. Finally, the clause: And that one brings in to storage for preservation, serves to exclude vegetables, which cannot be stored for lengthy periods.

讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 转谞谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 讜谞砖诪专 讜讙讬讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讗讬诇讜 诇拽讬讟转讜 讻讗讞讚 讜诪讻谞讬住讜 诇拽讬讜诐 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And yet in the case of tithe, we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 1:1) with regard to the halakhot of tithes: Anything that is food, and is protected, and grows from the earth is obligated in tithes. And whereas some of the conditions overlap, the following criteria are not taught with regard to tithes: Gathered as one, and that one brings in to storage for preservation. Evidently, the obligation of tithes applies to fig trees and vegetables, despite the fact that the obligation of pe鈥檃 does not apply.

讗诐 讛讬讜 讘讛诐 砖讜诪讬诐 讜讘爪诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讚转谞谉 诪诇讘谞讜转 讘爪诇讬诐 砖讘讬谉 讛讬专拽 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 驻讗讛 诪讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讞转 注诇 讛讻诇

The Gemara notes that if these vegetables that are exempt from pe鈥檃 contained garlic and onions, which are stored for an extended period of time, then they are obligated in pe鈥檃 as well. As we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:4): If one has garden beds of onions that are between the vegetables, Rabbi Yosei says that one leaves a separate pe鈥檃 from each and every one of the beds. And the Rabbis say one leaves pe鈥檃 from one garden bed for all of them.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜诇砖讬谉 砖讝专注谉 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗讚诐

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of endives that were initially planted to be fed to animals, and later the owner reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for human consumption

爪专讬讻讜转 诪讞砖讘讛 诇讻砖讬转诇砖讜 拽住讘专 诪讞砖讘转 讞讘讜专 诇讗 砖诪讛 诪讞砖讘讛

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 Yo岣nan rules in this manner because he holds that intent to designate produce while it is attached to the ground is not considered intent.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪专讬讻讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专 讗诇诪讗 诪讞砖讘转 讞讬讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讞砖讘转 讞讘讜专 诇讗 砖诪讛 诪讞砖讘讛

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘讙讜讝诇 砖谞驻诇 诪谉 讛专讜诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 拽诪谉 讚诇讞砖讜讘 注诇讬讛

Rabbi Zeira said: Rava鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转专谞讙讜诇转 砖讘讬讘谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专谞讙讜诇 讘专讗 讛讜讛

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.

讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 转专谞讙讜诇 讘专讗 注讜祝 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讜注讜祝 讟诪讗 诪讬 拽诪讟诪讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗诪专 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗 转讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 砖诪专讚讛 讜诪讗讬 讘专讗 讚讗讬讘专讗讬 诪诪专讛

Those who heard this comment laughed at Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 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鈥檌vrai] from a chicken that rebelled.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚讗讙诪讗 讛讜讗讬 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转专谞讙讜诇 讚讗讙诪讗 讗住讜专 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚讗讙诪讗 砖专讬讗

Rav Pappa stated an alternative interpretation: It was a marsh [de鈥檃gma] 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.

讜住讬诪谞讬讱 注诪讜谞讬 讜诇讗 注诪讜谞讬转 讚专砖 诪专讬诪专 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚讗讙诪讗 讗住讬专讗 讞讝讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讚讚专住讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讙讬专讜转讗

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: 鈥淎n Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讜讝诇 砖谞驻诇 诇讙转 讜讞砖讘 注诇讬讜 诇讛注诇讜转讜 诇讻讜转讬 讟诪讗 诇讻诇讘 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讻诇讘 讟诪讗

搂 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪讞砖讘讛 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 砖诇讗 讘诪讞砖讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讛 讬讜专讚转 诇讻讱 转讗诪专 讘讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 砖讻谉 讬讜专讚转 诇讻讱

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 转专谞讙讜诇转 砖讘讬讘谞讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖讬讜专讚转 诇讻讱 讜讟诪讗讜讛 砖诇讗 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讻讜转讬诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 讜讞砖讘讜 注诇讬讛 诇讗讻讬诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讻专讻讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛转谞谉 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讜讛讞诇讘 讘讻专讻讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讗 诪讞砖讘讛 讜诇讗 讛讻砖专

