Niddah 100

Chapter 100

א צריכות מחשבה לכשיתלשו קסבר מחשבת חבור לא שמה מחשבה

1 it is necessary1 that he should intend them for the purpose2 after they had been detached; he being of the opinion that intention2

ב אמר רבא אף אנן נמי תנינא י"ג דברים נאמרו בנבלת עוף טהור וזה אחד מהן צריכה מחשבה ואינה צריכה הכשר אלמא מחשבת חיים לא שמה מחשבה הכא נמי מחשבת חבור לא שמה מחשבה

2 concerning attached [produce] is no valid intention. Raba observed: We also have learnt a rule to the same effect: Thirteen things have been said about the carrion of a clean bird, (and the following is one of them).3 It is necessary4 that it should be intended for food but there is no need for it to be rendered5 susceptible to uncleanness.6

ג רבי זירא אמר הכא בגוזל שנפל מן הרום עסקינן דלא הוה קמן דלחשוב עליה

3 Thus it is clearly evident that7 an intention concerning a live being is no valid intention; so also here8

ד א"ל אביי תרנגולת שביבנה מאי איכא למימר א"ל תרנגול ברא הוה

4 it must be said, that an intention concerning attached [produce]9 is no valid intention.10 R. Zera said:11 We are dealing here12

ה אחיכו עליה תרנגול ברא עוף טמא הוא ועוף טמא מי קמטמא אמר להו אביי גברא רבה אמר מילתא לא תחיכו עליה בתרנגולת שמרדה ומאי ברא דאיבראי ממרה

5 with a [flying] pigeon that dropped from on high, so that it was not before us13 to enable one to have any intentions about it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the ruling that 'it is necessary that it should be intended for food' after it was carrion. Where, however, a live animal was intended to be used in due course as food no further intention is necessary after it had been killed, ');">14 Said Abaye to him:15 What can be said about the [case of the] hen of Jamnia?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which (v. infra) was in its owner's possession before it died and yet was regarded as a food for the sole reason that the Samaritans living there intended it as such after it was dead. ');">16

ו רב פפא אמר תרנגולתא דאגמא הואי רב פפא לטעמיה דאמר רב פפא תרנגול דאגמא אסור תרנגולתא דאגמא שריא

6 — That, the other15 replied, was a wild cock.17 They laughed at him: A wild cock is an unclean bird and an unclean bird does not convey uncleanness!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through one's oesophagus, v. Hul. 100b. Now since the uncleanness of the hen at Jamnia was conveyed through the oesophagus (sc. by the swallowing of it) it could not possibly have been a wild cock. ');">18 — 'When a great man', Abaye told them, 'said something, do not laugh at him. This was a case of a hen that ran away;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'rebelled', and thus was not before us while alive and for this reason intention would be necessary after it died. It was one of the young of this hen that dropped at Jamnia and gave rise to the discussion. ');">19

ז וסימניך עמוני ולא עמונית דרש מרימר תרנגולתא דאגמא אסירא חזיוה רבנן דדרסה ואכלה והיינו גירותא

7 and as to the meaning20 of "wild", it turned wild as far as its master was concerned'.21 R. Papa said: It was a field-hen.22

ח ת"ר גוזל שנפל לגת וחשב עליו להעלותו לכותי טמא לכלב טהור ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר אף לכלב טמא

8 R. Papa thus followed his known view. For R. Papa ruled, A field-cock is forbidden and a field-hen is permitted; and your mnemonic is 'A male Ammonite23 but not a female Ammonite'. Amemar laid down in his discourse that a field-hen is forbidden.24 The Rabbis observed that it stamps on its prey25

ט א"ר יוחנן בן נורי ק"ו אם מטמא טומאה חמורה שלא במחשבה לא יטמא טומאה קלה שלא במחשבה

