|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 51a in the case of a major uncleanness which never causes an uncleanness of the same grade,1 would you also maintain it in the case of a minor uncleanness which does cause an uncleanness of the same grade?'2 Said Abaye to him: [Should not this3 apply to the latter] with even more reason: If a major uncleanness, concerning which the law has been relaxed in that it does not cause an uncleanness of the same grade,4 conveys uncleanness in the absence of intention, how much more then should a minor uncleanness, concerning which the law has been restricted in that it does cause uncleanness of the same grade,5 convey uncleanness even where there was no intention? — Rather, said R. Shesheth, It is this that they6 implied: 'No; if you maintain your view7 in the case of a major uncleanness, which need not be rendered susceptible,8 would you also maintain it7 in the case of a minor uncleanness which does require to be rendered susceptible?' But is it required to be rendered susceptible? Have we not in fact learnt:9 Three10 things have been said about the carrion of a clean bird,11 it is necessary that it should be intended for food, it conveys uncleanness through the oesophagus only,12 and there is no need for it to be rendered susceptible?13 — Granted that it is not required that a dead creeping thing shall render it susceptible,14 it is nevertheless necessary that it shall be rendered susceptible15 by means of water.16 Why17 is it not required that a dead creeping thing shall render it susceptible? In agreement with what the school of R. Ishmael taught. But then there should be no need for it to be rendered susceptible by means of water also in agreement with what the school of R. Ishmael taught; for the school of R. Ishmael taught: Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown,18 as seeds15 which do not eventually contract a major uncleanness19 must20 be rendered susceptible so must any other thing which does not eventually contract a major uncleanness be rendered susceptible; the carcass of a clean bird is excluded, in that it need not be rendered susceptible, since it eventually contracts a major uncleanness?21 — Rather, replied Raba, or as some say R. Papa, [the reference22 is to] a major uncleanness in general and to a minor uncleanness in general.23 Raba stated: R. Johanan,24 however, agrees in regard to tithe that intention25 concerning attached [produce] is a valid intention.26 Raba explained, Whence do I derive this? From what we learnt: Savory,27 hyssop and calamint28 that are grown in a courtyard, if they are kept under watch,29 are subject to tithe.30 Now how are we to imagine the circumstances?31 If it be suggested that these herbs were originally sown for human consumption [the difficulty would arise]: Was it at all necessary to enunciate such a law?32 Consequently the circumstances must be such, must they not, that the herbs were originally sown for cattle food; and yet it was stated, 'if they are kept under watch'33 they 'are subject to tithe'.34 R. Ashi retorted: Here30 we are dealing with a courtyard in which the herbs grew spontaneously35 so that as a rule they are destined for human consumption, and36 it is this that was meant: If the courtyard affords protection for the produce it grows37 the herbs are subject to tithe; otherwise they are exempt.38 R. Ashi objected:39 Whatsoever is subject to tithes is susceptible to food uncleanness.40 Now if that were so,41 would there not be the case of these42 which are liable to tithe43 and yet44 do not become susceptible to the uncleanness of food?45 — The fact is, said Raba, that it is this that was meant: Any species that is liable to tithe is susceptible to food uncleanness. This46 is also logically sound. For in the final clause47 it was stated, Whatsoever is subject to the law of the first of the fleece48 is also subject to that of the priestly gifts49 but there may be a beast50 that is subject to the law of the priestly gifts and is not subject to that of the first of the fleece.51 Now if it were so52 [the objection would arise]: Is there not also the case of the terefah which is subject to the law of the first of the fleece and yet is not subject to that of the priestly gifts?53 — Rabina retorted: This54 represents the view of55 R. Simeon. For it was taught:56 R. Simeon exempts the terefah from the law of the first of the fleece.57 R. Shimi b. Ashi replied,58 Come and hear: If a man declared his vineyard hefker59 and, rising early in the morning, he cut its grapes, he is liable60 to peret,61 'oleloth,62 the forgotten sheaf63 and pe'ah 64 but65 is exempt from tithe.66 But have we not learnt: WHATSOEVER IS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF PE'AH IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THAT OF TITHES?67 Must you not then infer from this68 that the reference69 was70 to the whole species?71 This is conclusive. Elsewhere we have learnt:72 The Sages agree with R. Akiba that if a man sowed dill or mustard seed in two or three different spots he must allow pe'ah from each.73 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files When a carcass (a 'father of uncleanness'), for instance, imparted uncleanness to a person the latter cannot impart it to another person, since only a 'father of uncleanness' can carry uncleanness to persons. Foodstuffs, for instance, that contracted an uncleanness may (Rabbinically) convey the same uncleanness to other foodstuffs. The view that no intention is necessary. Cf. p. 350, n. 12. V. p. 350, n. 13. The Rabbis. The view that no intention is necessary. A carcass, for instance, is unclean irrespective of whether it had been rendered susceptible by liquids or not. MS.M., 'was it not taught?' In the Mishnah citation supra the reading for 'three' is 'thirteen' (cf. prev. n.) A minor uncleanness. Sc. only when it is being swallowed is uncleanness conveyed to the person and to his clothes. Cf. supra 50b q.v. notes. Sc. that it shall cause it to become unclean. Like any other foodstuffs. Only after it had been purposely wetted is it susceptible to uncleanness. Lit., 'wherein the difference?' Lev. XI, 37. Sc. they can never convey uncleanness to a person. If they are to contract any uncleanness. How then could it be maintained that it is 'necessary that it shall be rendered susceptible by means of water'? In the argument of the Rabbis. In the case of the former susceptibility is never required; hence it is that no intention is required either. In the case of the latter susceptibility is usually (though not in the particular case of a bird) required; hence it is that intention also is necessary. Though he stated (supra 50b) that in regard to uncleanness intention concerning an attached plant is no valid intention. To use the produce as food for men. And it is in consequence subject to tithe. Satureia Thymbra. Or 'thyme'. For the purpose, so it is now assumed, of using them for human consumption. Ma'as. III, 9. In which the law mentioned applies. Of course not. The law is too obvious to be stated. For the purpose, so it is now assumed, of using them for human consumption. Which shows that intention regarding the use of attached produce in the case of tithe is valid. Sc. they were never intended to be used as cattle food. In reply to the objection: What need was there for enunciating a law that was too obvious? In consequence of which the herbs cannot be regarded as hefker (v. Glos.). Hefker being exempt from tithe. Against Raba. Supra 50a. That intention to use attached produce for human consumption is valid enough as regards liability to tithe. Endives sown for the purpose of producing cattle food concerning which the grower changed his mind, while they were still attached to the ground, and decided to use the crop as food for human consumption. Since intention in this respect (cf. prev. n. but one) is valid. Intention regarding attached produce being invalid in respect of susceptibility to uncleanness. How then is Raba's statement to be reconciled with the Mishnah cited? Raba's interpretation just given. The Mishnah infra 51b which is the continuation of the previous Mishnah. Cf. Deut, XVIII, 4. The shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw given from slaughtered cattle (cf. ibid. 3). An ox or a goat. Infra 51b. That a general statement like 'whatsoever etc.' includes every individual case. Hul. 136b. Must it not consequently be admitted, as Raba explained, that by the general rule (cf. prev. n.) the whole species was meant? The Mishnah just cited. Lit., 'that whose? It is'. V. marg. gl. Cur. edd. 'for we learnt'. No proof, therefore, may be adduced from this Mishnah that a general rule refers to the entire species. Justifying Raba's submission (cf. prev. n. but four). V. Glos. For the reason cf. B.K. 94a. Single grapes dropped during the cutting (cf. Lev. XIX, 10) which must be left for the poor. 