Nedarim 57b (נז:) — the Talmud in English

To

after Passover

it is

subject to

“He shall not profane his word.”

That is, she is forbidden to go to her father’s house until the festival, since by doing so she would retroactively violate the prohibition of “He shall not profane” with regard to the benefit she had received before Passover.

One who says to his wife before Passover:

“You are forbidden by vow to benefit from me” [by implication]

until the festival

following Passover,

“if you go to your father’s house before Passover”

the approaching one.

If

she went before Passover

and violated his condition, she is

forbidden to benefit from him until the festival, but she may go after Passover.

Gemara:

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

We learned in the Mishna:

One who says to his wife, “The products of your handiwork are konam to me; they are konam to my mouth; they are konam to my mouth,”

is forbidden to benefit from their exchanges and from what grows from them:

Yishmael of Kefar Yama

who lived in a village by the sea,

and some say

Yishmael

of Kefar Dima

the name of a place,

raised

the following question:

An onion

of the Sabbatical Year, which has the status of Sabbatical-Year produce with regard to removal and other laws, and whose seed does not perish,

that he uprooted during the Sabbatical Year

from the ground

and replanted during the eighth year, and its growth increased

which belongs to the eighth year

over its root

by an amount sufficient to nullify the root—what is the status of that onion?

And this is what he was asking:

Should we say:

Its growth is permitted

and

its root is forbidden,

and

since its growth increased over its root

to the extent sufficient to nullify the prohibition,

those permitted growths nullify

the

prohibited root?

Or not

should we say that its growth is permitted, but since the growth continues from the root, which does not perish, the growth too is forbidden, and consequently it cannot nullify the forbidden root?

He came before Rabbi Ami

the questioner came before Rabbi Ami and asked him this question

; he had no answer,

Rabbi Ami had no answer to the question.

He came

the questioner

before Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa

and asked him this question, and

he resolved it

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa

from this

source

; as Rabbi Ḥanina the twelfth said in the name of Rabbi Yannai:

An onion of teruma

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

that was planted

in the ground,

and its growth increased

which is tevel

over its root

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

The entire onion is

permitted

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

We have therefore learned that the growths do not follow the root and become forbidden like it; rather, they are permitted, and, on the contrary, they nullify the forbidden root. Yishmael of Kefar Yama’s question has thus been resolved.

Said

in astonishment

Rabbi Yirmeya

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

and some say Rabbi Zerika

was the one who expressed his astonishment to Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa:

Why,

are you abandoning two and acting according to one

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

The Gemara asks:

Who are the two

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

a.

As Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

A

young

planting, which has not yet completed three years and whose fruit is forbidden under the law of orla,

that was grafted onto an old tree

which had already completed three years,

and it

the orla planting

had fruit.

Even though it increased

the young planting

two hundredfold,

that is, those fruits grew until they contained two hundred parts that grew after the grafting and one part that had been present before the grafting, it is nevertheless

forbidden

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 therefore proven from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that the growths too are forbidden, and consequently they do not nullify the root, contrary to Rabbi Yannai.

b.

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

An onion that was planted in a vineyard

and became forbidden because of “mixed species in a vineyard,”

and the vineyard was uprooted.

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

forbidden,

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

We have thus learned from Rabbi Yonatan’s statement as well that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yannai.

He came again,

the questioner came once more

before Rabbi Ami, and he resolved it

Rabbi Ami

from this source:

As

Rabbi Yitzhak said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

A litra of onions

of tevel

that he rectified

he separated its terumot and tithes,

and sowed it

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

It

must be tithed according to its entirety,

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

Apparently,

it is proven that

the

growths

come

which are obligated in tithing and

nullify

the

root

which had already been rectified. We do not say, on the contrary, that the growths follow the root and are permitted like it. Yishmael of Kefar Yama’s question has thus been resolved.

And we reject this:

Perhaps

in a case where the root is forbidden and the growths are permitted, the growths indeed follow the prohibition and are forbidden like it. And the reason that we say here that the growths do not follow the root and become permitted like it is that

for stringency

we refrain from following the root and permitting the growths

; it is different.

Rather, from this

source we can resolve Yishmael of Kefar Yama’s question:

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: