Niddah 51b (נא:) — the Talmud in English

And as for shevet, which is subject to the mitzva of pe'a and is subject to the tithe, as we learned: Anything that is subject to pe'a is subject to the tithe. And since it is subject to the tithe, it contracts food impurity.

As explained in the Mishna.

Apparently, anything used for flavoring contracts food impurity, since this shevet is used for flavoring.

For it is not itself a food, but a spice.

And we raise a contradiction: Kusht, ḥimum, heads of spices, te'ia, ḥaltit, peppers, and safflower cake,

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

may be purchased with second-tithe money,

second,

but they do not contract food impurity; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to him:

In either case:

If they may be purchased with second-tithe money,

then they are considered food, and if so,

why do they not contract food impurity?

And if they do not contract impurity

because they are not considered food,

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

For with second tithe one may purchase only food.

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

Rav Ḥisda said: When that teaching was taught

that it is considered food,

it was referring to shevet prepared for kutaḥ,

which is crushed and added to the food into which people customarily dip bread, called kutaḥ, whose principal ingredient is shevet.

Thus, in this food, shevet is the principal ingredient of the food and is not merely a flavoring.

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

He said: Do not say

that only

shevet prepared

specifically

for kutaḥ

is considered food;

in an ordinary case,

of shevet,

it is

used to impart flavor in a

pot; rather, ordinary shevet is prepared for kutaḥ.

As we learned: Once shevet has imparted flavor to a pot, it has no status of teruma, and it does not contract food impurity.

Because all its flavor has left it, and from that point onward it is like wood.

This allows us to infer:

But before it has imparted

shevet

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

that ordinary shevet is intended for a pot,

then even before it imparts flavor, it is also ordinarily intended for a pot!

Rather, is it not evident from here that ordinary shevet is prepared for kutaḥ?

Indeed, learn from this.

Mishna:

Anything subject to the obligation of the first shearing is subject to the gifts,

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

And there are cases that are subject to the gifts but are not subject to the first shearing,

such as cattle and goats.

Anything that has

the mitzva of

removal

in the Sabbatical Year, when it is no longer available to an animal in the field,

has

the status of the sanctity of

the Sabbatical Year.

And there are cases that have

the sanctity of

the Sabbatical Year but do not have

the mitzva of

removal.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains that the distinction stated in the Mishna with regard to the Sabbatical Year applies even within a single plant,

such as the leaf of the wild arum and dandana,

which disappear from the field during the rainy season and possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year and are subject to the mitzva of removal when they are no longer available to an animal in the field.

Within this very plant,

there are parts 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 are not subject to removal.

The reason for this is

as it is written: “

And for your animal and for the wild animal in your land, all its produce shall be to eat.”

And we derive:

As long as an animal eats from the field, you may feed your domesticated animal from what is in the house.

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

And these

roots

do not perish.

Mishna:

a.

Every

fish

that has scales has fins. And there are

fish

that have fins but do not have scales.

b.

Every creature that has horns has hooves (

cloven hooves), because only a kosher animal has horns.

And there are creatures that have hooves but do not have horns,

such as the pig, whose hooves are split but which has no horns.

Gemara:

What we said in our Mishna,

Every creature that has scales

has fins, comes to teach us that it is a

kosher fish.

And what we said,

There are creatures that have fins but do not have scales,

comes to teach us that it is an

impure fish.

And we raise a difficulty:

After all, we rely on scales,

for anything that has scales necessarily has fins; if so,

why do I need the fins that the Torah wrote

as an additional sign of a kosher fish?

Why do I need it,

when the sign of scales alone suffices to prove that the fish also has fins?

And we explain:

If the Torah had not written

the additional sign of

fins, I would have said: What is the meaning of “

scales”

that is written? Fins

—that is, we would identify the “scales” mentioned in the Torah as fins—

and

we would declare pure

even an impure fish

that has fins. Therefore,

the Torah wrote

also

fins and

also

scales,

so that we would not come to permit an impure fish on the basis of fins alone.

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

in truth

that scales

are

a garment?

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

As it is written: “

And it was clothed in a coat of scales.”

We object: If so, now that 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 actual scales, and would not err and think that it means fins;

let the Torah write “scales” and not require “fins.”

And we answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

The verse added the word fins because

the Torah is thereby magnified and glorified!

Mishna:

Anything that requires a blessing afterward requires a blessing beforehand.

And there are things that require a blessing beforehand but do not require a blessing afterward.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses: This teaching that we learned, that there are things that require a blessing beforehand but do not require a blessing afterward,

what does it come to include?

It comes to include vegetables,

for one does not recite a concluding blessing after eating them.

And according to Rabbi Yitzḥak, who recites a blessing after vegetables,

a concluding blessing,

what does it come to include? It comes to include water,

after drinking which one does not recite a concluding blessing.

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

a concluding blessing,

what does it come to include?

It comes to include mitzvot,

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

And according to the people of the West,

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