Niddah 51b

וְהָא שֶׁבֶת דְּמִיחַיַּיב בְּפֵאָה וּמִיחַיַּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, דִּתְנַן: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיב בַּפֵּאָה חַיָּיב בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר.

The Gemara asks: But with regard to dill, from which one is obligated to designate pe’a , as stated in the mishna, one must also be obligated to separate tithe, since if the obligation of pe’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 pe’a , one is likewise obligated to separate tithe.

וּמִדְּחַיָּיב בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר — מִטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין, אַלְמָא: כֹּל מִילֵּי דַּעֲבִיד לְטַעְמָא — מִטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין, דְּהַאי שֶׁבֶת לְטַעְמָא עֲבִידָא.

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.

וּרְמִינְהִי: הַקּוֹשְׁטְ, וְהַחִימּוּם, וְרָאשֵׁי בְשָׂמִים, וְהַתִּיאָה, וְהַחִלְתִּית, וְהַפִּלְפְּלִים, וְחַלַּת חָרִיעַ — נִקָּחִין בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וְאֵין מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

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.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: אִם נִקָּחִין בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין? וְאִם אֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין, אַף הֵם לֹא יִלָּקְחוּ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר!

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ שֶׁאֵין נִקָּחִין בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וְאֵין מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כִּי תַנְיָא הַהִיא — בְּשֶׁבֶת הָעֲשׂוּיָה לְכָמָךְ.

Rav Ḥisda 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, kutaḥ , which is used as a dip.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּיה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, (אֲמַר): לָא תֵּימָא בְּשֶׁבֶת הָעֲשׂוּיָה לְכָמָךְ, הָא סְתָמָא לִקְדֵרָה, אֶלָּא סְתָם שֶׁבֶת לְכָמָךְ עֲשׂוּיָה, דִּתְנַן: הַשֶּׁבֶת מִשֶּׁנָּתְנָה טַעַם בַּקְּדֵרָה — אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה, וְאֵינָהּ מִטַּמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין.

Rav Ashi said: I said this halakha of Rav Ḥisda’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.

הָא, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתְנָה טַעַם בַּקְּדֵרָה — יֵשׁ בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה, וּמִטַּמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ סְתָמָא לִקְדֵרָה — כִּי לֹא נָתְנָה נָמֵי סְתָמָא לִקְדֵרָה! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ סְתָמָא לְכָמָךְ עֲשׂוּיָה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.

מַתְנִי' כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז — חַיָּיב בַּמַּתָּנוֹת, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁחַיָּיב בַּמַּתָּנוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.

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.

כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בִּיעוּר — יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית — וְאֵין לוֹ בִּיעוּר.

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.

גְּמָ' כְּגוֹן עֲלֵה הַלּוּף שׁוֹטֶה וְהַדַּנְדַּנָּה, יֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית וְאֵין לוֹ בִּיעוּר, עִיקַּר הַלּוּף שׁוֹטֶה וְעִיקַּר הַדַּנְדַּנָּה.

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.

דִּכְתִיב ״וְלִבְהֶמְתְּךָ וְלַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר בְּאַרְצֶךָ תִּהְיֶה כׇל תְּבוּאָתָהּ לֶאֱכֹל״, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁחַיָּה אוֹכֶלֶת מִן הַשָּׂדֶה — אַתָּה מַאֲכִיל לִבְהֶמְתֶּךָ בַּבַּיִת, כָּלָה לַחַיָּה מִן הַשָּׂדֶה — כַּלֵּה לִבְהֶמְתֶּךָ שֶׁבַּבַּיִת, וְהָנֵי לָא כָּלוּ לְהוּ.

The Gemara explains that it is written in connection to the Sabbatical Year: “And for the cattle and the beasts that are in your land, all its produce may be eaten” (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.

מַתְנִי' כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת — יֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַרְנַיִם — יֵשׁ לוֹ טְלָפַיִם, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ טְלָפַיִם וְאֵין לוֹ קַרְנַיִם.

MISHNA: It is written: “Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, you may eat them” (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: “Whatever parts the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eat” (Leviticus 11:3). Any animal that has horns has hooves; and there are animals that have hooves but do not have horns.

גְּמָ' כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת — דָּג טָהוֹר, יֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת — דָּג טָמֵא. מִכְּדֵי אֲנַן אַקַּשְׂקֶשֶׂת סָמְכִינַן, ״סְנַפִּיר״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?

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?

אִי לָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא סְנַפִּיר, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי ״קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת״ דִּכְתִיב? סְנַפִּיר, וַאֲפִילּוּ דָּג טָמֵא — כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת״.

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.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת, מְנָלַן דְּקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת לְבוּשָׁא הוּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשִׁרְיוֹן קַשְׂקַשִּׂים הוּא לָבוּשׁ״.

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: “And he was clad with a coat of mail [ kaskasim ]” (I Samuel 17:5).

וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת״ וְלָא בָּעֵי סְנַפִּיר! אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר״.

The Gemara asks: But if there is proof that kaskeset means scales, the question returns: Let the Merciful One write only “scales” and then there would be no need to write “fins.” Rabbi Abbahu says, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that this is in accordance with the verse: “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make Torah great and glorious” (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.

מַתְנִי' כֹּל הַטָּעוּן בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרָיו — טָעוּן בְּרָכָה לְפָנָיו, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁטָּעוּן בְּרָכָה לְפָנָיו וְאֵין טָעוּן בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרָיו.

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.

גְּמָ' לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי יָרָק. וּלְרַבִּי יִצְחָק דִּמְבָרֵךְ אַיָּרָק, לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַיָּא.

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 Yitzḥak, 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.

וּלְרַב פָּפָּא דִּמְבָרֵךְ אַמַּיָּא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי מִצְוֹת. וְלִבְנֵי מַעְרְבָא דִּמְבָרְכִי בָּתַר דְּסַלִּיקוּ תְּפִילַּיְיהוּ ״אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לִשְׁמוֹר חוּקָּיו״, לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי

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