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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 13, 2019 | ื˜ืดื• ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืดืค

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Niddah 51

The gemara tries to understand the rabbis’ response against Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s kal vahomer argument regarding intent for susceptibility to food impurity of the carcass of a dead kosher bird. The gemara then goes back to Rabbi Yochanan’s statement regarding endives – intent only works regarding susceptibility to impurity once they are detached. Rava points out that Rabbi Yochanan would say regarding tithes that intent to be consumed by humans would work even while attachืงd to the ground. The gemara deals with spices and their obligation regarding peah and tithes. The next mishnayot raise other cases with the same structure like giving the shearings and the gifts from slaughtered animals to priests, laws of shmita and destruction of shmita items (bi’ur), signs of kashrut by fish and animals, blessings before and after food/actions.

ืชื•ื›ืŸ ื–ื” ืชื•ืจื’ื ื’ื ืœ: ืขื‘ืจื™ืช

ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื” ืฉืขื•ืฉื” ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”

in a case of severe ritual impurity, i.e., when the carcass of a kosher bird renders oneโ€™s garments impure while it is in his throat, which does not render impure another item similar to it, i.e., a person who is rendered impure by the carcass does not render another man impure; shall you also say that there is no requirement of thought in the case of lenient impurity, i.e., when the carcass transmits impurity as food, which does render impure another item similar to it? Food that became impure transmits impurity to other food, albeit by rabbinic law.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ืœ ื“ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ื“ืงื™ืœื ื“ืื™ื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื” ื“ื—ืžื™ืจื ื“ืขื•ืฉื” ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื” ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืžื˜ืžืื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืžื—ืฉื‘ื”

Abaye said to Rava: But in that case, all the more so impurity as food should apply without thought. If severe impurity, i.e., the unique impurity of the carcass of a kosher bird, which is lenient in the sense that it does not render impure another item similar to it, nevertheless imparts impurity without thought, i.e., without one knowing what is in his throat, then with regard to lenient impurity, i.e., the carcassโ€™s impurity as food, which is more severe in the sense that it renders impure another item similar to it, isnโ€™t it logical that it should impart impurity without thought?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื” ืฉืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื›ืฉืจ

Rather, Rav Sheshet said that this is what the Rabbis, who replied to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri, are saying: No, if you said that thought is not required with regard to severe impurity, i.e., the carcass of a kosher bird in the throat, as it does not require contact with a liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, shall you also say that thought is not required with regard to lenient impurity, i.e., its impurity as food, where it does require contact with a liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity?

ื•ืžื™ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื›ืฉืจ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื ืืžืจื• ื‘ื ื‘ืœืช ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ืืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื›ืฉืจ

The Gemara asks: And does the carcass of a kosher bird require contact with a liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity as food? But didnโ€™t we learn in a baraita: Three matters were stated with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird: In order for it to be susceptible to impurity as food, it requires a personโ€™s intent to eat it; and it transmits impurity to garments by rendering one who swallows it ritually impure only when an olive-bulk of it is in the throat; and it does not require contact with a liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity?

ื ื”ื™ ื“ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืจืฅ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืžื™ื ื‘ืขื™ื

The Gemara answers: Although it does not require contact with a creeping animal for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity, i.e., it is inherently impure, nevertheless it does require contact with water or another liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืจืฅ ื“ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชื‘ืขื™ ื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ

The Gemara asks: What is different about being rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by contact with a creeping animal that it does not require this contact? This ruling is in accordance with that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. If so, it should also not require contact with water or another liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, likewise in accordance with that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.

ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ื–ืจืข ื–ืจื•ืข ืืฉืจ ื™ื–ืจืข

As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: The verse states that seeds contract impurity from the carcass of a creeping animal only if they first come into contact with water: โ€œAnd if any part of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed that is to be sown, it is pure. But if water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcass fall thereon, it is impure unto youโ€ (Leviticus 11:37โ€“38). This passage teaches that as long as water did not fall on the seeds, they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. This halakha applies to all items similar to seeds.

ืžื” ื–ืจืขื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคืŸ ืœื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคืŸ ืœื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ื™ืฆืชื” ื ื‘ืœืช ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉืกื•ืคื” ืœื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ื›ืฉืจ

Accordingly, just as seeds, which will never transmit impurity severe enough to transmit to humans, like any food, require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity, so too, all items that will never transmit severe impurity require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity. This excludes the carcass of a kosher bird, which will ultimately transmit impurity severe enough to be transmitted to a human, i.e., when it is in his throat, and therefore it does not require contact with liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืฉื•ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืฉื•ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื

Rather, Rava said, and some say that it was Rav Pappa who said: The Rabbisโ€™ rejection of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuriโ€™s a fortiori inference is not based on the specific halakha of impurity of food imparted by the carcass of a bird. Rather, they are referring to the fact that in general there is no item under the common name of severe impurity that requires contact with a liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, with regard to the common name of lenient impurity as food, in general the items in this category require contact with a liquid for them to be rendered susceptible to impurity, despite the fact that the particular case of the carcass of a kosher bird is an exception. Therefore, intent is required for lenient impurity even in the case of a carcass of a kosher bird.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืžืขืฉืจ ื“ืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืžื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžื ื ืืžื™ื ื ืœื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืกื™ืื” ื•ื”ืื–ื•ื‘ ื•ื”ืงื•ืจื ื™ืช ืฉื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืื ื”ื™ื• ื ืฉืžืจื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

ยง Rava says: And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan concedes with regard to the obligation to tithe, that intent while the produce is attached to the ground is considered intent. Rava said: From where do I say that this is the halakha? It is as we learned in a mishna (Maโ€™asrot 3:9) that deals with the obligation to tithe: Savory, hyssop [vehaโ€™ezov], and thyme [vehakoranit], i.e., various types of hyssop plants, that were growing in a courtyard, are eaten by some people although they are not specifically intended for human consumption. Therefore, if they were protected by the owners, those owners are obligated to separate tithes from them.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื–ืจืขื™ื ื”ื• ืžืชื—ืœื” ืœืื“ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ื–ืจืขื™ื ื”ื• ืžืชื—ืœื” ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืื ื”ื™ื• ื ืฉืžืจื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

The Gemara clarifies the mishna: What are the circumstances of this ruling? If we say that it is referring to a case where one initially planted them for human consumption, does it need to be said that there is an obligation to tithe if they are protected by the owners? It is clear that in such a situation the criteria for the obligation to tithe, i.e., that it is human food which is protected, have been met. Rather, is it not referring to a case where one initially planted them to be fed to an animal, and nevertheless the mishna teaches: If the owner reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for human consumption and they were protected by the owners, the owners are obligated to tithe them. This apparently indicates that intent while the produce is attached to the ground is considered intent.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืฉืขืœื• ืžืื™ืœื™ื”ืŸ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ืกืชืžื ืœืื“ื ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ื”ื—ืฆืจ ืžืฉืžืจืช ืคื™ืจื•ืชื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ

Rav Ashi said that Ravaโ€™s proof is inconclusive, for the following reason: Here we are dealing with a courtyard where these various types of hyssop plants grew by themselves, and where they are unspecified, they are intended for human consumption. Therefore, they meet the first criteria for the obligation to tithe, as they are considered food. And the mishna addresses the second requirement, that the food must be protected, and this is what it is saying: If the courtyard protects its produce, the owners are obligated in tithes, and if not, they are exempt.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจื•ืช ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื”ื ื™ ื“ืงื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ

Rav Ashi raises a further objection to Ravaโ€™s explanation from a mishna (50a): Any food from which one is obligated to separate tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food. But if it is so, as Rava claimed, that intent while the produce is attached to the ground is considered intent with respect to the obligation to tithe, despite the fact that it is not considered intent with regard to impurity, then the mishnaโ€™s blanket statement is inaccurate. Rav Ashi elaborates: After all, there are these endives that were initially planted in order to feed to an animal and later the owner reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for human consumption, from which one is obligated to separate tithe, but which do not become impure with the ritual impurity of food.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ

Rava said in response that this is what the mishna is saying: Any type of food from which one is obligated to separate tithe becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food. In other words, this is referring to types of food, not to all situations. It is possible for a particular circumstance to be an exception to this principle.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื–

The Gemara adds that this too stands to reason, that the mishna is referring only to types of food, not situations, from the fact that the latter clause teaches (51b): With regard to any animal from which the owner is obligated to give the first shearing of its wool, he is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from it, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, if it was slaughtered. And there are animals from which one is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from it, but from which he is not obligated to give the first shearing.

ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื”ืื™ื›ื ื˜ืจืคื” ื“ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ื•ืื™ื ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื‘ืžืชื ื•ืช

And if it is so, that the principles of the mishna are all-inclusive, one can raise the following difficulty: But there is the specific case of an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], from which one is obligated to give the first shearing, but one is not obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from it, as it may not be eaten. This proves that Rava is correct, that the mishna is not referring to all circumstances, but only to general categories.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ืืช ื”ื˜ืจืคื” ืžืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื–

Ravina said, rejecting this proof: It is possible that the mishna is referring to all circumstances, and as for the difficulty with regard to a tereifa, one can say that in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon exempts the owner of a tereifa from the mitzva of the first shearing.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืืช ื›ืจืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื›ื™ื ื‘ื‘ืงืจ ื•ื‘ืฆืจื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืคืจื˜ ื•ื‘ืขื•ืœืœื•ืช ื•ื‘ืฉื›ื—ื” ื•ื‘ืคืื” ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืžืขืฉืจ

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Come and hear a proof from a baraita that the mishna is not referring to all circumstances, but only to general categories: With regard to one who declares his vineyard ownerless, and who arose the next morning and picked grapes from the vineyard before anyone else took possession of them, he is obligated in the mitzva of leaving for the poor individual fallen grapes [peret], and in the mitzva of leaving for them incompletely formed clusters of grapes [uveโ€™olelot], and in the mitzva of forgotten clusters, and in peโ€™a. The Torah includes such cases in the phrase: โ€œLeave them for the poor and for the strangerโ€ (Leviticus 19:10, 23:22), which is written with regard to all these mitzvot. And he is exempt from the obligation to separate the tithe from the grapes. Since the vineyard is ownerless, there is no obligation to tithe the produce.

ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืคืื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจื•ืช ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžื™ืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara explains the proof: But didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna (50a): With regard to any produce from which one is obligated to designate peโ€™a, one is likewise obligated to separate tithes? Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna that Rava is correct in asserting that the mishna is teaching only principles with regard to each type of produce, but there are exceptions in certain circumstances? The Gemara answers that one should in fact conclude from the mishna that Rava is correct.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื‘ื–ื•ืจืข ืฉื‘ืช ืื• ื—ืจื“ืœ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช ืฉื ื•ืชืŸ ืคืื” ืžื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“

ยง With regard to the obligations of peโ€™a and tithes, the Gemara notes that we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Peโ€™a 3:2): The Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regard to a case where one harvested several separate patches in a field. Rabbi Akiva rules that each patch requires its own peโ€™a, whereas the Rabbis maintain that one peโ€™a is required for all of the patches. Nevertheless, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva in the case of one who sows dill or mustard in two or three separate locations in a single field, that he leaves peโ€™a for each and every one of these plots on its own, rather than one corner for all of them.

