The NDSIT edition of the Talmud Bavli audio series, specifically Masechet Niddah, has been dedicated by Ron Yaish in honor of his children, Ovadiah Avraham ben Raizel Shifra and Levi Yitzchak ben Raizel Shifra, as well as in honor of his wife, Raizel Shifra bat Tova Yocheved. I would like to bless Ron Yaish and his wife, that they should continue, b'ezrat Hashem, to have more children, and that they should derive much nachat from their current children, both spiritually and materially. Amen.
Today’s daf is Daf Mem Gimmel. We are studying this daf in memory of Avraham ben Chaster and Yosef ben Sabut. May their souls be at peace in the Garden of Eden, Amen. We also begin today’s study in memory of Avraham Sion ben Nava, may his soul find rest in the Garden of Eden, Amen. We are on Nun Amud Bet, six lines from the bottom, where it states, Amar Rabbi Yochanan.
We were discussing the matter of nevilat of tahor, the corpse of a pure bird. It is established that there is a level of tumah from the Torah regarding nevilat of tahor, which is referred to as beit habelyah. If someone swallows a kezayit of it, the person becomes tameh. We were examining how to relate nevilat of tahor to the subject of tum'at ochalin, which refers to the impurity associated with food. Tum'at ochalin means that it has the status of food and can become tameh, thus transmitting impurity to other foods. This is the ruling of tum'at ochalin.
The Rabbis held that to make it subject to tum'at ochalin, one must have a machshava, a positive thought, intending for it to be eaten. It must be suitable for a goy or kutim to eat it, which brings it down to tumah b'machshava. However, Rabbi Yochanan argued that this is a kal vachomer, a fortiori argument, and that a machshava is not necessary. What was his kal vachomer? The Gemara begins with, Amar Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri: if it imparts a severe impurity without a machshava, then certainly it should not impart a lighter impurity without a machshava. Tum'at ochalin, which is only a tumah kala, should not require machshava.
The Rabbis responded to him, saying: No, regarding tumah chamura, it does not descend to that level. Rava then asked, what does it mean that it does not descend to that level? What was the Rabbis' counter to Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri? Rava explained that they were saying: If you stated that tumah chamura does not need a machshava because it does not render something like itself, then nevilat of tahor is an av hatumah, which only renders a person a rishon, thus it is a downgrade of tumah. This is why a machshava is not needed.
However, one could argue that tum'at ochalin has a stringency in that food can impart tumah to similar foods. In this case, tum'at ochalin can transmit impurity from one food to another, maintaining the same level of madrega. What does it mean that it maintains the same madrega? As Rashi explains, tumah chamura does not render something like itself, since it does not impart impurity to another person. Nevelah renders a person tameh, but that person cannot render another person tameh. Only an av hatumah can impart impurity to a person. However, food can impart impurity to other food.
In this case, tum'at ochalin becomes a sheni, which can then render food a shelishi for terumah by rabbinic law. Therefore, there is a stringency that nevelah does not have. It renders a person tameh, but that person cannot render another person like him tameh. Thus, a machshava is not needed.
Conversely, the tum'at ochalin requires a machshava because it has a stringency that allows it to impart impurity to similar food. That is the Rabbis' counter against Rabbi Yochanan. Abaye then chimed in, questioning the Rabbis’ reasoning. If that is what they were answering, then certainly a tumah kala should also not need a machshava. If tumah chamura, which is lenient and does not render similar items tameh, does not require a machshava, then certainly a tumah kala that does impart impurity to similar items should not need a machshava.
The Gemara acknowledges this point, indicating that we must change the answer. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri made a kal vachomer, and now the Rabbis will provide the correct refutation of this kal vachomer. Rav Sheshet then stated that if you say that tumah chamura does not require a machshava, it is because it does not need hechshir. Hechshir means that it does not require water to fall on it to prepare it. However, tumah kala does have a leniency, as it requires hechshir. For food to become tameh to impart impurity to other food, it must have hechshir.
Thus, once you see that there is a leniency here, which means it only becomes tameh after it has hechshir, it follows that a machshava is also required. The Gemara then poses a question: Does nevilat of tahor require hechshir to become tum'at ochalin? The Gemara states that three things were said regarding nevilat of tahor: It requires a machshava, it only imparts impurity at beit habelyah, and it does not require hechshir for tum'at ochalin.
Therefore, what are you telling me? The Rabbis’ response is that nevilat of tahor does not need hechshir for tum'at ochalin. The Gemara asserts that it does need hechshir because it is not touched or prepared by a sheretz to bring it down to tumah. However, it does need hechshir mayim. It does require hechshir. The Gemara explains that nevilat of tahor does not need hechshir from a sheretz, but it does need hechshir mayim. How do we know? As it states regarding all seeds, that they are pure or not susceptible to tumah until water falls on them.
The Gemara continues, just as seeds cannot become tameh because they do not have a severe impurity, any item not capable of imparting tumah chamurah requires hechshir. Therefore, nevilat of tahor, which is capable of imparting tumah chamurah, does not need hechshir. The Gemara concludes that nevilat of tahor does not need hechshir for tum'at ochalin.
We have learned that when a person plants olshin, endives, for animals, and then changes their mind to use it for humans, it does not change its status to be able to receive tumah while still attached. This is because tum'at ochalin cannot be applied when something is still attached to the ground. However, Rabbi Yochanan agrees that for ma'aser, the thought of connection is still considered a thought. If you originally planted it for animal consumption and then changed your mind for human consumption while it was still attached, it is now liable for ma'aser, even if your machshava changed while it was still mehubar.
The Gemara explains that if the field is protected, then it is subject to ma'aser. If it is not protected, it is not subject to ma'aser. The Gemara continues to clarify that if the field is protected, it is liable for ma'aser, and if it is not protected, it is exempt. This has nothing to do with our point, as we thought that the nishmarin means you changed your intention from behemah to Adam. No, it was stam, and it grew in the field on its own, and stam means it is for Adam.
We return to the discussion regarding items that are subject to ma'aser being able to impart tum'at ochalin. If something is subject to ma'aser, it is subject to tum'at ochalin. The Gemara states that if you tell me that regarding ma'aser, a machshava of connection will help, what about this case? You have wheat that you planted in the field. If you planted it for animals, it is not subject to ma'aser or tum'at ochalin. If you change your mind while it is attached, it will be liable for ma'aser but not for tum'at ochalin because Rabbi Yochanan held that while it is still attached, you cannot bring it to tum'at ochalin.
The Gemara questions this point, stating that if you have a case where it is subject to ma'aser but not tum'at ochalin, then it contradicts the previous Mishna that stated anything subject to ma'aser is also subject to tum'at ochalin. The Gemara clarifies that it is possible to find a specific case like this, but in general, any species that is subject to ma'aser must also be subject to tum'at ochalin.
In conclusion, the Gemara affirms that any species that is subject to ma'aser is also subject to tum'at ochalin. The Gemara provides further examples, illustrating that while specific cases may show exceptions, the general rule remains intact. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying principles governing tumah and ma'aser as they relate to various species and their respective statuses.