Niddah 101

Chapter 101

א בטומאה חמורה שכן אינה עושה כיוצא בה תאמר בטומאה קלה שעושה כיוצא בה

1 in the case of a major uncleanness which never causes an uncleanness of the same grade,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a carcass (a 'father of uncleanness'), for instance, imparted uncleanness to a person the latter cannot impart it to another person, since only a 'father of uncleanness' can carry uncleanness to persons. ');">1

ב אמר ליה אביי כל דכן הוא ומה טומאה חמורה דקילא דאינה עושה כיוצא בה מטמאה שלא במחשבה טומאה קלה דחמירא דעושה כיוצא בה אינו דין שמטמאה שלא במחשבה

2 would you also maintain it in the case of a minor uncleanness which does cause an uncleanness of the same grade?'2 Said Abaye to him: [Should not this3 apply to the latter] with even more reason: If a major uncleanness, concerning which the law has been relaxed in that it does not cause an uncleanness of the same grade,4

ג אלא אמר רב ששת הכי קאמר לא אם אמרת בטומאה חמורה שכן אינה צריכה הכשר תאמר בטומאה קלה שצריכה הכשר

3 conveys uncleanness in the absence of intention, how much more then should a minor uncleanness, concerning which the law has been restricted in that it does cause uncleanness of the same grade,5 convey uncleanness even where there was no intention? — Rather, said R. Shesheth, It is this that they6

ד ומי צריכה הכשר והתנן שלשה דברים נאמרו בנבלת עוף טהור צריכה מחשבה ואינה מטמאה אלא בבית הבליעה ואינה צריכה הכשר

4 implied: 'No; if you maintain your view7 in the case of a major uncleanness, which need not be rendered susceptible,8 would you also maintain it7

ה נהי דהכשר שרץ לא בעיא הכשר מים בעיא

5 in the case of a minor uncleanness which does require to be rendered susceptible?' But is it required to be rendered susceptible? Have we not in fact learnt:9

ו מאי שנא הכשר שרץ דלא בעיא כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל הכשר מים נמי לא תבעי כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל

6 Three10

ז דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא יא, לז) על כל זרע זרוע אשר יזרע

7 things have been said about the carrion of a clean bird,11 it is necessary that it should be intended for food, it conveys uncleanness through the oesophagus only,12

ח מה זרעים שאין סופן לטמא טומאה חמורה צריכין הכשר אף כל שאין סופן לטמא טומאה חמורה צריכין הכשר יצתה נבלת עוף טהור שסופה לטמא טומאה חמורה שאין צריך הכשר

ט אלא אמר רבא ואיתימא רב פפא שום טומאה חמורה בעולם שום טומאה קלה בעולם

9 and there is no need for it to be rendered susceptible?13 — Granted that it is not required that a dead creeping thing shall render it susceptible,14

י אמר רבא ומודה רבי יוחנן לענין מעשר דמחשבת חיבור שמה מחשבה אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתנן הסיאה והאזוב והקורנית שבחצר אם היו נשמרין חייבין

10 it is nevertheless necessary that it shall be rendered susceptible15 by means of water.16 Why17 is it not required that a dead creeping thing shall render it susceptible? In agreement with what the school of R. Ishmael taught. But then there should be no need for it to be rendered susceptible by means of water also in agreement with what the school of R. Ishmael taught; for the school of R. Ishmael taught: Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown,18

יא היכי דמי אילימא דזרעינהו מתחלה לאדם צריכא למימר אלא לאו דזרעינהו מתחלה לבהמה וקתני אם היו נשמרין חייבין

11 as seeds15 which do not eventually contract a major uncleanness19 must20 be rendered susceptible so must any other thing which does not eventually contract a major uncleanness be rendered susceptible; the carcass of a clean bird is excluded, in that it need not be rendered susceptible, since it eventually contracts a major uncleanness?21

יב אמר רב אשי הכא בחצר שעלו מאיליהן עסקינן וסתמא לאדם קיימי והכי קאמר אם החצר משמרת פירותיה חייבין ואם לאו פטורין