ื•ื”ื ืฉื‘ืช ื“ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืคืื” ื•ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืคืื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ

The Gemara asks: But with regard to dill, from which one is obligated to designate peโ€™a, as stated in the mishna, one must also be obligated to separate tithe, since if the obligation of peโ€™a applies then the obligation of tithes likewise applies. As we learned in the mishna (50a): With regard to any produce from which one is obligated to designate peโ€™a, one is likewise obligated to separate tithe.

ื•ืžื“ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืืœืžื ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื˜ืขืžื ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื”ืื™ ืฉื‘ืช ืœื˜ืขืžื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื

And from the fact that with regard to dill one is obligated to separate tithe, it follows that it becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food. As the mishna on 50a states: Any food that is obligated in tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food. Apparently, any item that is prepared in order to add taste to food, such as dill, becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food, as this dill is prepared in order to add taste to food.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื”ืงื•ืฉื˜ ื•ื”ื—ื™ืžื•ื ื•ืจืืฉื™ ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ื•ื”ืชื™ืื” ื•ื”ื—ืœืชื™ืช ื•ื”ืคืœืคืœื™ื ื•ื—ืœืช ื—ืจื™ืข ื ืงื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this conclusion from a mishna (Okatzin 3:5), which deals with the ritual impurity of food: With regard to spices such as costus, amomum, chief spices, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, peppers, and a cake of safflower, although their function is merely to add taste to food, they are considered food for the purposes of the following halakha: They may be bought with second-tithe money, which must be taken to Jerusalem and used to purchase food. But they are not considered food insofar as they do not become impure with the ritual impurity of food. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ืื ื ืงื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžืขืฉืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื”ื ืœื ื™ืœืงื—ื• ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžืขืฉืจ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: If they are considered food to the extent that they may be bought with second-tithe money, for what reason are they not considered food in terms of becoming impure with the ritual impurity of food? And if they do not become impure with the ritual impurity of food because they are not considered food, then they should also not be bought with second-tithe money.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ื ืžื ื• ื•ื’ืžืจื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืงื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri said with regard to this halakha: They counted the opinions of the Sages, and they concluded that these spices may not be bought with second-tithe money, and they do not become impure with the ritual impurity of food. This apparently contradicts the previous claim that dill, which is a spice, becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื›ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœื›ืžืš

Rav แธคisda says the following resolution of the difficulty: When that baraita, which indicates that dill is considered food and can contract the impurity of food, is taught, it is referring to dill that is prepared for a spice dish [likhmakh], i.e., to be ground and placed in a Babylonian spice, kutaแธฅ, which is used as a dip.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจื™ืชื” ืœืฉืžืขืชื™ื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื (ืืžืจ) ืœื ืชื™ืžื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœื›ืžืš ื”ื ืกืชืžื ืœืงื“ืจื” ืืœื ืกืชื ืฉื‘ืช ืœื›ืžืš ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืฉื‘ืช ืžืฉื ืชื ื” ื˜ืขื ื‘ืงื“ืจื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ

Rav Ashi said: I said this halakha of Rav แธคisdaโ€™s before Rav Kahana, and he commented: Do not say that the baraita is referring specifically to a case where the dill was prepared for a spice dish from the outset, which would indicate that if dill is undesignated then it is intended to be an ingredient in a pot of food. Rather, undesignated dill is also prepared for a spice dish. As we learned in a mishna (Okatzin 3:4): With regard to teruma dill, once it imparted flavor in a pot of food and was removed from the pot, it is no longer subject to the prohibition of a non-priest partaking of teruma, and it can no longer become impure with the ritual impurity of food.

ื”ื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืชื ื” ื˜ืขื ื‘ืงื“ืจื” ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžื˜ืžืื” ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืกืชืžื ืœืงื“ืจื” ื›ื™ ืœื ื ืชื ื” ื ืžื™ ืกืชืžื ืœืงื“ืจื” ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืกืชืžื ืœื›ืžืš ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Rav Kahana explains the proof: It can be inferred from this mishna that until the dill has imparted flavor in a pot of food it is subject to the prohibition of a non-priest partaking of teruma, and it can become impure with the ritual impurity of food. And if it enters your mind that undesignated dill is intended as an ingredient in a pot of food, then even when one did not place the dill in a pot, the same halakha with respect to teruma and impurity should apply, as when it is undesignated the dill is intended as an ingredient in a pot of food. Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna that undesignated dill is prepared for a spice dish? The Gemara concludes: Learn from the mishna that this is the case.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื–

MISHNA: With regard to any animal, i.e., sheep and rams, from which one is obligated by Torah law (see Deuteronomy 18:4) to give the first shearing of its wool to a priest, he is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, which must be removed from slaughtered animals, taken from it (see Deuteronomy 18:3). And there are animals from which one is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from them, e.g., cattle and goats, but from which he is not obligated to give the first shearing.

ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื‘ื™ืขื•ืจ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ื™ืขื•ืจ

The mishna teaches a similar principle: For all Sabbatical-Year produce to which there applies the obligation of eradication from the house when it ceases to be available to the animals in the field, there is the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce upon it, i.e., it may not be used for commerce and is ownerless while it is attached to the ground. And there is produce for which there is the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce, but for which there is no obligation of eradication from the house, e.g., produce that is preserved in the ground and does not cease to be available in the field.

