## Niddah Daf 51a

###### Niddah 51a:1
[Niddah 51a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:1)

בְּטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ, תֹּאמַר בְּטוּמְאָה קַלָּה שֶׁעוֹשָׂה כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**in** a case of **severe** ritual **impurity,** i.e., when the carcass of a kosher bird renders one’s garments impure while it is in his throat, **which does not render** impure another item **similar to it,** i.e., a person who is rendered impure by the carcass does not render another man impure; **shall you** also **say** that there is no requirement of thought **in** the case of **lenient impurity,** i.e., when the carcass transmits impurity as food, **which does render** impure another item **similar to it?** Food that became impure transmits impurity to other food, albeit by rabbinic law.


###### Niddah 51a:2
[Niddah 51a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל דְּכֵן הוּא, וּמָה טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה דְּקִילָּא, דְּאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ — מְטַמְּאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, טוּמְאָה קַלָּה דַּחֲמִירָא, דְּעוֹשֶׂה כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחְשָׁבָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: But in that case, **all the more so** impurity as food should apply without thought. **If severe impurity,** i.e., the unique impurity of the carcass of a kosher bird, **which is lenient** in the sense **that it does not render** impure another item **similar to it,** nevertheless **imparts impurity without thought,** i.e., without one knowing what is in his throat, then with regard to **lenient impurity,** i.e., the carcass’s impurity as food, **which is** more **severe** in the sense **that it renders** impure another item **similar to it, isn’t it logical that it** should **impart impurity without thought?**


###### Niddah 51a:3
[Niddah 51a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:3)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר, תֹּאמַר בְּטוּמְאָה קַלָּה שֶׁצְּרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Sheshet said** that **this** is what the Rabbis, who replied to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, **are saying: No, if you said** that thought is not required **with regard to severe impurity,** i.e., the carcass of a kosher bird in the throat, **as it does not require** contact with a liquid for it to be rendered **susceptible** to ritual impurity, **shall you** also **say** that thought is not required **with regard to lenient impurity,** i.e., its impurity as food, **where** it **does require** contact with a liquid for it to be rendered **susceptible** to ritual impurity?


###### Niddah 51a:4
[Niddah 51a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:4)

וּמִי צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר? וְהָתְנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּנִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר: צְרִיכָה מַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה אֶלָּא בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does** the carcass of a kosher bird **require** contact with a liquid for it to be rendered **susceptible** to impurity as food? **But didn’t we learn** in a *baraita*: **Three matters were stated with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird:** In order for it to be susceptible to impurity as food, it **requires** a person’s **intent** to eat it; **and it transmits impurity** to garments by rendering one who swallows it ritually impure **only** when an olive-bulk of it is **in the throat; and it does not require** contact with a liquid for it to be rendered **susceptible** to ritual impurity?


###### Niddah 51a:5
[Niddah 51a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:5)

נְהִי דְּהֶכְשֵׁר שֶׁרֶץ לָא בָּעֲיָא, הֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם בָּעֲיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Although it does not require** contact **with a creeping animal** for it to be rendered **susceptible** to impurity, i.e., it is inherently impure, nevertheless **it does require** contact with **water** or another liquid for it to be rendered **susceptible** to ritual impurity.


###### Niddah 51a:6
[Niddah 51a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:6)

מַאי שְׁנָא הֶכְשֵׁר שֶׁרֶץ דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא, כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? הֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם נָמֵי לָא תִּבְעֵי, כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** about being rendered **susceptible** to ritual impurity by contact with **a creeping animal that it does not require** this contact? This ruling is **in accordance with that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.** If so, it should **also not require** contact with **water** or another liquid for it to be rendered **susceptible** to ritual impurity, likewise **in accordance with that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.**


###### Niddah 51a:7
[Niddah 51a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:7)

דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states that seeds contract impurity from the carcass of a creeping animal only if they first come into contact with water: “And if any part of their carcass fall **upon any sowing seed that is to be sown,** it is pure. But if water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcass fall thereon, it is impure unto you” (Leviticus 11:37–38). This passage teaches that as long as water did not fall on the seeds, they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. This *halakha* applies to all items similar to seeds.


###### Niddah 51a:8
[Niddah 51a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:8)

מָה זְרָעִים, שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה — צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר. יָצְתָה נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁסּוֹפָהּ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, **just as seeds, which will never transmit impurity severe** enough to transmit to humans, like any food, **require** contact with liquid to be rendered **susceptible** to impurity, **so too, all** items **that will never transmit severe impurity require** contact with liquid to be rendered **susceptible** to impurity. This **excludes the carcass of a kosher bird, which will ultimately transmit impurity severe** enough to be transmitted to a human, i.e., when it is in his throat, and therefore **it does not require** contact with liquid for it to be rendered **susceptible** to ritual impurity.