'Gleanings' of the vineyards or a small single bunch of grapes on a single branch 'which are the portion of the poor (cf. Lev. XIX, 10 and Deut. XXIV, 21). Which had to be left for the poor (cf. Deut. XXIV, 19). V. Glos. Cf. Lev. XIX, 9. Since the vineyard is hefker. Ned. 44b. B.K, 94a. How then are the two Tannaitic statements to be reconciled? Cf. prev. n. In the general rule, 'Whatsoever etc.'. Not to each individual case. Of course one must. Raba's submission is thus confirmed. This is quoted here because an objection against it is raised from our Mishnah. Pe'ah III, 2. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 51b Now dill, surely, since it is liable to pe'ah is also liable1 to tithe, for we have learnt, WHATSOEVER IS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF PE'AH IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THAT OF TITHES; and since it is liable to tithe it is also susceptible to food uncleanness. It is accordingly evident that anything that is used as a flavouring is susceptible to food uncleanness, since dill is used as a flavouring. But is not this incongruous with the following: 'Castus,2 amomum,3 and the principal spices, crowfoot, asafoetida, pepper and lozenges of bastard safron may be bought with second tithe money but they are not susceptible to food uncleanness; so R. Akiba. Said R. Johanan b. Nuri to him: If they may be bought with second tithe money why are they not susceptible to food uncleanness? And if they are not susceptible,4 they5 should not be bought with second tithe money',6 and in connection with this R. Johanan b. Nuri stated, 'A vote was taken and they decided that these are not to be bought with second tithe money and that they are not susceptible to food uncleanness'?7 — R. Hisda replied: When that Mishnah8 was taught the reference was to dill intended as an ingredient9 of kamak.10 R. Ashi stated, I submitted the following argument before R. Kahana:11 Do not say, 'The reference was to dill intended12 as an ingredient of kamak', from which it would follow that generally13 it is used as flavouring matter,14 but rather that dill is generally intended as an ingredient of kamak.15 For we have learnt: Dill,16 as soon as it has imparted some flavour to a dish, is no longer subject to the restrictions of terumah 17 and it is no longer susceptible to food uncleanness.18 From which it follows that before it had imparted any flavour to a dish it is subject to the restrictions of terumah and is susceptible to food uncleanness.19 Now if you were to imagine that as a rule it is used for flavouring14 [the difficulty would arise]: Even if it had not imparted any flavour to a dish [should it not be free from the restrictions of food since] as a rule it is used for flavouring?20 Must you not then infer from this21 that generally it is used as an ingredient of kamak?15 This is conclusive. MISHNAH. WHATSOEVER IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE22 IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THAT OF THE PRIESTLY GIFTS,23 BUT THERE MAY BE [A BEAST]24 THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE PRIESTLY GIFTS AND NOT TO THAT OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE. WHATSOEVER IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF REMOVAL25 IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE SABBATICAL YEAR,26 BUT THERE IS [A KIND OR PRODUCE] THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE SABBATICAL YEAR26 AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF REMOVAL.25 GEMARA. As, for instance, the leaves of arum and of miltwaste.27 THERE IS A KIND OF PRODUCE THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE SABBATICAL YEAR AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF REMOVAL, the root of the arum and the root of miltwaste, since it is written in Scripture, And for thy cattle and for the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be for food,28 as long as 'the beasts' eat29 from the field you may feed 'thy cattle' in the house, but when the produce comes to an end for 'the beasts' in the field you must bring it to an end for 'thy cattle' which are in the house; but these,30 surely, have not come to an end. MISHNAH. WHATSOEVER31 HAS SCALES HAS FINS BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE FINS AND NO SCALES. WHATSOEVER32 HAS HORNS HAS HOOFS BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE HOOFS AND NO HORNS. GEMARA. WHATSOEVER HAS SCALES [etc.] [viz.] a clean fish;33 THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE FINS AND NO SCALES, refers to an unclean fish.34 Now consider: Since we35 rely on the scales,36 what need then was there for the All Merciful to mention37 fins?38 — If the All Merciful had not written fins it might have been presumed that the written word kaskeseth39 meant40 fins and that even an unclean fish [is, therefore, permitted]. Hence has the All Merciful written 'fins' and 'scales'.41 But now that the All Merciful has written both 'fins' and 'scales', whence is it deduced that kaskeseth39 means the covering? Because it is written, And he was clad with a coat of mail.42 Then why43 did not the All Merciful write kaskeseth39 and there would be no need for the mention of fins?44 — R. Abbahu replied and so it was also taught at the school of R. Ishmael: To make the teaching great and glorious.45 MISHNAH. WHATSOEVER REQUIRES A BENEDICTION AFTER IT REQUIRES ONE BEFORE IT, BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT REQUIRE A BENEDICTION BEFORE THEM AND NOT AFTER THEM. GEMARA. [What was the last clause46 intended] to include? — To include vegetables. But according to R. Isaac who did say a benediction47 after the eating of vegetables, what was this46 intended to include? — To include water. But according to R. Papa who said a benediction47 after he drank water, what was it46 intended to include? — To include the performance of commandments.48 But according to the Palestinians49 who after removing their tefillin say the benediction of ' … who hath sanctified us by his commandments, and hath commanded us to keep his statutes', what does this50 include? — It includes - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files V. BaH. [G], a fragrant root, Cf. [G], a spice indigenous to India and Syria. To food uncleanness, which is evidence that they are not regarded as a foodstuff. Since only foodstuffs may be bought with second tithe money. 'Uk. III, 5. Now how is this Mishnah (from which it follows that flavouring spices are not susceptible to food uncleanness) to be reconciled with the inference drawn supra from the Mishnah of Pe'ah III, 2? Of Pe'ah, from which it was inferred that dill is regarded as food. Not as a mere flavouring. A milk sauce. Such dill is rightly regarded as a foodstuff and is consequently susceptible to food uncleanness. Cur. edd. in parenthesis add, 'he said'. Emphasis on this word. Where the owner's intention has not been expressed. Lit., 'for (the flavouring of) the dish', and should, therefore, be exempt from food uncleanness. And so subject to all the laws of a foodstuff. Of terumah. Should the root subsequently fall into a dish of ordinary food no complications would arise. 'Uk. III, 4; it being regarded as mere flavouring matter. I.e., it is regarded as food. Of course it should. Why then was its exemption from the restrictions made dependent on the imparting of some flavour to a dish? Cf. Prev. n, Cf. Deut. XVIII, 4. Sc. the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw that are due to the priest from slaughtered cattle (cf. Deut. XVIII, 3). An ox or a goat. In the Sabbatical year. When no produce is left in the field for the beasts the owner must remove all stored produce from his house into the field (cf. Deut. XXVI, 13). Cf. Lev. XXV, 2ff. These and similar products are SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF REMOVAL since (cf. infra) their supply is exhausted before the end of the year, and also TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE SABBATICAL YEAR. Lev. XXV, 7. Okeleth of the same rt. as le'ekol (rendered supra, for food'). The roots of the herbs mentioned. Among fishes. Among animals. Sc. one that may be eaten. Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. In determining whether a fish is clean or unclean. As has been stated in our Mishnah, WHATSOEVER HAS SCALES HAS FINS. As one of the marks of a clean fish in Lev. XI, 9ff. Lit., fins which the All Merciful has written, wherefore to me'. The word rendered scales'. Lit., 'what kaskeseth that is written.' Thus indicating that each is a distinctive mark. Kaskasim (of the same rt, as kaskeseth). I Sam. XVII, 5. Since the meaning of kaskeseth is definitely established and cannot be mistaken for that of fins. Since WHATSOEVER HAS SCALES HAS FINS. Isa. XLII, 21. Even an apparently superfluous word adds to the greatness and glory of the Torah. BUT THERE ARE etc. '… who createst many living beings' (cf. P.B. p. 290). Those, for instance, of lulab, shofar, zizith and tefillin which require a benediction only before and not after they are performed. Lit., 'the sons of the west'. Palestine lay to the west of Babylon where the discussion took place. BUT THERE ARE etc. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |