## Niddah Daf 50a

###### Niddah 50a:1
[Niddah 50a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:1)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל פִּיהֶם יִהְיֶה כׇּל רִיב וְכׇל נָגַע״? וְכִי מָה עִנְיָן רִיבִים אֵצֶל נְגָעִים? מַקִּישׁ רִיבִים לִנְגָעִים: מָה נְגָעִים בַּיּוֹם, דִּכְתִיב ״וּבְיוֹם הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ״, אַף רִיבִים בַּיּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Meir would say: What** is the meaning when **the verse states: “According to their word shall every dispute and every leprous mark be”** (Deuteronomy 21:5)? **What do disputes have to do with leprous marks?** The verse **juxtaposes disputes to leprous marks,** to teach that **just as leprous marks** are viewed by a priest only **in the daytime, as it is written** with regard to leprous marks: **“And on the day when** raw flesh **appears in him** he shall be impure” (Leviticus 13:14), **so too, disputes** are adjudicated only **in the daytime.**


###### Niddah 50a:2
[Niddah 50a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:2)

וּמָה נְגָעִים שֶׁלֹּא בְּסוֹמֵא, דִּכְתִיב: ״לְכׇל מַרְאֵה עֵינֵי הַכֹּהֵן״, אַף רִיבִים שֶׁלֹּא בְּסוֹמֵא. וּמַקִּישׁ נְגָעִים לְרִיבִים, מָה רִיבִים שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְרוֹבִים, אַף נְגָעִים שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְרוֹבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And just as leprous marks** are seen by priests who can see, but **not by blind** priests, **as it is written: “As far as appears to the priest”** (Leviticus 13:12), which teaches that they must be viewed by priests who can see with both eyes, **so too, disputes are not** adjudicated **by blind judges,** even if they are blind in only one eye. **And** the verse **juxtaposes leprous marks to disputes** to teach that **just as disputes may not** be judged **by relatives** of the litigants, **so too, leprous marks may not** be viewed **by** a priest who is **a relative** of the afflicted party.


###### Niddah 50a:3
[Niddah 50a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:3)

אִי מָה רִיבִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, אַף נְגָעִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה? וְדִין הוּא: מָמוֹנוֹ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, גּוּפוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהוּבָא אֶל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ אֶל אַחַד מִבָּנָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים״, הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֵן אֶחָד רוֹאֶה אֶת הַנְּגָעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **If** these two *halakhot* are compared, one can also say that **just as disputes** are judged specifically **by three** judges, **so too, leprous marks** must be viewed **by three** priests. **And this** suggestion is supported by **a logical inference:** If a case that only involves **one’s money** is adjudicated **by three** judges, **all the more so** is it **not** clear that leprous marks, which afflict the person **himself,** should be viewed by three priests? To counter this notion, **the verse states: “And he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests”** (Leviticus 13:2). **You** have **learned** from this **that even one priest may view leprous marks.**


###### Niddah 50a:4
[Niddah 50a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:4)

הָהוּא סַמְיָא דַּהֲוָה בְּשִׁבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דַּהֲוָה קָדָיֵין דִּינָא, וְלָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. הֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain blind person who was** living **in the neighborhood of Rabbi Yoḥanan who would render judgments, and** Rabbi Yoḥanan **did not say anything to him.** The Gemara asks: **How could** Rabbi Yoḥanan **do this? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan** himself **say** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the ruling of **an unattributed mishna?**


###### Niddah 50a:5
[Niddah 50a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:5)

וּתְנַן: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר לָדוּן — כָּשֵׁר לְהָעִיד, וְיֵשׁ כָּשֵׁר לְהָעִיד וְאֵין כָּשֵׁר לָדוּן, וְאָמְרִינַן: לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְאֵתוֹיֵי סוֹמֵא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we learned** in the mishna: **Any** person **who is fit to adjudicate** a case and serve as a judge **is fit to testify** as a witness, **and there are** those who are **fit to testify but** are **not fit to adjudicate. And we said: What is added** by this *halakha*, **and Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** It serves **to add one who is blind in one of his eyes,** as he is fit to testify but unfit to judge. Since Rabbi Yoḥanan evidently maintains that one who is blind even in one of his eyes is not fit to judge, why did he not admonish this judge?


###### Niddah 50a:6
[Niddah 50a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:6)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְתָמָא אַחֲרִינָא אַשְׁכַּח, דִּתְנַן: דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם, וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yoḥanan found another unattributed mishna** which indicates a different conclusion. **As we learned** in the mishna in tractate *Sanhedrin* (32a): In cases of **monetary law,** the court **judges during the daytime, and concludes** the deliberations and issues their ruling even **at night.** This is not the *halakha* with regard to leprous marks, which may not be viewed at night at all. Accordingly, one does not compare judging cases of monetary law to viewing leprous marks. Since this comparison was the source for disqualifying a blind judge, one cannot derive from it that a blind judge is disqualified.


###### Niddah 50a:7
[Niddah 50a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:7)

וּמַאי אוּלְמֵיהּ דְּהַאי סְתָמָא מֵהַאי סְתָמָא? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: סְתָמָא דְּרַבִּים עֲדִיף, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי לַהּ גַּבֵּי הִלְכְתָא דְּדִינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in **what** manner is **the strength of that unattributed** mishna in tractate *Sanhedrin* greater **than** the strength of **this unattributed** mishna here? Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan accept the ruling of that mishna? The Gemara explains: **If you wish, say** that **an unattributed** mishna that records the opinion **of many** Sages, as in *Sanhedrin*, is **preferable,** whereas the mishna here was established as in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Meir. **And if you wish, say** instead that it is **because** the mishna in *Sanhedrin* **teaches this** *halakha* **in the context of the *halakhot* of judges.** Since that chapter is the primary source for all of the *halakhot* of court matters, its rulings are of greater weight.