###### Niddah 51a:9
[Niddah 51a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:9)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא: שׁוּם טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה בְּעוֹלָם, שׁוּם טוּמְאָה קַלָּה בָּעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said, and some say** that it was **Rav Pappa** who said: The Rabbis’ rejection of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s *a fortiori* inference is not based on the specific *halakha* of impurity of food imparted by the carcass of a bird. Rather, they are referring to the fact that **in general** there is no item under the common **name of severe impurity** that requires contact with a liquid for it to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, with regard to the common **name of lenient impurity** as food, **in general** the items in this category require contact with a liquid for them to be rendered susceptible to impurity, despite the fact that the particular case of the carcass of a kosher bird is an exception. Therefore, intent is required for lenient impurity even in the case of a carcass of a kosher bird.


###### Niddah 51a:10
[Niddah 51a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:10)

אָמַר רָבָא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֵׂר, דְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת חִיבּוּר שְׁמָהּ מַחְשָׁבָה. אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן: הַסֵּיאָה וְהָאֵזוֹב וְהַקּוֹרְנִית שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר, אִם הָיוּ נִשְׁמָרִין — חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says: And Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes with regard to** the obligation to **tithe, that intent** while the produce is **attached** to the ground **is considered intent. Rava said: From where do I say** that **this** is the *halakha*? It is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Ma’asrot* 3:9) that deals with the obligation to tithe: **Savory, hyssop [*veha’ezov*], and thyme [*vehakoranit*],** i.e., various types of hyssop plants, that were growing **in a courtyard,** are eaten by some people although they are not specifically intended for human consumption. Therefore, **if they were protected** by the owners, those owners are **obligated** to separate tithes from them.


###### Niddah 51a:11
[Niddah 51a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:11)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּזַרְעִינְהוּ מִתְּחִלָּה לָאָדָם — צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּזַרְעִינְהוּ מִתְּחִלָּה לִבְהֵמָה, וְקָתָנֵי: אִם הָיוּ נִשְׁמָרִין — חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the mishna: **What are the circumstances** of this ruling? **If we say** that it is referring to a case **where one initially planted them for human** consumption, does it **need to be said** that there is an obligation to tithe if they are protected by the owners? It is clear that in such a situation the criteria for the obligation to tithe, i.e., that it is human food which is protected, have been met. **Rather,** is it **not** referring to a case **where one initially planted them** to be fed **to an animal,** and nevertheless the mishna **teaches: If** the owner reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for human consumption and **they were protected** by the owners, the owners are **obligated** to tithe them. This apparently indicates that intent while the produce is attached to the ground is considered intent.


###### Niddah 51a:12
[Niddah 51a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:12)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָכָא בְּחָצֵר שֶׁעָלוּ מֵאֵילֵיהֶן עָסְקִינַן, וּסְתָמָא לְאָדָם קָיְימִי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם הֶחָצֵר מְשַׁמֶּרֶת פֵּירוֹתֶיהָ — חַיָּיבִין, וְאִם לָאו — פְּטוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** that Rava’s proof is inconclusive, for the following reason: **Here we are dealing with a courtyard where** these various types of hyssop plants **grew by themselves, and** where they are **unspecified,** they are **intended for human** consumption. Therefore, they meet the first criteria for the obligation to tithe, as they are considered food. **And** the mishna addresses the second requirement, that the food must be protected, and **this** is what it **is saying: If the courtyard protects its produce,** the owners **are obligated** in tithes, **and if not, they are exempt.**


###### Niddah 51a:13
[Niddah 51a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:13)

מֵתִיב רַב אָשֵׁי: ״כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין בַּמַּעַשְׂרוֹת — מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין״, וְאִם אִיתַאּ, הָא אִיכָּא הָנֵי (דְּקָחַיָּיבִין) [דְּחַיָּיבִין] בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵין מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi raises** a further **objection** to Rava’s explanation from a mishna (50a): **Any** food from **which** one is **obligated to** separate **tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food. But if it is so,** as Rava claimed, that intent while the produce is attached to the ground is considered intent with respect to the obligation to tithe, despite the fact that it is not considered intent with regard to impurity, then the mishna’s blanket statement is inaccurate. Rav Ashi elaborates: After all, **there are these** endives that were initially planted in order to feed to an animal and later the owner reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for human consumption, from **which** one is **obligated to** separate **tithe, but which do not become impure with the ritual impurity of food.**


###### Niddah 51a:14
[Niddah 51a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:14)

אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר — כׇּל מִין שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, מִטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** in response that **this** is what the mishna **is saying: Any type** of food from **which** one is **obligated to** separate **tithe becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food.** In other words, this is referring to types of food, not to all situations. It is possible for a particular circumstance to be an exception to this principle.


