Niddah

MISHNAH. 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 NOT TO THAT OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE. WHATSOEVER IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF REMOVAL  IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE SABBATICAL YEAR,  BUT THERE IS [A KIND OR PRODUCE] THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE SABBATICAL YEAR  AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF REMOVAL. GEMARA. As, for instance, the leaves of arum and of miltwaste. 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,  as long as 'the beasts' eat  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,  surely, have not come to an end. MISHNAH. WHATSOEVER  HAS SCALES HAS FINS BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE FINS AND NO SCALES. WHATSOEVER  HAS HORNS HAS HOOFS BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE HOOFS AND NO HORNS. GEMARA. WHATSOEVER HAS SCALES [etc.] [viz.] a clean fish;  THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE FINS AND NO SCALES, refers to an unclean fish.  Now consider: Since we  rely on the scales,  what need then was there for the All Merciful to mention  fins?  — If the All Merciful had not written fins it might have been presumed that the written word kaskeseth  meant  fins and that even an unclean fish [is, therefore, permitted]. Hence has the All Merciful written 'fins' and 'scales'.  But now that the All Merciful has written both 'fins' and 'scales', whence is it deduced that kaskeseth  means the covering? Because it is written, And he was clad with a coat of mail.  Then why  did not the All Merciful write kaskeseth  and there would be no need for the mention of fins?  — R. Abbahu replied and so it was also taught at the school of R. Ishmael: To make the teaching great and glorious. MISHNAH. WHATSOEVER REQUIRES A BENEDICTION AFTER IT REQUIRES ONE BEFORE IT, BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT REQUIRE A BENEDICTION BEFORE THEM AND NOT AFTER THEM. GEMARA. [What was the last clause  intended] to include? — To include vegetables. But according to R. Isaac who did say a benediction  after the eating of vegetables, what was this  intended to include? — To include water. But according to R. Papa who said a benediction  after he drank water, what was it  intended to include? — To include the performance of commandments.  But according to the Palestinians  who after removing their tefillin say the benediction of ' … who hath sanctified us by his commandments, and hath commanded us to keep his statutes', what does this  include? — It includes