9 when eating it;26 and it is this bird that is known as girutha.27

י אמרו לו לא אם אמרת בטומאה חמורה שכן אינה יורדת לכך תאמר בטומאה קלה שכן יורדת לכך

10 Our Rabbis taught: If a pigeon28 fell into a winepress29

יא אמר להן תרנגולת שביבנה תוכיח שיורדת לכך וטמאוה שלא במחשבה אמרו לו משם ראיה כותים היו שם וחשבו עליה לאכילה

11 and it was intended to pick it up for a Samaritan,30 it is unclean;31 but if it was intended for a dog it is clean,32 R. Johanan b. Nuri33 ruled, Even if intended for a dog it is unclean.31

יב במאי עסקינן אילימא בכרכים למה לה מחשבה והתנן נבלת בהמה טהורה בכל מקום ונבלת עוף טהור והחלב בכרכים אין צריכין לא מחשבה ולא הכשר

12 R. Johanan b. Nuri argued: This is arrived at a minori ad majus. If it34 conveys a major uncleanness,35 though there was no intention,36 should it not convey a minor uncleanness37

יג אלא בכפרים ומי איכא למ"ד דלא בעיא מחשבה והתנן נבלת בהמה טמאה בכל מקום ונבלת עוף טהור בכפרים צריכה מחשבה ואינה צריכה הכשר

13 though there was no intention? They answered him: No; if you maintain your view in the case of a major uncleanness, which never descends to that,38 would you also maintain it in the case of a minor uncleanness which does descend to that?38 He replied: the hen of Jamnia proves my contention, for it descends to that and, though there was no intention, it was declared unclean. 'From there', they retorted, 'is your proof? In that place there were Samaritans and it was intended that they shall eat it.' Now with what case are we dealing here? If it be suggested with big cities [the objection would arise]: What need was there for intention, seeing that we have learnt: The carcass of a clean beast anywhere39

יד א"ר זעירא בר חנינא לעולם בכרך וגתו מאסתו ועשאתו ככפר

14 and the carcass of a clean bird and forbidden fat in large towns40 require neither intention nor to be rendered susceptible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Uk. III, 3; since a clean beast is usually intended for food both in town and in villages while the carcass of a clean bird and forbidden fat would find consumers in large towns only but not in villages (cf. prev. two notes). Intention, therefore, is required in the latter case but not in the former. ');">41

טו א"ר יוחנן בן נורי קל וחומר אם מטמאה טומאה חמורה שלא במחשבה לא תטמא טומאה קלה שלא במחשבה

15 If, however, it is suggested: Of villages, [the difficulty arises:] Is there any authority who maintains that in this case no intention is required, seeing that we have learnt: The carcass of an unclean beast42 anywhere43

טז אמרו לו לא אם אמרת בטומאה חמורה שכן אינה יורדת לכך

16 and the carcass of a clean bird in villages44 require45

יז מאי אינה יורדת לכך אמר רבא הכי קאמרי ליה לא אם אמרת

17 intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enable them to convey uncleanness. In the case of the former, uncleanness is conveyed even in the absence of intention provided its bulk was no less than that of an olive. The intention, however, avails where the bulk of carcass was less than that of an olive and that of other food was less than the bulk of an egg. In such a case the two quantities combine to form together the prescribed bulk of an egg which contracts uncleanness through contact with a dead creeping thing. ');">46 but need not be rendered susceptible?47 — R. Ze'ira b. Hanina replied: We are in fact dealing with an incident in a big city, but48 the winepress caused it49 to be objectionable50 and thus caused the town to be regarded as a village. 'R. Johanan b. Nuri argued: This is arrived at a minori ad majus. If it conveys a major uncleanness, though there was no intention, should it not convey a minor uncleanness though there was no intention? They answered him: No; if you maintain your view in the case of a major uncleanness which never descends to that.' What is meant by 'it never descends to that'? — Raba replied: It is this that they51 in effect said to him,52 'No; if you maintain your view

Previous Chapter Next Chapter