###### Niddah 51a:15
[Niddah 51a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:15)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז — חַיָּיב בַּמַּתָּנוֹת, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁחַיָּיב בַּמַּתָּנוֹת וְאֵין חַיָּיב בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds that **this too stands to reason,** that the mishna is referring only to types of food, not situations, **from** the fact **that the latter clause teaches** (51b): With regard to **any** animal from **which** the owner is **obligated to** give **the first shearing** of its wool, he is **obligated to** have **gifts** of the priesthood taken from it, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, if it was slaughtered. **And there are** animals from **which** one is **obligated to** have **gifts** of the priesthood taken from it, **but** from which he is **not obligated to** give **the first shearing.**


###### Niddah 51a:16
[Niddah 51a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:16)

וְאִם אִיתָא, הָאִיכָּא טְרֵפָה, דְּחַיֶּיבֶת בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז וְאֵינָהּ חַיֶּיבֶת בַּמַּתָּנוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it is so,** that the principles of the mishna are all-inclusive, one can raise the following difficulty: **But there is** the specific case of **an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*],** from **which** one is **obligated to** give **the first shearing, but one is not obligated to** have **gifts** of the priesthood taken from it, as it may not be eaten. This proves that Rava is correct, that the mishna is not referring to all circumstances, but only to general categories.


###### Niddah 51a:17
[Niddah 51a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:17)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said,** rejecting this proof: It is possible that the mishna is referring to all circumstances, and as for the difficulty with regard to a *tereifa*, one can say that in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, as we learned** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon exempts the** owner of **a *tereifa* from** the mitzva of **the first shearing.**


###### Niddah 51a:18
[Niddah 51a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:18)

אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּפְקִיר אֶת כַּרְמוֹ, וְהִשְׁכִּים בַּבֹּקֶר וּבְצָרוֹ — חַיָּיב בַּפֶּרֶט, וּבָעוֹלֵלוֹת, וּבַשִּׁכְחָה, וּבַפֵּאָה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita* that the mishna is not referring to all circumstances, but only to general categories: With regard to **one who declares his vineyard ownerless, and who arose the** next **morning and picked grapes** from the vineyard before anyone else took possession of them, he is **obligated in** the mitzva of leaving for the poor **individual fallen** grapes **[*peret*], and in** the mitzva of leaving for them **incompletely formed clusters** of grapes **[*uve’olelot*], and in** the mitzva of **forgotten** clusters, **and in *pe’a*.** The Torah includes such cases in the phrase: “Leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 19:10, 23:22), which is written with regard to all these mitzvot. **And he is exempt from** the obligation to separate **the tithe** from the grapes. Since the vineyard is ownerless, there is no obligation to tithe the produce.


###### Niddah 51a:19
[Niddah 51a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:19)

וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיב בַּפֵּאָה — חַיָּיב בַּמַּעַשְׂרוֹת! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִין קָתָנֵי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof: **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna (50a): With regard to **any** produce from **which** one is **obligated to** designate ***pe’a*,** one is likewise **obligated to** separate **tithes? Rather,** must one **not conclude from** the mishna that Rava is correct in asserting that the mishna **is teaching** only principles with regard to each **type** of produce, but there are exceptions in certain circumstances? The Gemara answers that one should in fact **conclude from** the mishna that Rava is correct.


###### Niddah 51a:20
[Niddah 51a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/51a:20)

תְּנַן הָתָם: מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּזוֹרֵעַ שֶׁבֶת אוֹ חַרְדָּל בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת, שֶׁנּוֹתֵן פֵּאָה מִכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the obligations of *pe’a* and tithes, the Gemara notes that **we learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Pe’a* 3:2): The Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regard to a case where one harvested several separate patches in a field. Rabbi Akiva rules that each patch requires its own *pe’a*, whereas the Rabbis maintain that one *pe’a* is required for all of the patches. Nevertheless, **the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva in** the case of **one who sows dill or mustard in two or three** separate **locations** in a single field, **that he leaves *pe’a* for each and every one** of these plots on its own, rather than one corner for all of them.