Niddah 51a (נא.) — the Talmud in English

Rava said: This is what he is saying to him: No, if you say

with regard to severe ritual impurity, for

it

does not render

the object that becomes impure

like itself,

as a person who becomes impure through a carcass, which is a primary source of ritual impurity, becomes a first-degree source of ritual impurity, but does not render another person impure as the carcass rendered him impure.

Can you say with regard to

the ritual impurity of foods, which is

less severe, which renders

another food

like itself,

as food that became impure can in turn render other food impure by rabbinic ordinance.

Abaye said

to Rava: On the contrary,

it is all the more so: If with regard to severe ritual impurity, which is less stringent

in this respect,

that it does not render an object like itself, it renders without thought; with regard to lesser ritual impurity, which is more stringent

in this respect,

that it renders an object like itself, is it not logical that it renders without thought? Rather, Rav Sheshet said: This is what he is saying: No. If you say with regard to severe ritual impurity,

which is severe

because it does not require qualification, can you say with regard to the ritual impurity

of foods, which is

less severe,

which has this leniency

that it requires qualification

in order to become impure? Water must come upon it and a creeping creature must touch it.

And we challenged this:

Does

the carcass of a kosher bird

require qualification

in order to render food impure?

But we learned in the Mishna: Three matters were stated with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird: It requires thought

to eat it in order for it to become impure with the ritual impurity of foods;

and it does not render

the person who eats it or his garments impure

unless

it is

in the throat, and it does not require qualification

to render food impure.

And we answered:

Although

the qualification

of a creeping creature

that would render it impure

is not required,

and it is impure by virtue of itself, because ultimately it will render someone impure with severe ritual impurity,

water qualification is required.

For every food, until water has come upon it, is not considered food and cannot become impure.

And we considered this:

What is different about the qualification of a creeping creature, which is not required, as taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael,

so

the qualification of water should likewise not be required, as taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael!

As the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning the ritual impurity of foods,

“Upon every seed for sowing that is sown,”

just as seeds, which will not ultimately render someone impure with severe ritual impurity,

as food can never render a person impure,

require qualification, so too, anything that will not ultimately render someone impure with severe ritual impurity requires qualification.

The carcass of a kosher bird is excluded, as it will ultimately render

the person who eats it impure while it is in his throat with

severe ritual impurity, and it does not require qualification.

And just as the qualification of a creeping creature was excluded, so too the qualification of water was excluded.

Rather, Rava said—and some say Rav Pappa said:

This is how the Rabbis stated their response to the kal va-chomer of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri:

No severe ritual impurity in the world, no lesser ritual impurity in the world.

That is to say, it is true that the carcass of a kosher bird does not require thought; nevertheless, in principle, severe ritual impurity is more stringent than the lesser ritual impurity of foods, for the ritual impurity of foods requires thought everywhere [except in the case of the carcass of a kosher bird], whereas severe ritual impurity never requires thought. Therefore, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri’s kal va-chomer has no basis.

Rava said: And Rabbi Yohanan concedes,

who stated earlier, with regard to garden endive that was sown for an animal and then one reconsidered and designated it for a person, that thought while it was attached is not considered thought with regard to the ritual impurity of foods, and that one must think about it again for human consumption once it is detached—he concedes

with regard to the tithe, that thought while it is attached is considered thought,

to obligate it in the tithe as food for human consumption, even if he does not think about it again when it is detached.

Rava said: From where do I say this? As we learned: Savory, hyssop, and thyme that are in a courtyard, if they are guarded

and the Gemara now understands that this means that they were guarded for human consumption,

they are obligated

in the tithe.

What are the circumstances?

If you say that he initially sowed them for a person,

is it

necessary to say

that they are obligated in the tithe?

Rather, is it not that he initially sowed them for an animal? And it teaches: If they are guarded,

meaning that he reconsidered and returned to guarding them for human consumption, they are obligated in the tithe.

Rav Ashi said: Here we are dealing with a courtyard in which they grew on their own. And ordinarily, they stand for human consumption. And this is what it is saying:

only

if the courtyard guards its produce,

meaning that it is not ownerless,

are they obligated; but if not, they are exempt,

as is the law with regard to ownerless produce.

Rav Ashi raised an objection:

We learned in the Mishna on the preceding page:

Anything that is obligated in tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of foods.

And if it is so, there are these

garden endives that he sowed for an animal and designated for human consumption only while they were still attached,

which are obligated

according to Rabbi Yohanan

in the tithe, but do not become impure with the ritual impurity of foods!

Rava said: This is what it is saying: Every species that is obligated in the tithe becomes impure with the ritual impurity of foods.

This too is logical. For it is taught in the latter clause: Anything that is obligated in the first shearing is obligated in the gifts, and there are those that are obligated in the gifts

such as cattle

but are not obligated in the first shearing.

And if it is so, there is

an animal that is

a tereifa, which is obligated in the first shearing but is not obligated in the gifts!

Rather, this is proof that the species of animal is taken into consideration, rather than a particular case.

Ravina said:

This is not a proof, for I can say:

Who is the author of this? It is Rabbi Shimon.

As we learned: Rabbi Shimon exempts a tereifa from the first shearing.

According to his view, a tereifa is exempt both from the gifts and from the first shearing.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said, Come and hear: One who declares his vineyard ownerless, and rises early in the morning and harvests it, is obligated in the isolated grapes, the incompletely formed clusters, the forgotten produce, and the corner of the field.

By means of a special scriptural inclusion [see Rashi].

But he is exempt from the tithe.

But we learned: Anything that is obligated in the corner of the field is obligated in tithes!

Rather, learn from it: It teaches about a species; learn from it.

We learned there: The Sages agree,

those who hold that in a “speckled” field [that is, one in which he picked the mature stalks and left those that still needed to grow, making the field look like a “leopard,” with scattered patches here and there], one separates the corner of the field from only one side, and need not separate a separate corner from each section of the field—they too agree

with Rabbi Akiva,

who obligates separating the corner of the field from each section,

when one sows savory

a particular plant

or mustard in two or three places, that he gives the corner of the field from each one and one.