Niddah 51a — the Talmud in English

Rava said: This is what they said to him: No, if you said ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

with regard to severe impurity, for

it

does not make

the object that becomes impure

like itself,

for a person who becomes impure through an animal carcass, which is a primary source of impurity, becomes a first degree of impurity and does not impart impurity to another person as the carcass rendered him impure.

Would you say with regard to the impurity

of foods, the

lesser one, which makes

another food

like itself,

for food that became impure again imparts impurity to another food by rabbinic ordinance.

Abaye said

to Rava: On the contrary,

it is all the more so: Just as severe impurity, which is lenient

in this respect

that it does not make an object like itself, renders impure without intent. Lesser impurity, which is stringent

in this respect

that it makes an object like itself, is it not all the more so that it renders impure without intent? Rather, Rav Sheshet said: This is what he said: No. If you said with regard to severe impurity,

which is severe

because it does not require preparation, would you say with regard to the impurity

of foods, the

lesser one,

which has this leniency

that it requires preparation

in order to become impure. For water must come upon it and a creeping creature must touch it.

And we challenged this:

But does

the carcass of a kosher bird

require preparation

in order that it render impure with the impurity of foods?

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

to eat it in order that it render impure with the impurity of foods,

and it does not render impure

the person who eats it and his garments

unless

it is

in the gullet, and it does not require preparation

to render impurity with the impurity of foods.

And we answered:

Granted that

the preparation

of a creeping creature

which would render it impure

it does not require,

and it is impure in itself because ultimately it renders severe impurity, but

it does require preparation by water.

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

And we considered this:

What is different about the preparation by a creeping creature, which it does not require, as the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught,

if so

it should likewise not require preparation by water, as the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught!

As the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

It is stated in the section concerning the impurity of foods, “

upon every seed for sowing that is sown”:

Just as seeds, which do not ultimately render severe impurity,

for food never renders a person impure,

require preparation, so too everything that does not ultimately render severe impurity requires preparation.

The carcass of a kosher bird is excluded, for it ultimately renders

the person who eats it, when it is in the gullet,

severe impurity, and it does not require preparation.

And just as preparation by a creeping creature was excluded, preparation by water was likewise excluded.

Rather, Rava said—and some say Rav Pappa:

This is what the Sages said in order to reject the kal va-chomer of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri:

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

And this means: It is indeed correct that the carcass of a kosher bird does not require intent, but in principle severe impurity is more severe than the lesser impurity of foods, for the impurity of foods requires intent everywhere [except for the carcass of a kosher bird], whereas severe impurity never requires intent. Therefore there is no basis for the kal va-chomer of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

Rava said: And Rabbi Yohanan concedes,

who said above with regard to endives that one sowed for an animal and reconsidered for a person, that intent while they were attached is not considered intent with regard to the impurity of foods, but one must return and form intent concerning them for human consumption when they are detached; he concedes

with regard to the tithe, that intent while attached is considered intent,

to obligate them in the tithe according to the law of human food, even if he does not return and form intent when they are detached.

Rava said: From where do I say this? For we learned: The hyssop, the mint, and the savory that are in the courtyard, if they were 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 we say that he sowed them initially for a person,

is it

necessary to say

that they are obligated in the tithe?

Rather, is it not that he sowed them initially for an animal? And it teaches: If they were 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 [plants] that grew by themselves in a courtyard. And ordinarily, they stand for human consumption. And this is what he said:

Only

if the courtyard guards its produce

meaning that it is not ownerless,

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

according to the law of ownerless property.

Rav Ashi raised an objection:

We learned in the Mishna on the previous page:

Everything that is obligated in tithes renders impurity with the impurity of foods.

And if it is so, there are these

endives that he sowed for an animal and reconsidered concerning them only while they were attached,

which are obligated

according to Rabbi Yohanan

in the tithe, but do not render impurity with the impurity of foods!

Rava said: This is what he said: Every species that is obligated in the tithe renders impurity with the impurity of foods.

This too is reasonably indicated. Since it teaches in the latter clause: Everything 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

a

terefa animal, which is obligated in the first shearing but is not obligated in the gifts!

Rather, this is proof that the species of the animal is taken into consideration, and not a particular case.

Ravina said:

This is not a proof, for I can say:

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

For we learned: Rabbi Shimon exempts a terefa from the first shearing.

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

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said, ta shma: One who declares his vineyard ownerless, and rose early in the morning and harvested it, is obligated with regard to peret, olelot, shikheha, and peah

by virtue of a special amplification from a verse [see Rashi].

And he is exempt from the tithe.

But we learned: Everything that is obligated in peah is obligated in tithes!

Rather, learn from it: It teaches the species; learn from it.

We learned there: The Sages agree,

those who hold that from a “leopard-spotted” field [that is, one from which he picked the mature stalks and left those that still needed to grow, so that the field appears like a “leopard,” with scattered patches here and there], one separates peah from only one side, and it is not necessary to separate a separate peah from every part of the field—they too agree

with Rabbi Akiva,

who obligates separating peah from every part of the field,

when one sows savory

a particular plant

or mustard in two or three places, that he gives peah from each and every one.