12 — Rather, replied Raba, or as some say R. Papa, [the reference22 is to] a major uncleanness in general and to a minor uncleanness in general.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the former susceptibility is never required; hence it is that no intention is required either. In the case of the latter susceptibility is usually (though not in the particular case of a bird) required; hence it is that intention also is necessary. ');">23 Raba stated: R. Johanan,24 however, agrees in regard to tithe that intention25

יג מתיב רב אשי כל שחייבין במעשרות מטמאין טומאת אוכלין ואם איתא הא איכא הני דקחייבין במעשר ואין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין

13 concerning attached [produce] is a valid intention.26 Raba explained, Whence do I derive this? From what we learnt: Savory,27 hyssop and calamint28

יד אמר רבא הכי קאמר כל מין שחייב במעשר מטמא טומאת אוכלין

14 that are grown in a courtyard, if they are kept under watch,29 are subject to tithe.30

טו ה"נ מסתברא מדקתני סיפא כל שחייב בראשית הגז חייב במתנות ויש שחייב במתנות ואין חייב בראשית הגז

15 Now how are we to imagine the circumstances?31 If it be suggested that these herbs were originally sown for human consumption [the difficulty would arise]: Was it at all necessary to enunciate such a law?32

טז ואם איתא האיכא טרפה דחייבת בראשית הגז ואינה חייבת במתנות

16 Consequently the circumstances must be such, must they not, that the herbs were originally sown for cattle food; and yet it was stated, 'if they are kept under watch'33

יז אמר רבינא הא מני רבי שמעון היא דתנן ר"ש פוטר את הטרפה מראשית הגז

17 they 'are subject to tithe'.34 R. Ashi retorted: Here30 we are dealing with a courtyard in which the herbs grew spontaneously35

יח אמר רב שימי בר אשי תא שמע המפקיר את כרמו והשכים בבקר ובצרו חייב בפרט ובעוללות ובשכחה ובפאה ופטור מן המעשר

18 so that as a rule they are destined for human consumption, and36 it is this that was meant: If the courtyard affords protection for the produce it grows37

יט והא אנן תנן כל שחייב בפאה חייב במעשרות אלא לאו שמע מינה מין קתני שמע מינה

19 the herbs are subject to tithe; otherwise they are exempt.38 R. Ashi objected:39 Whatsoever is subject to tithes is susceptible to food uncleanness.40 Now if that were so,41

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

20 would there not be the case of these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Endives sown for the purpose of producing cattle food concerning which the grower changed his mind, while they were still attached to the ground, and decided to use the crop as food for human consumption. ');">42 which are liable to tithe43 and yet44 do not become susceptible to the uncleanness of food?45 — The fact is, said Raba, that it is this that was meant: Any species that is liable to tithe is susceptible to food uncleanness. This46 is also logically sound. For in the final clause47 it was stated, Whatsoever is subject to the law of the first of the fleece48 is also subject to that of the priestly gifts49 but there may be a beast50 that is subject to the law of the priestly gifts and is not subject to that of the first of the fleece.51 Now if it were so52 [the objection would arise]: Is there not also the case of the terefah which is subject to the law of the first of the fleece and yet is not subject to that of the priestly gifts?53 — Rabina retorted: This54 represents the view of55 R. Simeon. For it was taught:56 R. Simeon exempts the terefah from the law of the first of the fleece.57 R. Shimi b. Ashi replied,58 Come and hear: If a man declared his vineyard hefker59 and, rising early in the morning, he cut its grapes, he is liable60 to peret,61 'oleloth,62 the forgotten sheaf63 and pe'ah64 but65 is exempt from tithe.66 But have we not learnt: WHATSOEVER IS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF PE'AH IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THAT OF TITHES?67 Must you not then infer from this68 that the reference69 was70 to the whole species?71 This is conclusive. Elsewhere we have learnt:72 The Sages agree with R. Akiba that if a man sowed dill or mustard seed in two or three different spots he must allow pe'ah from each.73

Previous Chapter Next Chapter