ื’ืžืณ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืขืœื” ื”ืœื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ื”ื“ื ื“ื ื” ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ื™ืขื•ืจ ืขื™ืงืจ ื”ืœื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืขื™ืงืจ ื”ื“ื ื“ื ื”

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce applies to any produce upon which there is an obligation of eradication, but the converse is not necessarily the case. The Gemara cites an example of plants whose various parts illustrate these halakhot: Plants such as the wild arum leaf and the ceterach, which cease to be available in the field during the rainy season, are subject to eradication and to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Examples of the second halakha of the mishna, that there is produce for which there is the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce but for which there is no obligation of eradication from the house, include the root of the wild arum and the root of the ceterach.

ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื‘ื”ืžืชืš ื•ืœื—ื™ื” ืืฉืจ ื‘ืืจืฆืš ืชื”ื™ื” ื›ืœ ืชื‘ื•ืืชื” ืœืื›ืœ ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื” ืื•ื›ืœืช ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืืชื” ืžืื›ื™ืœ ืœื‘ื”ืžืชืš ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื›ืœื” ืœื—ื™ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื›ืœื” ืœื‘ื”ืžืชืš ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื•ื”ื ื™ ืœื ื›ืœื• ืœื”ื•

The Gemara explains that it is written in connection to the Sabbatical Year: โ€œAnd for the cattle and the beasts that are in your land, all its produce may be eatenโ€ (Leviticus 25:7), from which it is derived: As long as the undomesticated animals eat a type of produce from the field, you may feed that type of produce to your domesticated animal in the house, as it still remains in the field. But if that type of produce has ceased for the undomesticated animals in the field, you must cease feeding it to your domesticated animal in the house. This is the obligation of eradication. And these, the root of the wild arum and the ceterach, have not ceased for undomesticated animals in the field, and therefore there is no obligation of eradication.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืงืจื ื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœื• ื˜ืœืคื™ื ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื˜ืœืคื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืงืจื ื™ื

MISHNA: It is written: โ€œWhatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, you may eat themโ€ (Leviticus 11:9). There is a principle with regard to the signs indicating that fish are kosher: Any fish that has scales has fins; and there are fish that have fins but do not have scales. Similarly, with regard to kosher animals it is written: โ€œWhatever parts the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eatโ€ (Leviticus 11:3). Any animal that has horns has hooves; and there are animals that have hooves but do not have horns.

ื’ืžืณ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื“ื’ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ืžื›ื“ื™ ืื ืŸ ืืงืฉืงืฉืช ืกืžื›ื™ื ืŸ ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that any fish that has scales also has fins and therefore is a kosher fish. The mishna also stated that there are fish that have fins but do not have scales. Such a fish is a non-kosher fish. The Gemara asks: Since we rely exclusively upon the sign of the scales, as a fish that has scales necessarily has fins as well, why do I need the sign of fins that the Merciful One writes in the Torah as one of the criteria of kosher fish?

ืื™ ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžืื™ ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ืงืฉืงืฉืช

The Gemara answers: If the Merciful One had not also written the sign of fins in the Torah, I would say: What does the word kaskeset, scales, that is written in the Torah mean? It does not mean scales, but fins. And I would therefore say that even a non-kosher fish, which has fins but no scales, is permitted. Therefore, the Merciful One writes both signs, fins and scales.

ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ืงืฉืงืฉืช ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืงืฉืงืฉืช ืœื‘ื•ืฉื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืจื™ื•ืŸ ืงืฉืงืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื ืœื‘ื•ืฉ

The Gemara further asks: But now that the Merciful One wrote in the Torah fins and kaskeset, from where do we derive that kaskeset denotes clothing, i.e., scales, rather than fins? The Gemara answers: We derive it from a verse, as it is written about Goliath the Philistine: โ€œAnd he was clad with a coat of mail [kaskasim]โ€ (Iย Samuel 17:5).

ื•ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืกื ืคื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื•ื›ืŸ ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื™ื’ื“ื™ืœ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื™ืื“ื™ืจ

The Gemara asks: But if there is proof that kaskeset means scales, the question returns: Let the Merciful One write only โ€œscalesโ€ and then there would be no need to write โ€œfins.โ€ Rabbi Abbahu says, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that this is in accordance with the verse: โ€œThe Lord was pleased, for His righteousnessโ€™ sake, to make Torah great and gloriousโ€ (Isaiah 42:21).In this context, this means that it is fitting for the Torah to state all the characteristics of a kosher animal rather than merely state that which is absolutely necessary.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื”ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœืื—ืจื™ื• ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœืื—ืจื™ื•

MISHNA: This mishna teaches a generalization that is similar to the previous ones: Anything that requires a blessing after one partakes of it requires a blessing beforehand. And there exist items that require a blessing before but do not require a blessing thereafter.

ื’ืžืณ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื™ืจืง ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื“ืžื‘ืจืš ืื™ืจืง ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžื™ื

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that there are items that require a blessing before but not after. The Gemara inquires: What case does this halakha in the mishna add? The Gemara answers: It serves to add the case of vegetables, as one recites a blessing before eating them but not afterward. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak, who maintains that one recites a blessing on vegetables after eating them, what case does this halakha in the mishna add? The Gemara answers: It serves to add the case of water, as one recites a blessing before drinking it but not afterward.

ื•ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื ื“ืžื‘ืจืš ืืžื™ื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืฆื•ืช ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ ืžืขืจื‘ื ื“ืžื‘ืจื›ื™ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ืกืœื™ืงื• ืชืคื™ืœื™ื™ื”ื• ืืฉืจ ืงื“ืฉื ื• ื‘ืžืฆื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืฆื•ื ื• ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื—ื•ืงื™ื• ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™

The Gemara further asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Pappa, who rules that one recites a blessing on water after drinking it, what case does this halakha in the mishna serve to add? The Gemara answers that the mishna, which does not explicitly mention food, serves to add mitzvot. In other words, one recites a blessing before performing a mitzva, e.g., wearing ritual fringes or taking the lulav and the like, but one does not recite a blessing after its fulfillment. The Gemara asks: And according to the residents of the West, Eretz Yisrael, who recite the following blessing after they remove their phylacteries: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to keep His laws, what does this halakha in the mishna come to add? The Gemara answers: It serves to add the case of

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 51

ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื” ืฉืขื•ืฉื” ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”

in a case of severe ritual impurity, i.e., when the carcass of a kosher bird renders oneโ€™s garments impure while it is in his throat, which does not render impure another item similar to it, i.e., a person who is rendered impure by the carcass does not render another man impure; shall you also say that there is no requirement of thought in the case of lenient impurity, i.e., when the carcass transmits impurity as food, which does render impure another item similar to it? Food that became impure transmits impurity to other food, albeit by rabbinic law.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ืœ ื“ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ื“ืงื™ืœื ื“ืื™ื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื” ื“ื—ืžื™ืจื ื“ืขื•ืฉื” ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื” ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืžื˜ืžืื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืžื—ืฉื‘ื”

Abaye said to Rava: But in that case, all the more so impurity as food should apply without thought. If severe impurity, i.e., the unique impurity of the carcass of a kosher bird, which is lenient in the sense that it does not render impure another item similar to it, nevertheless imparts impurity without thought, i.e., without one knowing what is in his throat, then with regard to lenient impurity, i.e., the carcassโ€™s impurity as food, which is more severe in the sense that it renders impure another item similar to it, isnโ€™t it logical that it should impart impurity without thought?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื” ืฉืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื›ืฉืจ

Rather, Rav Sheshet said that this is what the Rabbis, who replied to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri, are saying: No, if you said that thought is not required with regard to severe impurity, i.e., the carcass of a kosher bird in the throat, as it does not require contact with a liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, shall you also say that thought is not required with regard to lenient impurity, i.e., its impurity as food, where it does require contact with a liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity?

ื•ืžื™ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื›ืฉืจ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื ืืžืจื• ื‘ื ื‘ืœืช ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ืืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื›ืฉืจ

The Gemara asks: And does the carcass of a kosher bird require contact with a liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity as food? But didnโ€™t we learn in a baraita: Three matters were stated with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird: In order for it to be susceptible to impurity as food, it requires a personโ€™s intent to eat it; and it transmits impurity to garments by rendering one who swallows it ritually impure only when an olive-bulk of it is in the throat; and it does not require contact with a liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity?

ื ื”ื™ ื“ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืจืฅ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืžื™ื ื‘ืขื™ื

The Gemara answers: Although it does not require contact with a creeping animal for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity, i.e., it is inherently impure, nevertheless it does require contact with water or another liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืจืฅ ื“ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชื‘ืขื™ ื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ

The Gemara asks: What is different about being rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by contact with a creeping animal that it does not require this contact? This ruling is in accordance with that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. If so, it should also not require contact with water or another liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, likewise in accordance with that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.

ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ื–ืจืข ื–ืจื•ืข ืืฉืจ ื™ื–ืจืข

As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: The verse states that seeds contract impurity from the carcass of a creeping animal only if they first come into contact with water: โ€œAnd if any part of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed that is to be sown, it is pure. But if water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcass fall thereon, it is impure unto youโ€ (Leviticus 11:37โ€“38). This passage teaches that as long as water did not fall on the seeds, they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. This halakha applies to all items similar to seeds.

ืžื” ื–ืจืขื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคืŸ ืœื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคืŸ ืœื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ื™ืฆืชื” ื ื‘ืœืช ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉืกื•ืคื” ืœื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ื›ืฉืจ

Accordingly, just as seeds, which will never transmit impurity severe enough to transmit to humans, like any food, require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity, so too, all items that will never transmit severe impurity require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity. This excludes the carcass of a kosher bird, which will ultimately transmit impurity severe enough to be transmitted to a human, i.e., when it is in his throat, and therefore it does not require contact with liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืฉื•ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืฉื•ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื

Rather, Rava said, and some say that it was Rav Pappa who said: The Rabbisโ€™ rejection of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuriโ€™s a fortiori inference is not based on the specific halakha of impurity of food imparted by the carcass of a bird. Rather, they are referring to the fact that in general there is no item under the common name of severe impurity that requires contact with a liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, with regard to the common name of lenient impurity as food, in general the items in this category require contact with a liquid for them to be rendered susceptible to impurity, despite the fact that the particular case of the carcass of a kosher bird is an exception. Therefore, intent is required for lenient impurity even in the case of a carcass of a kosher bird.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืžืขืฉืจ ื“ืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืžื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžื ื ืืžื™ื ื ืœื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืกื™ืื” ื•ื”ืื–ื•ื‘ ื•ื”ืงื•ืจื ื™ืช ืฉื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืื ื”ื™ื• ื ืฉืžืจื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

ยง Rava says: And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan concedes with regard to the obligation to tithe, that intent while the produce is attached to the ground is considered intent. Rava said: From where do I say that this is the halakha? It is as we learned in a mishna (Maโ€™asrot 3:9) that deals with the obligation to tithe: Savory, hyssop [vehaโ€™ezov], and thyme [vehakoranit], i.e., various types of hyssop plants, that were growing in a courtyard, are eaten by some people although they are not specifically intended for human consumption. Therefore, if they were protected by the owners, those owners are obligated to separate tithes from them.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื–ืจืขื™ื ื”ื• ืžืชื—ืœื” ืœืื“ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ื–ืจืขื™ื ื”ื• ืžืชื—ืœื” ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืื ื”ื™ื• ื ืฉืžืจื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

