Nedarim 58a (נח.) — the Talmud in English

Any item that has a remedy, such as tevel

which can be rendered permissible by separating terumot and tithes,

and second tithe and consecrated property

which can be rendered permissible through redemption,

and hadash

which can be rendered permissible through the omer—

All these

the Sages did not assign a measure

for the prohibition in relation to the mixture into which the prohibition became mixed. Rather, any amount of the prohibition that became mixed with its own kind renders the entire mixture prohibited.

But for any item that has no remedy, such as teruma, terumat maaser, and hallah,

and orla and the produce of a forbidden vineyard, the Sages assigned

for these prohibitions—even when they became mixed with their own kind—

a measure,

so that the entire mixture becomes prohibited only when the prohibition is present in the measure that the Sages established in relation to the mixture.

They said to him

the Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon:

But what of the Sabbatical year,

which is an item that

has no remedy, and the Sages did not assign it a measure,

but it renders the mixture prohibited in any amount

; as we learned:

Produce of the Sabbatical year renders prohibited

in

in any amount

when it becomes mixed

with its own kind,

whether produce of the Sabbatical year became mixed with permitted produce, in which case the entire mixture becomes prohibited, or one replanted, during the Sabbatical year, produce from the sixth year, in which case the prohibited growths render all the produce prohibited, even when the growths are only present in any amount!?

He said to them

Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis:

Even

they—the Sages—did not say that produce of the Sabbatical year renders a mixture prohibited in any amount

except with regard to removal,

meaning that one must eat the entire mixture before the time of removal. Since it is possible to eat it before the time of removal, it is considered an “item that has a remedy.”

But

if they became mixed after the time of removal, and

with

regard to

eating,

the Sages assigned them a measure: The prohibition must be present

in an amount sufficient to impart flavor

throughout the entire mixture, whether the prohibition became mixed with its own kind or with another kind.

It is thus demonstrated that the growths do not follow the status of the principal plant and become permitted like it. For if this were not so, the growths themselves would also be permitted, and how could the growths render even the principal plant prohibited!?

And we reject this:

Perhaps this [

growths of prohibited Sabbatical-year produce]

too,

since

with regard to stringency

we say that they are prohibited and do not follow the status of the principal plant—

is different.

Rather, from this

one can resolve the uncertainty of Yishmael of Kefar Yama:

As we learned: Onions

of the sixth year

upon which rain fell

during the Sabbatical year

and they sprouted—

If their leaves were black [

tending toward blackness], they are

prohibited,

since the blackness of the leaves demonstrates that their growth was substantial and that they grew from Sabbatical-year soil.

And if

they turned green,

the leaves, they are

permitted,

since this demonstrates that they did not grow from Sabbatical-year soil, but from the onions themselves.

Rabbi Hananya ben Antigonus says:

If

the onions

can be pulled up by their leaves,

they are

prohibited,

since this demonstrates that their nourishment was substantial and that they grew from Sabbatical-year soil.

And corresponding to them, after the Sabbatical year,

they are

permitted.

That is: Onions of the Sabbatical year upon which rain fell and which sprouted during the eighth year: If their leaves turned black, or if the onions can be pulled up by their leaves, the leaves are permitted, because the growths are not from the onions but from the soil of the eighth year. In those leaves, the growths certainly became more numerous than the principal part of the onion mixed into them, and they nullify it.

Does this imply

that it is demonstrated

that permitted growths raise the status of the prohibition,

and we do not say: On the contrary, the growths follow the status of the principal plant and become prohibited like it?

And we reject this:

Perhaps

the Mishna is discussing

crushed

onions

[that one crushed and ground the onions],

which are inferior and do not cause the growths to follow their status.

Rather, from this

resolve the uncertainty of Yishmael of Kefar Yama

; as it was taught in a beraita: