Nedarim 57b — the Talmud in English

For

after Passover

it is

under

“He shall not profane his word.”

That is, she is forbidden to go to her father’s house until the festival, since through doing so she would retroactively transgress the prohibition of “He shall not profane” concerning the benefit she enjoyed before Passover.

One who says to his wife before Passover:

“You are forbidden to me to benefit from you [ [A0010]]in accordance with the wording of Mishlei]

[сказав это]

until the festival

that is after Passover,

if you go to your father’s house before Passover

that is approaching.

If

she went before Passover

and violated his condition, then she is

forbidden to benefit from him until the festival, and permitted to go after Passover.

Gemara:

The following discussion is explained entirely according to the method of the Ran.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who says to his wife, “The work of your hands is konam to me; they are konam to my mouth; they are konam to my mouth,”

is forbidden through their substitutions and their growths:

Yishmael of Kefar Yama [ [A0073]]he lived in a village on the seashore],

who lived in a village by the sea,

and some say [ [A0075]]and there are those who say]: Yishmael

Yishmael

of Kefar Dima [ [A0077]]a place-name]

the name of a place,

brought up

he raised the following question:

An onion

—of the seventh year, which has the status of the seventh year with regard to removal and other laws, and is something whose seed does not perish—

that he uprooted in the seventh year

from the ground

and planted in the eighth year, and its growths became greater

than those of the eighth year

than its root

—a growth sufficient to nullify the principal—what is the law of that onion?

And this is what he was asking

: Shall we say:

its growths are permitted

—

and its root is forbidden,

and

since its growths became greater than its root

by an amount sufficient to nullify the prohibition, it follows that

those permitted growths raise up [ [A0098]]nullify]

the

the prohibition?

Or not

shall we say that its growths are permitted; rather, since the growths continue from the root, which does not perish, they too are forbidden, and consequently they do not raise up the forbidden root?

He came before Rabbi Ami [ [A0105]]the questioner came before Rabbi Ami and asked him this question]

the questioner came before Rabbi Ami and asked him this question

; he did not have it

Rabbi Ami did not have an answer to the question.

He came

the questioner

before Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa

and asked him this question, and

he resolved it for him

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa

from this [ [A0115]]from this source]

source

; for Rabbi Hanina the twenty-second said in the name of Rabbi Yannai:

An onion of teruma

which is forbidden to non-priests even for incidental eating,

which he planted

in the ground,

and its growths became greater

—which are tevel—

than its root

which is teruma, by an amount sufficient to nullify the prohibition of teruma.

The entire onion is

permitted

by the law of teruma, and has reverted to its tevel status.

We have therefore learned that the growths do not follow the root, to be forbidden like it; rather, they are permitted, and, on the contrary, they nullify the forbidden root. Thus the question of Yishmael of Kefar Yama is resolved.

He said

Rabbi

Yirmeya

to Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa, who had resolved the uncertainty from the words of Rabbi Yannai,

and some say Rabbi Zerika

was the one who challenged Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa:

But is it so that

the master abandons two and acts in accordance with one [ [A0138]]do you abandon two Sages and act in accordance with one Sage]!?

would you set aside two Sages and follow one Sage!?

The Gemara asks:

Who are the two [ [A0141]]who are the two Sages] who disagreed with Rabbi Yannai and held that the growths follow the root and are forbidden like it? And the Gemara explains:

who disagreed with Rabbi Yannai and held that the growths follow the root and are forbidden like it? And the Gemara explains:

a.

For Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

A

young

sapling [ [A0147]]a young one, whose three years have not passed and whose fruits are forbidden by the law of orlah]

that was grafted onto an old tree

that was grafted onto an old tree [ [A0149]]and on it

and it

—on the orlah sapling—

were fruits.

Even though it added

the young sapling

two hundred

—that is, those fruits grew until there were in them two hundred parts that grew after the grafting, and one part that had been in them before the grafting—it is

forbidden [ [A0158]]that is, the fruits are forbidden], even though orlah is nullified in a mixture of one part of prohibition within two hundred parts of permitted matter.

that is, the fruits are forbidden, even though orla is nullified when one part of the prohibition is mixed with two hundred parts of permitted produce.

It is thus proven from the words of Rabbi Yohanan that the growths too are forbidden, and therefore they do not nullify the root, contrary to the words of Rabbi Yannai.

b.

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan:

An onion that he planted in a vineyard

and it became forbidden because of “mixed species of the vineyard,”

and the vineyard was uprooted.

The onion continued to grow when it was no longer mixed with the vineyard, and its growths were sufficient to nullify the root, which was “mixed species of the vineyard,” by one in two hundred; nevertheless, the onion is

forbidden

because the growths of mixed species of the vineyard, since they emerge from the root, are themselves forbidden, and therefore they do not nullify the root.

We have therefore learned also from the words of Rabbi Yonatan contrary to the words of Rabbi Yannai.

He came again

the questioner came again

before Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Ami resolved it for him

Rabbi Ami

from this:

d.

For Rabbi Yitzhak said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

A litra of onions

of tevel

that he fixed [ [A0179]]he separated its terumot and tithes],

he separated its terumot and tithes,

and sowed it [ [A0181]]he planted it] in the ground, and the onions grew and increased.

planted it in the ground, and the onions sprouted and increased.

It

is tithed according to all of it

—that is, he takes one-tenth corresponding to what grew after the second sowing, and also corresponding to the root that did not perish and had already been fixed.

It follows

that it is proven that

the growths come [ [A0189]]come] which

growths

are the growths

that are obligated in tithing and

nullify

the

root

that had already been fixed; and we do not say: On the contrary, let the growths follow the root and be permitted like it. Thus the question of Yishmael of Kefar Yama is resolved.

And we reject this:

Perhaps

in a case where the root is forbidden and the growths are permitted, the growths always follow the prohibition and are forbidden like it; and what we say here, that the growths do not follow the root to be permitted like it, is because

for stringency—

not to have the growths follow the root and permit them—

is different.

Rather, from this

the question of Yishmael of Kefar Yama may be resolved:

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: