Niddah 102

והא שבת דמיחייב בפאה ומיחייב במעשר דתנן

Now dill, surely, since it is liable to <i>pe'ah</i> is also liable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. BaH. ');">¹</span>

כל שחייב בפאה חייב במעשר

to tithe, for we have learnt, WHATSOEVER IS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF <i>PE'AH</i> IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THAT OF TITHES; and since it is liable to tithe it is also susceptible to food uncleanness. It is accordingly evident that anything that is used as a flavouring is susceptible to food uncleanness, since dill is used as a flavouring. But is not this incongruous with the following: 'Castus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [G], a fragrant root, ');">²</span>

ומדחייב במעשר מטמא טומאת אוכלין אלמא

amomum,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. [G], a spice indigenous to India and Syria. ');">³</span>

כל מילי דעביד לטעמא מטמא טומאת אוכלין דהאי שבת לטעמא עבידא

and the principal spices, crowfoot, asafoetida, pepper and lozenges of bastard safron may be bought with second tithe money but they are not susceptible to food uncleanness; so R. Akiba. Said R. Johanan b. Nuri to him: If they may be bought with second tithe money why are they not susceptible to food uncleanness? And if they are not susceptible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To food uncleanness, which is evidence that they are not regarded as a foodstuff. ');">⁴</span>

ורמינהי

they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since only foodstuffs may be bought with second tithe money. ');">⁵</span>

הקושט והחימום וראשי בשמים והתיאה והחלתית והפלפלים וחלת חריע נקחין בכסף מעשר ואין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין דברי רבי עקיבא

should not be bought with second tithe money',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Uk. III, 5. ');">⁶</span>

אמר לו רבי יוחנן בן נורי

and in connection with this R. Johanan b. Nuri stated, 'A vote was taken and they decided that these are not to be bought with second tithe money and that they are not susceptible to food uncleanness'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now how is this Mishnah (from which it follows that flavouring spices are not susceptible to food uncleanness) to be reconciled with the inference drawn supra from the Mishnah of Pe'ah III, 2? ');">⁷</span>

אם נקחין בכסף מעשר מפני מה אין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין

— R. Hisda replied: When that Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Pe'ah, from which it was inferred that dill is regarded as food. ');">⁸</span>

ואם אינן מטמאין אף הם לא ילקחו בכסף מעשר

was taught the reference was to dill intended as an ingredient<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not as a mere flavouring. ');">⁹</span>

וא"ר יוחנן בן נורי

of kamak.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A milk sauce. Such dill is rightly regarded as a foodstuff and is consequently susceptible to food uncleanness. ');">¹⁰</span>

נמנו וגמרו שאין נקחין בכסף מעשר ואין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין

R. Ashi stated, I submitted the following argument before R. Kahana:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. in parenthesis add, 'he said'. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב חסדא

Do not say, 'The reference was to dill intended<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on this word. ');">¹²</span>

כי תניא ההיא בשבת העשויה לכמך

as an ingredient of kamak', from which it would follow that generally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the owner's intention has not been expressed. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רב אשי אמריתה לשמעתי' קמיה דרב כהנא

it is used as flavouring matter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for (the flavouring of) the dish', and should, therefore, be exempt from food uncleanness. ');">¹⁴</span>

(אמר) לא תימא בשבת העשויה לכמך הא סתמא לקדרה אלא סתם שבת לכמך עשויה דתנן

but rather that dill is generally intended as an ingredient of kamak.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so subject to all the laws of a foodstuff. ');">¹⁵</span>

השבת משנתנה טעם בקדרה אין בה משום תרומה ואינה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין

For we have learnt: Dill,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of terumah. ');">¹⁶</span>

הא עד שלא נתנה טעם בקדרה יש בה משום תרומה ומטמאה טומאת אוכלין

as soon as it has imparted some flavour to a dish, is no longer subject to the restrictions of <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should the root subsequently fall into a dish of ordinary food no complications would arise. ');">¹⁷</span>

ואי ס"ד סתמא לקדרה כי לא נתנה נמי סתמא לקדרה

and it is no longer susceptible to food uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Uk. III, 4; it being regarded as mere flavouring matter. ');">¹⁸</span>

