Niddah

Raba stated: R. Johanan,  however, agrees in regard to tithe that intention  concerning attached [produce] is a valid intention.  Raba explained, Whence do I derive this? From what we learnt: Savory,  hyssop and calamint  that are grown in a courtyard, if they are kept under watch,  are subject to tithe.  Now how are we to imagine the circumstances?  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?  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'  they 'are subject to tithe'.  R. Ashi retorted: Here  we are dealing with a courtyard in which the herbs grew spontaneously  so that as a rule they are destined for human consumption, and  it is this that was meant: If the courtyard affords protection for the produce it grows  the herbs are subject to tithe; otherwise they are exempt. R. Ashi objected:  Whatsoever is subject to tithes is susceptible to food uncleanness.  Now if that were so,  would there not be the case of these  which are liable to tithe  and yet  do not become susceptible to the uncleanness of food?  — 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  is also logically sound. For in the final clause  it was stated, Whatsoever is subject to the law of the first of the fleece  is also subject to that of the priestly gifts  but there may be a beast  that is subject to the law of the priestly gifts and is not subject to that of the first of the fleece.  Now if it were so  [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?  — Rabina retorted: This  represents the view of  R. Simeon. For it was taught:  R. Simeon exempts the terefah from the law of the first of the fleece.  R. Shimi b. Ashi replied,  Come and hear: If a man declared his vineyard hefker  and, rising early in the morning, he cut its grapes, he is liable  to peret,  'oleloth,  the forgotten sheaf  and pe'ah  but  is exempt from tithe.  But have we not learnt: WHATSOEVER IS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF PE'AH IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THAT OF TITHES?  Must you not then infer from this  that the reference  was  to the whole species?  This is conclusive. Elsewhere we have learnt:  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.