Niddah 51b — the Talmud in English

And as for Shabbat, which is obligated in pe'a and is obligated in tithing—for we learned: Everything that is obligated in pe'a is obligated in tithing. And since it is obligated in tithing, it contracts the ritual impurity of food.

As explained in the Mishna.

It follows: Everything that is made to impart flavor contracts the ritual impurity of food, for this Shabbat is made to impart flavor.

For this is not food, but a spice.

And we raise an objection: Kusht, himum, heads of spices, te'ya, haltit, peppers, and safflower cake,

spices made to impart flavor to food, but which are not themselves food,

may be purchased with second-tithe money

of the second tithe,

but they do not contract the ritual impurity of food—these are the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him:

Whichever way you look at it:

if they may be purchased with second-tithe money

then they are considered food, and if so,

why do they not contract the ritual impurity of food?

And if they do not contract impurity

because they are not considered food,

then they too should not be purchased with second-tithe money!

For with second-tithe money it is permitted to purchase only food.

And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: They counted and concluded that they may not be purchased with second-tithe money, and they do not contract the ritual impurity of food.

Rav Hisda said: When that was taught

that it is considered food,

it was with regard to Shabbat made for kotah,

which is crushed and placed in the food in which people customarily dip bread, called koteh, whose principal ingredient is Shabbat.

And it follows that in this food the Shabbat is the principal part of the food, and is not merely flavor.

Rav Ashi said: I stated this teaching before Rav Kahana:

He said: Do not say

that only

in Shabbat made

specifically

for kotah

is it considered food,

but ordinarily

Shabbat

is for

imparting flavor in

a pot; rather, ordinary Shabbat is made for kotah.

For we learned: Once Shabbat has imparted flavor in a pot, there is no status of teruma to it, and it does not contract the ritual impurity of food.

Because all its flavor has departed from it, and from this point onward it is like wood.

And from here one must infer:

before it has imparted

Shabbat

flavor in a pot, it has the status of teruma and contracts the ritual impurity of food. And if it enters your mind

that Shabbat

ordinarily is for a pot, then even when it has not yet imparted flavor, it is ordinarily for a pot!

Rather, is it not to be inferred from this that ordinarily it is made for kotah.

It is to be inferred.

Mishna:

Everything that is subject to the obligation of the first shearing is subject to the obligation of the gifts,

the foreleg, the cheeks, and the stomach given to a kohen.

And there are things that are subject to the obligation of the gifts but are not subject to the obligation of the first shearing,

such as cattle and goats.

Everything that has

the mitzvot of

removal

in the Sabbatical year, when it is no longer available to the wild animal in the field,

has

the status of the sanctity of

the Sabbatical year.

And there are things that have

the sanctity of

the Sabbatical year but do not have

the mitzvot of

removal.

Gemara:

And the Gemara explains that the distinction in law stated in the Mishna with regard to the Sabbatical year does apply to one plant,

for example, the leaf of the wild arum and the dandana,

which disappear from the field during the rainy season, and which have the sanctity of the Sabbatical year and have the mitzva of removal when they are no longer available to the wild animal in the field.

And with this very plant

there are things that have the Sabbatical year but do not have removal: the root of the wild arum and the root of the dandana,

which do not disappear from the field even when the rainy season arrives, because they are rooted in the ground; therefore they do not have removal.

And the reason for this matter is

as it is written: “

And for your animal and for the wild animal that is in your land, all its produce shall be for eating.”

And we expound:

As long as the wild animal eats from the field, you feed your animal in the house.

When it is no longer available to the wild animal in the field, it is no longer available to your animal in the house.

And these

roots

do not perish.

Mishna:

a.

Every

fish

that has scales has fins. And there is

a fish

that has fins but does not have scales.

b.

Everything that has horns has hooves (

split hooves), because only a pure animal has horns.

And there are things that have hooves but do not have horns, such as a pig, whose hooves are split but which has no horns. Gemara:

This statement that we said in our Mishna,

Everything that has scales

has fins, comes to teach us that it is a

pure fish.

And this statement that we said,

There is one that has fins but does not have scales

comes to teach us that it is an

impure fish.

And we are astonished:

Since we rely on scales

for everything that has scales necessarily has fins, and if so,

the fins that the Merciful One wrote

as an additional sign of a pure fish,

why do I need them,

for the sign of scales is sufficient for us, since it proves that the fish also has fins?

And we explain:

Had the Merciful One not written

also the sign of

fins, I would have said: What is

“

scales”

that is written? Fins [

for we would have identified the scales mentioned in the Torah as fins],

and

we would have declared

even an impure fish

pure if it had fins. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

also

fins and

also

scales,

and we will not come to permit an impure fish on the basis of fins alone.

And now that the Merciful One wrote fins and scales, from where do we know

in fact

that scales

are

a garment

of the fish? Perhaps the fins are the garment, and the scales are the fish's wing with which it swims? That is, from where is it obvious to us that the meaning of the word “scales” is what we call scales?

As it is written: “

And he is clothed in a coat of scales.”

And we refute this: If so, since we know the meaning of the word, the previous question returns: Let the Torah write only “scales,” and we would know that scales are the garment, meaning scales, and we would not err and think that it means fins.

And let the Merciful One write scales and not require fins.

And we answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said, and likewise a tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

The verse added to write fins in order to say:

“It makes the Torah great and glorious!”

Mishna:

Everything that requires a blessing after it requires a blessing before it.

And there are things that require a blessing before them but do not require a blessing after them.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses: This matter that we learned, that there are things that require a blessing before them but do not require a blessing after them,

to include what?

To include vegetables,

for one does not recite an after-blessing after them.

And according to Rabbi Yitzhak, who recites a blessing over vegetables

an after-blessing,

to include what? To include water,

for one does not recite an after-blessing after drinking it.

And according to Rav Pappa, who recites a blessing over water

an after-blessing,

to include what?

To include mitzvot,

for one recites a blessing over them before performing them, but one does not recite an additional blessing over them after completing their performance.

And according to the people of the West,

who recite a blessing after removing their phylacteries, “Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to observe His statutes,” to include what?

who recite a blessing after removing their phylacteries: “Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to observe His statutes,” what does it come to include?