אלא לאו ש"מ סתמא לכמך עשויה

From which it follows that before it had imparted any flavour to a dish it is subject to the restrictions of <i>terumah</i> and is susceptible to food uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is regarded as food. ');">¹⁹</span>

ש"מ

Now if you were to imagine that as a rule it is used for flavouring<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for (the flavouring of) the dish', and should, therefore, be exempt from food uncleanness. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל שחייב בראשית הגז חייב במתנות ויש שחייב במתנות ואינו חייב בראשית הגז

[the difficulty would arise]: Even if it had not imparted any flavour to a dish [should it not be free from the restrictions of food since] as a rule it is used for flavouring?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it should. Why then was its exemption from the restrictions made dependent on the imparting of some flavour to a dish? ');">²⁰</span>

כל שיש לו ביעור יש לו שביעית ויש שיש לו שביעית ואין לו ביעור

Must you not then infer from this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Prev. n, ');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> כגון עלה הלוף שוטה והדנדנה יש שיש לו שביעית ואין לו ביעור עיקר הלוף שוטה ועיקר הדנדנה

that generally it is used as an ingredient of kamak?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so subject to all the laws of a foodstuff. ');">¹⁵</span>

דכתיב (ויקרא כה, ז) ולבהמתך ולחיה אשר בארצך תהיה כל תבואתה לאכול כל זמן שחיה אוכלת מן השדה אתה מאכיל לבהמתך בבית כלה לחיה מן השדה כלה לבהמתך שבבית והני לא כלו להו

This is conclusive.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל שיש לו קשקשת יש לו סנפיר ויש שיש לו סנפיר ואין לו קשקשת

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHATSOEVER IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XVIII, 4. ');">²²</span>

כל שיש לו קרנים יש לו טלפים ויש שיש לו טלפים ואין לו קרנים

IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THAT OF THE PRIESTLY GIFTS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw that are due to the priest from slaughtered cattle (cf. Deut. XVIII, 3). ');">²³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> כל שיש לו קשקשת דג טהור יש שיש לו סנפיר ואין לו קשקשת דג טמא

BUT THERE MAY BE [A BEAST]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An ox or a goat. ');">²⁴</span>

מכדי אנן אקשקשת סמכינן סנפיר דכתב רחמנא למה לי

THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE PRIESTLY GIFTS AND NOT TO THAT OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE. WHATSOEVER IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF REMOVAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Sabbatical year. When no produce is left in the field for the beasts the owner must remove all stored produce from his house into the field (cf. Deut. XXVI, 13). ');">²⁵</span>

אי לא כתב רחמנא סנפיר הוה אמינא

IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE SABBATICAL YEAR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXV, 2ff. ');">²⁶</span>

מאי קשקשת דכתיב סנפיר ואפילו דג טמא כתב רחמנא סנפיר וקשקשת

BUT THERE IS [A KIND OR PRODUCE] THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE SABBATICAL YEAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXV, 2ff. ');">²⁶</span>

והשתא דכתב רחמנא סנפיר וקשקשת מנלן דקשקשת לבושא הוא

AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF REMOVAL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Sabbatical year. When no produce is left in the field for the beasts the owner must remove all stored produce from his house into the field (cf. Deut. XXVI, 13). ');">²⁵</span>

דכתיב (שמואל א יז, ה) ושריון קשקשים הוא לבוש

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. As, for instance, the leaves of arum and of miltwaste.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These and similar products are SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF REMOVAL since (cf. infra) their supply is exhausted before the end of the year, and also TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE SABBATICAL YEAR. ');">²⁷</span>

ולכתוב רחמנא קשקשת ולא בעי סנפיר

THERE IS A KIND OF PRODUCE THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE SABBATICAL YEAR AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF REMOVAL, the root of the arum and the root of miltwaste, since it is written in Scripture, And for thy cattle and for the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be for food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 7. ');">²⁸</span>

א"ר אבהו וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל

as long as 'the beasts' eat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Okeleth of the same rt. as le'ekol (rendered supra, for food'). ');">²⁹</span>