###### Niddah 50a:8
[Niddah 50a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:8)

**מַתְנִי'** כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיב בַּמַּעַשְׂרוֹת — מִטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁמִּטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בַּמַּעַשְׂרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Any** food from **which** one is **obligated to** separate **tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food; and there is** food **that becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food but** from **which one is not obligated to** separate **tithes.**


###### Niddah 50a:9
[Niddah 50a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:9)

**גְּמָ'** לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי בָּשָׂר וְדָגִים וּבֵיצִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is added** by the last clause of this mishna? The Gemara answers: This serves **to add meat, fish, and eggs.** Although they are subject to the ritual impurity of food, one is not obligated to separate tithes from them.


###### Niddah 50a:10
[Niddah 50a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:10)

**מַתְנִי'** כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיב בַּפֵּאָה — חַיָּיב בַּמַּעַשְׂרוֹת, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁחַיָּיב בַּמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בַּפֵּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **any** produce from **which** one is **obligated to** designate **produce in the corner of the field given to the poor [*pe’a*],** as commanded in the Torah (see Leviticus 19:9, 23:22), one is **obligated to** separate **tithes** from it; **and there is** produce from **which** one is **obligated to** separate **tithes but** from **which one is not obligated to** designate ***pe’a*.**


###### Niddah 50a:11
[Niddah 50a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:11)

**גְּמָ'** לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי תְּאֵנָה וְיָרָק, שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בַּפֵּאָה. דִּתְנַן: כְּלָל אָמְרוּ בַּפֵּאָה — כֹּל שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֶל, וְנִשְׁמָר, וְגִידּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ, וּלְקִיטָתוֹ כְּאֶחָד, וּמַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם — חַיָּיב בַּפֵּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is added** by the last clause of the mishna? The Gemara answers: It serves **to add figs and vegetables,** for **which** one is **not obligated to** designate ***pe’a*,** although the obligation of tithes does apply to them. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Pe’a* 1:4): The Sages **stated a principle with regard to** the *halakhot* of ***pe’a*:** With regard to **anything that is food, and is protected, and** that **grows from the earth, and is gathered as one,** i.e., there is one fixed time for gathering it, **and** that one **brings in** to store **for preservation,** its owner **is obligated to** designate ***pe’a*.**


###### Niddah 50a:12
[Niddah 50a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:12)

אוֹכֵל — לְמַעוֹטֵי סְפִיחֵי סְטֵיס וְקוֹצָה, וְנִשְׁמָר — לְמַעוֹטֵי הֶפְקֵר, וְגִידּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ — לְמַעוֹטֵי כְּמֵהִים וּפִטְרִיּוֹת, וּלְקִיטָתוֹ כְּאֶחָד — לְמַעוֹטֵי תְּאֵנָה, וּמַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם — לְמַעוֹטֵי יָרָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes each criterion of the mishna. The clause: **Anything that is food,** serves **to exclude** the ***sefiḥin*,** produce that grew without being intentionally planted, **of woad [*setim*] and safflower [*vekotza*].** These plants are used as dyes rather than for food. The clause: **And is protected,** serves **to exclude ownerless** crops, which no one protects. The clause: **And grows from the earth,** serves **to exclude truffles and mushrooms,** which do not draw sustenance from the ground. The clause: **And is gathered as one,** serves **to exclude** the **fig** tree, whose fruit is gathered over an extended period, as the figs do not all ripen at the same time. Finally, the clause: **And** that **one brings in** to storage **for preservation,** serves **to exclude vegetables,** which cannot be stored for lengthy periods.


###### Niddah 50a:13
[Niddah 50a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:13)

וְאִילּוּ גַּבֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר תְּנַן: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֶל, וְנִשְׁמָר, וְגִידּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ — חַיָּיב בַּמַּעַשְׂרוֹת, וְאִילּוּ לְקִיטָתוֹ כְּאֶחָד, וּמַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם — לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And yet** in the case **of tithe, we learned** in a mishna (*Ma’asrot* 1:1) with regard to the *halakhot* of tithes: **Anything that is food, and is protected, and grows from the earth is obligated in tithes. And whereas** some of the conditions overlap, the following criteria **are not taught** with regard to tithes: **Gathered as one, and that one brings in** to storage **for preservation.** Evidently, the obligation of tithes applies to fig trees and vegetables, despite the fact that the obligation of *pe’a* does not apply.


###### Niddah 50a:14
[Niddah 50a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:14)

אִם הָיוּ בָּהֶם שׁוּמִים וּבְצָלִין — חַיָּיבִין, דִּתְנַן: מַלְבְּנוֹת בְּצָלִים שֶׁבֵּין הַיָּרָק, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: פֵּאָה מִכׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מֵאַחַת עַל הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **if** these vegetables that are exempt from *pe’a* **contained garlic and onions,** which are stored for an extended period of time, then they are **obligated** in *pe’a* as well. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Pe’a* 3:4): If one has **garden beds of onions that are between the vegetables, Rabbi Yosei says** that one leaves a separate ***pe’a* from each and every one** of the beds. **And the Rabbis say** one leaves *pe’a* **from one** garden bed **for all** of them.


###### Niddah 50a:15
[Niddah 50a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/50a:15)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוּלְשִׁין שֶׁזְּרָעָן מִתְּחִילָּה לִבְהֵמָה, וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן לָאָדָם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In the case of **endives that were initially planted** to be fed **to animals, and** later the owner **reconsidered their** designation and decided to use them **for human** consumption