The Gemara clarifies the mishna: What are the circumstances of this ruling? If we say that it is referring to a case where one initially planted them for human consumption, does it need to be said that there is an obligation to tithe if they are protected by the owners? It is clear that in such a situation the criteria for the obligation to tithe, i.e., that it is human food which is protected, have been met. Rather, is it not referring to a case where one initially planted them to be fed to an animal, and nevertheless the mishna teaches: If the owner reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for human consumption and they were protected by the owners, the owners are obligated to tithe them. This apparently indicates that intent while the produce is attached to the ground is considered intent.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืฉืขืœื• ืžืื™ืœื™ื”ืŸ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ืกืชืžื ืœืื“ื ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ื”ื—ืฆืจ ืžืฉืžืจืช ืคื™ืจื•ืชื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ

Rav Ashi said that Ravaโ€™s proof is inconclusive, for the following reason: Here we are dealing with a courtyard where these various types of hyssop plants grew by themselves, and where they are unspecified, they are intended for human consumption. Therefore, they meet the first criteria for the obligation to tithe, as they are considered food. And the mishna addresses the second requirement, that the food must be protected, and this is what it is saying: If the courtyard protects its produce, the owners are obligated in tithes, and if not, they are exempt.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจื•ืช ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื”ื ื™ ื“ืงื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ

Rav Ashi raises a further objection to Ravaโ€™s explanation from a mishna (50a): Any food from which one is obligated to separate tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food. But if it is so, as Rava claimed, that intent while the produce is attached to the ground is considered intent with respect to the obligation to tithe, despite the fact that it is not considered intent with regard to impurity, then the mishnaโ€™s blanket statement is inaccurate. Rav Ashi elaborates: After all, there are these endives that were initially planted in order to feed to an animal and later the owner reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for human consumption, from which one is obligated to separate tithe, but which do not become impure with the ritual impurity of food.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ

Rava said in response that this is what the mishna is saying: Any type of food from which one is obligated to separate tithe becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food. In other words, this is referring to types of food, not to all situations. It is possible for a particular circumstance to be an exception to this principle.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื–

The Gemara adds that this too stands to reason, that the mishna is referring only to types of food, not situations, from the fact that the latter clause teaches (51b): With regard to any animal from which the owner is obligated to give the first shearing of its wool, he is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from it, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, if it was slaughtered. And there are animals from which one is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from it, but from which he is not obligated to give the first shearing.

ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื”ืื™ื›ื ื˜ืจืคื” ื“ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ื•ืื™ื ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื‘ืžืชื ื•ืช

And if it is so, that the principles of the mishna are all-inclusive, one can raise the following difficulty: But there is the specific case of an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], from which one is obligated to give the first shearing, but one is not obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from it, as it may not be eaten. This proves that Rava is correct, that the mishna is not referring to all circumstances, but only to general categories.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ืืช ื”ื˜ืจืคื” ืžืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื–

Ravina said, rejecting this proof: It is possible that the mishna is referring to all circumstances, and as for the difficulty with regard to a tereifa, one can say that in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon exempts the owner of a tereifa from the mitzva of the first shearing.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืืช ื›ืจืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื›ื™ื ื‘ื‘ืงืจ ื•ื‘ืฆืจื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืคืจื˜ ื•ื‘ืขื•ืœืœื•ืช ื•ื‘ืฉื›ื—ื” ื•ื‘ืคืื” ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืžืขืฉืจ

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Come and hear a proof from a baraita that the mishna is not referring to all circumstances, but only to general categories: With regard to one who declares his vineyard ownerless, and who arose the next morning and picked grapes from the vineyard before anyone else took possession of them, he is obligated in the mitzva of leaving for the poor individual fallen grapes [peret], and in the mitzva of leaving for them incompletely formed clusters of grapes [uveโ€™olelot], and in the mitzva of forgotten clusters, and in peโ€™a. The Torah includes such cases in the phrase: โ€œLeave them for the poor and for the strangerโ€ (Leviticus 19:10, 23:22), which is written with regard to all these mitzvot. And he is exempt from the obligation to separate the tithe from the grapes. Since the vineyard is ownerless, there is no obligation to tithe the produce.

ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืคืื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจื•ืช ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžื™ืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara explains the proof: But didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna (50a): With regard to any produce from which one is obligated to designate peโ€™a, one is likewise obligated to separate tithes? Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna that Rava is correct in asserting that the mishna is teaching only principles with regard to each type of produce, but there are exceptions in certain circumstances? The Gemara answers that one should in fact conclude from the mishna that Rava is correct.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื‘ื–ื•ืจืข ืฉื‘ืช ืื• ื—ืจื“ืœ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช ืฉื ื•ืชืŸ ืคืื” ืžื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“

ยง With regard to the obligations of peโ€™a and tithes, the Gemara notes that we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Peโ€™a 3:2): The Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regard to a case where one harvested several separate patches in a field. Rabbi Akiva rules that each patch requires its own peโ€™a, whereas the Rabbis maintain that one peโ€™a is required for all of the patches. Nevertheless, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva in the case of one who sows dill or mustard in two or three separate locations in a single field, that he leaves peโ€™a for each and every one of these plots on its own, rather than one corner for all of them.

ื•ื”ื ืฉื‘ืช ื“ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืคืื” ื•ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืคืื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ

The Gemara asks: But with regard to dill, from which one is obligated to designate peโ€™a, as stated in the mishna, one must also be obligated to separate tithe, since if the obligation of peโ€™a applies then the obligation of tithes likewise applies. As we learned in the mishna (50a): With regard to any produce from which one is obligated to designate peโ€™a, one is likewise obligated to separate tithe.

ื•ืžื“ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืืœืžื ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื˜ืขืžื ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื”ืื™ ืฉื‘ืช ืœื˜ืขืžื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื

And from the fact that with regard to dill one is obligated to separate tithe, it follows that it becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food. As the mishna on 50a states: Any food that is obligated in tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food. Apparently, any item that is prepared in order to add taste to food, such as dill, becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food, as this dill is prepared in order to add taste to food.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื”ืงื•ืฉื˜ ื•ื”ื—ื™ืžื•ื ื•ืจืืฉื™ ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ื•ื”ืชื™ืื” ื•ื”ื—ืœืชื™ืช ื•ื”ืคืœืคืœื™ื ื•ื—ืœืช ื—ืจื™ืข ื ืงื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this conclusion from a mishna (Okatzin 3:5), which deals with the ritual impurity of food: With regard to spices such as costus, amomum, chief spices, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, peppers, and a cake of safflower, although their function is merely to add taste to food, they are considered food for the purposes of the following halakha: They may be bought with second-tithe money, which must be taken to Jerusalem and used to purchase food. But they are not considered food insofar as they do not become impure with the ritual impurity of food. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ืื ื ืงื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžืขืฉืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื”ื ืœื ื™ืœืงื—ื• ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžืขืฉืจ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: If they are considered food to the extent that they may be bought with second-tithe money, for what reason are they not considered food in terms of becoming impure with the ritual impurity of food? And if they do not become impure with the ritual impurity of food because they are not considered food, then they should also not be bought with second-tithe money.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ื ืžื ื• ื•ื’ืžืจื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืงื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri said with regard to this halakha: They counted the opinions of the Sages, and they concluded that these spices may not be bought with second-tithe money, and they do not become impure with the ritual impurity of food. This apparently contradicts the previous claim that dill, which is a spice, becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื›ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœื›ืžืš

Rav แธคisda says the following resolution of the difficulty: When that baraita, which indicates that dill is considered food and can contract the impurity of food, is taught, it is referring to dill that is prepared for a spice dish [likhmakh], i.e., to be ground and placed in a Babylonian spice, kutaแธฅ, which is used as a dip.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจื™ืชื” ืœืฉืžืขืชื™ื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื (ืืžืจ) ืœื ืชื™ืžื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœื›ืžืš ื”ื ืกืชืžื ืœืงื“ืจื” ืืœื ืกืชื ืฉื‘ืช ืœื›ืžืš ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืฉื‘ืช ืžืฉื ืชื ื” ื˜ืขื ื‘ืงื“ืจื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ

Rav Ashi said: I said this halakha of Rav แธคisdaโ€™s before Rav Kahana, and he commented: Do not say that the baraita is referring specifically to a case where the dill was prepared for a spice dish from the outset, which would indicate that if dill is undesignated then it is intended to be an ingredient in a pot of food. Rather, undesignated dill is also prepared for a spice dish. As we learned in a mishna (Okatzin 3:4): With regard to teruma dill, once it imparted flavor in a pot of food and was removed from the pot, it is no longer subject to the prohibition of a non-priest partaking of teruma, and it can no longer become impure with the ritual impurity of food.

ื”ื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืชื ื” ื˜ืขื ื‘ืงื“ืจื” ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžื˜ืžืื” ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืกืชืžื ืœืงื“ืจื” ื›ื™ ืœื ื ืชื ื” ื ืžื™ ืกืชืžื ืœืงื“ืจื” ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืกืชืžื ืœื›ืžืš ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Rav Kahana explains the proof: It can be inferred from this mishna that until the dill has imparted flavor in a pot of food it is subject to the prohibition of a non-priest partaking of teruma, and it can become impure with the ritual impurity of food. And if it enters your mind that undesignated dill is intended as an ingredient in a pot of food, then even when one did not place the dill in a pot, the same halakha with respect to teruma and impurity should apply, as when it is undesignated the dill is intended as an ingredient in a pot of food. Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna that undesignated dill is prepared for a spice dish? The Gemara concludes: Learn from the mishna that this is the case.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื–

MISHNA: With regard to any animal, i.e., sheep and rams, from which one is obligated by Torah law (see Deuteronomy 18:4) to give the first shearing of its wool to a priest, he is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, which must be removed from slaughtered animals, taken from it (see Deuteronomy 18:3). And there are animals from which one is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from them, e.g., cattle and goats, but from which he is not obligated to give the first shearing.

ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื‘ื™ืขื•ืจ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ื™ืขื•ืจ

The mishna teaches a similar principle: For all Sabbatical-Year produce to which there applies the obligation of eradication from the house when it ceases to be available to the animals in the field, there is the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce upon it, i.e., it may not be used for commerce and is ownerless while it is attached to the ground. And there is produce for which there is the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce, but for which there is no obligation of eradication from the house, e.g., produce that is preserved in the ground and does not cease to be available in the field.

ื’ืžืณ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืขืœื” ื”ืœื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ื”ื“ื ื“ื ื” ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ื™ืขื•ืจ ืขื™ืงืจ ื”ืœื•ืฃ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืขื™ืงืจ ื”ื“ื ื“ื ื”

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce applies to any produce upon which there is an obligation of eradication, but the converse is not necessarily the case. The Gemara cites an example of plants whose various parts illustrate these halakhot: Plants such as the wild arum leaf and the ceterach, which cease to be available in the field during the rainy season, are subject to eradication and to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Examples of the second halakha of the mishna, that there is produce for which there is the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce but for which there is no obligation of eradication from the house, include the root of the wild arum and the root of the ceterach.

ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื‘ื”ืžืชืš ื•ืœื—ื™ื” ืืฉืจ ื‘ืืจืฆืš ืชื”ื™ื” ื›ืœ ืชื‘ื•ืืชื” ืœืื›ืœ ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื” ืื•ื›ืœืช ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืืชื” ืžืื›ื™ืœ ืœื‘ื”ืžืชืš ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื›ืœื” ืœื—ื™ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื›ืœื” ืœื‘ื”ืžืชืš ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื•ื”ื ื™ ืœื ื›ืœื• ืœื”ื•

The Gemara explains that it is written in connection to the Sabbatical Year: โ€œAnd for the cattle and the beasts that are in your land, all its produce may be eatenโ€ (Leviticus 25:7), from which it is derived: As long as the undomesticated animals eat a type of produce from the field, you may feed that type of produce to your domesticated animal in the house, as it still remains in the field. But if that type of produce has ceased for the undomesticated animals in the field, you must cease feeding it to your domesticated animal in the house. This is the obligation of eradication. And these, the root of the wild arum and the ceterach, have not ceased for undomesticated animals in the field, and therefore there is no obligation of eradication.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืงืจื ื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœื• ื˜ืœืคื™ื ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื˜ืœืคื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืงืจื ื™ื

MISHNA: It is written: โ€œWhatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, you may eat themโ€ (Leviticus 11:9). There is a principle with regard to the signs indicating that fish are kosher: Any fish that has scales has fins; and there are fish that have fins but do not have scales. Similarly, with regard to kosher animals it is written: โ€œWhatever parts the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eatโ€ (Leviticus 11:3). Any animal that has horns has hooves; and there are animals that have hooves but do not have horns.

ื’ืžืณ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื“ื’ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ืžื›ื“ื™ ืื ืŸ ืืงืฉืงืฉืช ืกืžื›ื™ื ืŸ ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that any fish that has scales also has fins and therefore is a kosher fish. The mishna also stated that there are fish that have fins but do not have scales. Such a fish is a non-kosher fish. The Gemara asks: Since we rely exclusively upon the sign of the scales, as a fish that has scales necessarily has fins as well, why do I need the sign of fins that the Merciful One writes in the Torah as one of the criteria of kosher fish?

ืื™ ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžืื™ ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ื’ ื˜ืžื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ืงืฉืงืฉืช

The Gemara answers: If the Merciful One had not also written the sign of fins in the Torah, I would say: What does the word kaskeset, scales, that is written in the Torah mean? It does not mean scales, but fins. And I would therefore say that even a non-kosher fish, which has fins but no scales, is permitted. Therefore, the Merciful One writes both signs, fins and scales.

ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืกื ืคื™ืจ ื•ืงืฉืงืฉืช ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืงืฉืงืฉืช ืœื‘ื•ืฉื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืจื™ื•ืŸ ืงืฉืงืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื ืœื‘ื•ืฉ

The Gemara further asks: But now that the Merciful One wrote in the Torah fins and kaskeset, from where do we derive that kaskeset denotes clothing, i.e., scales, rather than fins? The Gemara answers: We derive it from a verse, as it is written about Goliath the Philistine: โ€œAnd he was clad with a coat of mail [kaskasim]โ€ (Iย Samuel 17:5).

ื•ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืกื ืคื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื•ื›ืŸ ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื™ื’ื“ื™ืœ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื™ืื“ื™ืจ

The Gemara asks: But if there is proof that kaskeset means scales, the question returns: Let the Merciful One write only โ€œscalesโ€ and then there would be no need to write โ€œfins.โ€ Rabbi Abbahu says, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that this is in accordance with the verse: โ€œThe Lord was pleased, for His righteousnessโ€™ sake, to make Torah great and gloriousโ€ (Isaiah 42:21).In this context, this means that it is fitting for the Torah to state all the characteristics of a kosher animal rather than merely state that which is absolutely necessary.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื”ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœืื—ืจื™ื• ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœืื—ืจื™ื•

MISHNA: This mishna teaches a generalization that is similar to the previous ones: Anything that requires a blessing after one partakes of it requires a blessing beforehand. And there exist items that require a blessing before but do not require a blessing thereafter.

ื’ืžืณ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื™ืจืง ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื“ืžื‘ืจืš ืื™ืจืง ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžื™ื

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that there are items that require a blessing before but not after. The Gemara inquires: What case does this halakha in the mishna add? The Gemara answers: It serves to add the case of vegetables, as one recites a blessing before eating them but not afterward. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak, who maintains that one recites a blessing on vegetables after eating them, what case does this halakha in the mishna add? The Gemara answers: It serves to add the case of water, as one recites a blessing before drinking it but not afterward.

ื•ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื ื“ืžื‘ืจืš ืืžื™ื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืฆื•ืช ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ ืžืขืจื‘ื ื“ืžื‘ืจื›ื™ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ืกืœื™ืงื• ืชืคื™ืœื™ื™ื”ื• ืืฉืจ ืงื“ืฉื ื• ื‘ืžืฆื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืฆื•ื ื• ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื—ื•ืงื™ื• ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™

The Gemara further asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Pappa, who rules that one recites a blessing on water after drinking it, what case does this halakha in the mishna serve to add? The Gemara answers that the mishna, which does not explicitly mention food, serves to add mitzvot. In other words, one recites a blessing before performing a mitzva, e.g., wearing ritual fringes or taking the lulav and the like, but one does not recite a blessing after its fulfillment. The Gemara asks: And according to the residents of the West, Eretz Yisrael, who recite the following blessing after they remove their phylacteries: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to keep His laws, what does this halakha in the mishna come to add? The Gemara answers: It serves to add the case of

Scroll To Top