Commentary for Niddah 101:46

מודים חכמים לר' עקיבא בזורע שבת או חרדל בשנים ושלשה מקומות שנותן פאה מכל אחד ואחד

which are liable to tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since intention in this respect (cf. prev. n. but one) is valid. ');">⁴³</span> and yet<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intention regarding attached produce being invalid in respect of susceptibility to uncleanness. ');">⁴⁴</span> do not become susceptible to the uncleanness of food?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then is Raba's statement to be reconciled with the Mishnah cited? ');">⁴⁵</span> — The fact is, said Raba, that it is this that was meant: Any species that is liable to tithe is susceptible to food uncleanness. This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba's interpretation just given. ');">⁴⁶</span> is also logically sound. For in the final clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah infra 51b which is the continuation of the previous Mishnah. ');">⁴⁷</span> it was stated, Whatsoever is subject to the law of the first of the fleece<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut, XVIII, 4. ');">⁴⁸</span> is also subject to that of the priestly gifts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw given from slaughtered cattle (cf. ibid. 3). ');">⁴⁹</span> but there may be a beast<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An ox or a goat. ');">⁵⁰</span> that is subject to the law of the priestly gifts and is not subject to that of the first of the fleece.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 51b. ');">⁵¹</span> Now if it were so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a general statement like 'whatsoever etc.' includes every individual case. ');">⁵²</span> [the objection would arise]: Is there not also the case of the <i>terefah</i> which is subject to the law of the first of the fleece and yet is not subject to that of the priestly gifts?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 136b. Must it not consequently be admitted, as Raba explained, that by the general rule (cf. prev. n.) the whole species was meant? ');">⁵³</span> — Rabina retorted: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah just cited. ');">⁵⁴</span> represents the view of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that whose? It is'. ');">⁵⁵</span> R. Simeon. For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. marg. gl. Cur. edd. 'for we learnt'. ');">⁵⁶</span> R. Simeon exempts the <i>terefah</i> from the law of the first of the fleece.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No proof, therefore, may be adduced from this Mishnah that a general rule refers to the entire species. ');">⁵⁷</span> R. Shimi b. Ashi replied,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Justifying Raba's submission (cf. prev. n. but four). ');">⁵⁸</span> Come and hear: If a man declared his vineyard hefker<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁵⁹</span> and, rising early in the morning, he cut its grapes, he is liable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reason cf. B.K. 94a. ');">⁶⁰</span> to peret,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Single grapes dropped during the cutting (cf. Lev. XIX, 10) which must be left for the poor. ');">⁶¹</span> 'oleloth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Gleanings' of the vineyards or a small single bunch of grapes on a single branch 'which are the portion of the poor (cf. Lev. XIX, 10 and Deut. XXIV, 21). ');">⁶²</span> the forgotten sheaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which had to be left for the poor (cf. Deut. XXIV, 19). ');">⁶³</span> and <i>pe'ah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Cf. Lev. XIX, 9. ');">⁶⁴</span> but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the vineyard is hefker. ');">⁶⁵</span> is exempt from tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ned. 44b. B.K, 94a. ');">⁶⁶</span> But have we not learnt: WHATSOEVER IS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF <i>PE'AH</i> IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THAT OF TITHES?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then are the two Tannaitic statements to be reconciled? ');">⁶⁷</span> Must you not then infer from this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. ');">⁶⁸</span> that the reference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the general rule, 'Whatsoever etc.'. ');">⁶⁹</span> was<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to each individual case. ');">⁷⁰</span> to the whole species?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course one must. Raba's submission is thus confirmed. ');">⁷¹</span> This is conclusive. Elsewhere we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is quoted here because an objection against it is raised from our Mishnah. ');">⁷²</span> The Sages agree with R. Akiba that if a man sowed dill or mustard seed in two or three different spots he must allow <i>pe'ah</i> from each.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pe'ah III, 2. ');">⁷³</span>

Explore commentary for Niddah 101:46. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.