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鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 讘讻驻专讬诐 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛转谞谉 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讘讻驻专讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专

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鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝注讬专讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讻专讱 讜讙转讜 诪讗住转讜 讜注砖讗转讜 讻讻驻专

Rabbi Zeira bar 岣nina 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪讞砖讘讛 诇讗 转讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 砖诇讗 讘诪讞砖讘讛

The Gemara analyzes the exchange cited above. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讛 讬讜专讚转 诇讻讱

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 讬讜专讚转 诇讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri: No, if you said that there is no requirement of thought

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 50

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 驻讬讛诐 讬讛讬讛 讻诇 专讬讘 讜讻诇 谞讙注 讜讻讬 诪讛 注谞讬谉 专讬讘讬诐 讗爪诇 谞讙注讬诐 诪拽讬砖 专讬讘讬诐 诇谞讙注讬诐 诪讛 谞讙注讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讬讜诐 讛专讗讜转 讘讜 讗祝 专讬讘讬诐 讘讬讜诐

It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to their word shall every dispute and every leprous mark be鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:5)? What do disputes have to do with leprous marks? The verse juxtaposes disputes to leprous marks, to teach that just as leprous marks are viewed by a priest only in the daytime, as it is written with regard to leprous marks: 鈥淎nd on the day when raw flesh appears in him he shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:14), so too, disputes are adjudicated only in the daytime.

讜诪讛 谞讙注讬诐 砖诇讗 讘住讜诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讻诇 诪专讗讛 注讬谞讬 讛讻讛谉 讗祝 专讬讘讬诐 砖诇讗 讘住讜诪讗 讜诪拽讬砖 谞讙注讬诐 诇专讬讘讬诐 诪讛 专讬讘讬诐 砖诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讗祝 谞讙注讬诐 砖诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讬诐

And just as leprous marks are seen by priests who can see, but not by blind priests, as it is written: 鈥淎s far as appears to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 13:12), which teaches that they must be viewed by priests who can see with both eyes, so too, disputes are not adjudicated by blind judges, even if they are blind in only one eye. And the verse juxtaposes leprous marks to disputes to teach that just as disputes may not be judged by relatives of the litigants, so too, leprous marks may not be viewed by a priest who is a relative of the afflicted party.

讗讬 诪讛 专讬讘讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讗祝 谞讙注讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 诪诪讜谞讜 讘砖诇砖讛 讙讜驻讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讜讘讗 讗诇 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讗讜 讗诇 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讗讞讚 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐

The baraita continues: If these two halakhot are compared, one can also say that just as disputes are judged specifically by three judges, so too, leprous marks must be viewed by three priests. And this suggestion is supported by a logical inference: If a case that only involves one鈥檚 money is adjudicated by three judges, all the more so is it not clear that leprous marks, which afflict the person himself, should be viewed by three priests? To counter this notion, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests鈥 (Leviticus 13:2). You have learned from this that even one priest may view leprous marks.

讛讛讜讗 住诪讬讗 讚讛讜讛 讘砖讘讘讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讛讜讛 拽讚讬讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讜诇讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain blind person who was living in the neighborhood of Rabbi Yo岣nan who would render judgments, and Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say anything to him. The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Yo岣nan do this? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan himself say that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna?

讜转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻砖专 诇讚讜谉 讻砖专 诇讛注讬讚 讜讬砖 讻砖专 诇讛注讬讚 讜讗讬谉 讻砖专 诇讚讜谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 住讜诪讗 讘讗讞转 诪注讬谞讬讜

And we learned in the mishna: Any person who is fit to adjudicate a case and serve as a judge is fit to testify as a witness, and there are those who are fit to testify but are not fit to adjudicate. And we said: What is added by this halakha, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It serves to add one who is blind in one of his eyes, as he is fit to testify but unfit to judge. Since Rabbi Yo岣nan evidently maintains that one who is blind even in one of his eyes is not fit to judge, why did he not admonish this judge?

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住转诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讚谞讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讙讜诪专讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan found another unattributed mishna which indicates a different conclusion. As we learned in the mishna in tractate Sanhedrin (32a): In cases of monetary law, the court judges during the daytime, and concludes the deliberations and issues their ruling even at night. This is not the halakha with regard to leprous marks, which may not be viewed at night at all. Accordingly, one does not compare judging cases of monetary law to viewing leprous marks. Since this comparison was the source for disqualifying a blind judge, one cannot derive from it that a blind judge is disqualified.

讜诪讗讬 讗讜诇诪讬讛 讚讛讗讬 住转诪讗 诪讛讗讬 住转诪讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住转诪讗 讚专讘讬诐 注讚讬祝 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽转谞讬 诇讛 讙讘讬 讛诇讻转讗 讚讚讬谞讬

The Gemara asks: And in what manner is the strength of that unattributed mishna in tractate Sanhedrin greater than the strength of this unattributed mishna here? Why did Rabbi Yo岣nan accept the ruling of that mishna? The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that an unattributed mishna that records the opinion of many Sages, as in Sanhedrin, is preferable, whereas the mishna here was established as in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Meir. And if you wish, say instead that it is because the mishna in Sanhedrin teaches this halakha in the context of the halakhot of judges. Since that chapter is the primary source for all of the halakhot of court matters, its rulings are of greater weight.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专讜转 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讬砖 砖诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专讜转

MISHNA: Any food from which one is obligated to separate tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food; and there is food that becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food but from which one is not obligated to separate tithes.

讙诪壮 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讘砖专 讜讚讙讬诐 讜讘讬爪讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by the last clause of this mishna? The Gemara answers: This serves to add meat, fish, and eggs. Although they are subject to the ritual impurity of food, one is not obligated to separate tithes from them.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘 讘驻讗讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讬砖 砖讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘驻讗讛

MISHNA: With regard to any produce from which one is obligated to designate produce in the corner of the field given to the poor [pe鈥檃], as commanded in the Torah (see Leviticus 19:9, 23:22), one is obligated to separate tithes from it; and there is produce from which one is obligated to separate tithes but from which one is not obligated to designate pe鈥檃.

讙诪壮 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 转讗谞讛 讜讬专拽 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘驻讗讛 讚转谞谉 讻诇诇 讗诪专讜 讘驻讗讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 讜谞砖诪专 讜讙讬讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜诇拽讬讟转讜 讻讗讞讚 讜诪讻谞讬住讜 诇拽讬讜诐 讞讬讬讘 讘驻讗讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by the last clause of the mishna? The Gemara answers: It serves to add figs and vegetables, for which one is not obligated to designate pe鈥檃, although the obligation of tithes does apply to them. As we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 1:4): The Sages stated a principle with regard to the halakhot of pe鈥檃: With regard to anything that is food, and is protected, and that grows from the earth, and is gathered as one, i.e., there is one fixed time for gathering it, and that one brings in to store for preservation, its owner is obligated to designate pe鈥檃.

讗讜讻诇 诇诪注讜讟讬 住驻讬讞讬 住讟讬诐 讜拽讜爪讛 讜谞砖诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛驻拽专 讜讙讬讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻诪讛讬诐 讜驻讟专讬讜转 讜诇拽讬讟转讜 讻讗讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 转讗谞讛 讜诪讻谞讬住讜 诇拽讬讜诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 讬专拽

The Gemara analyzes each criterion of the mishna. The clause: Anything that is food, serves to exclude the sefi岣n, produce that grew without being intentionally planted, of woad [setim] and safflower [vekotza]. These plants are used as dyes rather than for food. The clause: And is protected, serves to exclude ownerless crops, which no one protects. The clause: And grows from the earth, serves to exclude truffles and mushrooms, which do not draw sustenance from the ground. The clause: And is gathered as one, serves to exclude the fig tree, whose fruit is gathered over an extended period, as the figs do not all ripen at the same time. Finally, the clause: And that one brings in to storage for preservation, serves to exclude vegetables, which cannot be stored for lengthy periods.

讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 转谞谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 讜谞砖诪专 讜讙讬讚讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讗讬诇讜 诇拽讬讟转讜 讻讗讞讚 讜诪讻谞讬住讜 诇拽讬讜诐 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And yet in the case of tithe, we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 1:1) with regard to the halakhot of tithes: Anything that is food, and is protected, and grows from the earth is obligated in tithes. And whereas some of the conditions overlap, the following criteria are not taught with regard to tithes: Gathered as one, and that one brings in to storage for preservation. Evidently, the obligation of tithes applies to fig trees and vegetables, despite the fact that the obligation of pe鈥檃 does not apply.

讗诐 讛讬讜 讘讛诐 砖讜诪讬诐 讜讘爪诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讚转谞谉 诪诇讘谞讜转 讘爪诇讬诐 砖讘讬谉 讛讬专拽 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 驻讗讛 诪讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讞转 注诇 讛讻诇

The Gemara notes that if these vegetables that are exempt from pe鈥檃 contained garlic and onions, which are stored for an extended period of time, then they are obligated in pe鈥檃 as well. As we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:4): If one has garden beds of onions that are between the vegetables, Rabbi Yosei says that one leaves a separate pe鈥檃 from each and every one of the beds. And the Rabbis say one leaves pe鈥檃 from one garden bed for all of them.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜诇砖讬谉 砖讝专注谉 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗讚诐

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of endives that were initially planted to be fed to animals, and later the owner reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for human consumption

爪专讬讻讜转 诪讞砖讘讛 诇讻砖讬转诇砖讜 拽住讘专 诪讞砖讘转 讞讘讜专 诇讗 砖诪讛 诪讞砖讘讛

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 Yo岣nan rules in this manner because he holds that intent to designate produce while it is attached to the ground is not considered intent.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪专讬讻讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专 讗诇诪讗 诪讞砖讘转 讞讬讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讞砖讘转 讞讘讜专 诇讗 砖诪讛 诪讞砖讘讛

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘讙讜讝诇 砖谞驻诇 诪谉 讛专讜诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 拽诪谉 讚诇讞砖讜讘 注诇讬讛

Rabbi Zeira said: Rava鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转专谞讙讜诇转 砖讘讬讘谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专谞讙讜诇 讘专讗 讛讜讛

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.

讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 转专谞讙讜诇 讘专讗 注讜祝 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讜注讜祝 讟诪讗 诪讬 拽诪讟诪讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗诪专 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗 转讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 讘转专谞讙讜诇转 砖诪专讚讛 讜诪讗讬 讘专讗 讚讗讬讘专讗讬 诪诪专讛

Those who heard this comment laughed at Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 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鈥檌vrai] from a chicken that rebelled.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚讗讙诪讗 讛讜讗讬 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转专谞讙讜诇 讚讗讙诪讗 讗住讜专 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚讗讙诪讗 砖专讬讗

Rav Pappa stated an alternative interpretation: It was a marsh [de鈥檃gma] 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.

讜住讬诪谞讬讱 注诪讜谞讬 讜诇讗 注诪讜谞讬转 讚专砖 诪专讬诪专 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚讗讙诪讗 讗住讬专讗 讞讝讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讚讚专住讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讙讬专讜转讗

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: 鈥淎n Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讜讝诇 砖谞驻诇 诇讙转 讜讞砖讘 注诇讬讜 诇讛注诇讜转讜 诇讻讜转讬 讟诪讗 诇讻诇讘 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讻诇讘 讟诪讗

搂 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪讞砖讘讛 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 砖诇讗 讘诪讞砖讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讛 讬讜专讚转 诇讻讱 转讗诪专 讘讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 砖讻谉 讬讜专讚转 诇讻讱

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 转专谞讙讜诇转 砖讘讬讘谞讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖讬讜专讚转 诇讻讱 讜讟诪讗讜讛 砖诇讗 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讻讜转讬诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 讜讞砖讘讜 注诇讬讛 诇讗讻讬诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讻专讻讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛转谞谉 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讜讛讞诇讘 讘讻专讻讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讗 诪讞砖讘讛 讜诇讗 讛讻砖专

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鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 讘讻驻专讬诐 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛转谞谉 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讘讻驻专讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专

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鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝注讬专讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讻专讱 讜讙转讜 诪讗住转讜 讜注砖讗转讜 讻讻驻专

Rabbi Zeira bar 岣nina 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪讞砖讘讛 诇讗 转讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 砖诇讗 讘诪讞砖讘讛

The Gemara analyzes the exchange cited above. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讛 讬讜专讚转 诇讻讱

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 讬讜专讚转 诇讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri: No, if you said that there is no requirement of thought

Scroll To Top