(ישעיהו מב, כא) יגדיל תורה ויאדיר

from the field you may feed 'thy cattle' in the house, but when the produce comes to an end for 'the beasts' in the field you must bring it to an end for 'thy cattle' which are in the house; but these,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The roots of the herbs mentioned. ');">³⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל הטעון ברכה לאחריו טעון ברכה לפניו ויש שטעון ברכה לפניו ואין טעון ברכה לאחריו

surely, have not come to an end.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לאתויי מאי

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHATSOEVER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among fishes. ');">³¹</span>

לאתויי ירק

HAS SCALES HAS FINS BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE FINS AND NO SCALES. WHATSOEVER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among animals. ');">³²</span>

ולרבי יצחק דמברך אירק לאתויי מאי

HAS HORNS HAS HOOFS BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE HOOFS AND NO HORNS.

לאתויי מיא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. WHATSOEVER HAS SCALES [etc.] [viz.] a clean fish;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. one that may be eaten. ');">³³</span>

ולרב פפא דמברך אמיא לאתויי מאי

THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE FINS AND NO SCALES, refers to an unclean fish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. ');">³⁴</span>

לאתויי מצות

Now consider: Since we<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In determining whether a fish is clean or unclean. ');">³⁵</span>

ולבני מערבא דמברכי בתר דסליקו תפילייהו אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לשמור חוקיו לאתויי מאי

rely on the scales,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As has been stated in our Mishnah, WHATSOEVER HAS SCALES HAS FINS. ');">³⁶</span>

לאתויי

what need then was there for the All Merciful to mention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As one of the marks of a clean fish in Lev. XI, 9ff. ');">³⁷</span> fins?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., fins which the All Merciful has written, wherefore to me'. ');">³⁸</span> — If the All Merciful had not written fins it might have been presumed that the written word kaskeseth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word rendered scales'. ');">³⁹</span> meant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what kaskeseth that is written.' ');">⁴⁰</span> fins and that even an unclean fish [is, therefore, permitted]. Hence has the All Merciful written 'fins' and 'scales'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus indicating that each is a distinctive mark. ');">⁴¹</span> But now that the All Merciful has written both 'fins' and 'scales', whence is it deduced that kaskeseth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word rendered scales'. ');">³⁹</span> means the covering? Because it is written, And he was clad with a coat of mail.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kaskasim (of the same rt, as kaskeseth). I Sam. XVII, 5. ');">⁴²</span> Then why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the meaning of kaskeseth is definitely established and cannot be mistaken for that of fins. ');">⁴³</span> did not the All Merciful write kaskeseth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word rendered scales'. ');">³⁹</span> and there would be no need for the mention of fins?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since WHATSOEVER HAS SCALES HAS FINS. ');">⁴⁴</span> — R. Abbahu replied and so it was also taught at the school of R. Ishmael: To make the teaching great and glorious.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XLII, 21. Even an apparently superfluous word adds to the greatness and glory of the Torah. ');">⁴⁵</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHATSOEVER REQUIRES A BENEDICTION AFTER IT REQUIRES ONE BEFORE IT, BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT REQUIRE A BENEDICTION BEFORE THEM AND NOT AFTER THEM. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [What was the last clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BUT THERE ARE etc. ');">⁴⁶</span> intended] to include? — To include vegetables. But according to R. Isaac who did say a benediction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' '… who createst many living beings' (cf. P.B. p. 290). ');">⁴⁷</span> after the eating of vegetables, what was this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BUT THERE ARE etc. ');">⁴⁶</span> intended to include? — To include water. But according to R. Papa who said a benediction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' '… who createst many living beings' (cf. P.B. p. 290). ');">⁴⁷</span> after he drank water, what was it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BUT THERE ARE etc. ');">⁴⁶</span> intended to include? — To include the performance of commandments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those, for instance, of lulab, shofar, zizith and tefillin which require a benediction only before and not after they are performed. ');">⁴⁸</span> But according to the Palestinians<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the sons of the west'. Palestine lay to the west of Babylon where the discussion took place. ');">⁴⁹</span> who after removing their tefillin say the benediction of '&nbsp;… who hath sanctified us by his commandments, and hath commanded us to keep his statutes', what does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BUT THERE ARE etc. ');">⁵⁰</span> include? — It includes