Nedarim 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

The members of the yeshiva say

to resolve this:

Tithe

is not considered a prohibition generated by the ground, because

the threshing and smoothing of the produce [

miruach ]

is what causes it

to become liable for tithes.

Rami bar Ḥama raises an objection

to Rabbi Yannai, who said earlier, on page 57b: “An onion of teruma that was planted, and its growth increased beyond its original bulb, is permitted,” because the growth nullifies the original— from our Mishna:

One who says:

“The produce is konam to me; konam that I eat it; konam that I taste it,”

he is

forbidden to benefit from their exchanges and their growths;

but if he said

“I will not eat them and I will not taste them,” he is permitted to benefit from their exchanges and their growths—

and all this applies only

to an item whose seed is consumed in the ground; but with an item whose seed is not consumed, even the growths of growths are forbidden,

since the original, which is forbidden, is mixed into them.

Thus, with an item whose seed is not consumed, the original is not nullified within the growths. This is difficult for Rabbi Yannai, who said: Growths nullify the original!?

Rabbi Abba

explained:

Rabbi Abba:

Konamot are different, since if one wishes, he can have the vow annulled

with regard to them [

since, if he wishes, he can have them annulled ],

they are therefore like an item that has a remedy.

And

an item that has a remedy

is not nullified by the majority.

The Gemara raises an objection to this:

But what about teruma? If one wishes, he can have it annulled, and

nevertheless

it is nullified!?

For

indeed

we learned

in a Mishna in tractate Terumot:

If a se’a of impure teruma fell into less than one hundred se’ah of non-sacred produce, the entire mixture must be destroyed

the entire mixture, since teruma is nullified only in a ratio of one to one hundred.

It is therefore implied:

if

the teruma fell

into one hundred measures

of non-sacred produce,

the teruma is nullified

.

This proves that even teruma, which can be annulled through a legal inquiry, is nullified and is not included among items that have a remedy!?

The members of the yeshiva say

to resolve this:

We are dealing with teruma in the possession of a kohen

in the Mishna of Terumot,

for the one who separated it cannot

the person who separated it

have it annulled

since it has reached the possession of a kohen.

The Gemara is puzzled:

If so—

that the teruma was in the possession of a kohen—

say the latter clause

of the Mishna:

If it was

the teruma

pure, it is sold to a kohen,

which indicates that it is not in the possession of a kohen.

Rather,

the Gemara resolves the Mishna in Terumot so that the difficulty that this is an item that has a remedy will not arise!

We are dealing with an Israelite to whom

teruma

fell as an inheritance from his maternal grandfather

who was a kohen,

in the Mishna in tractate Terumot. The teruma had already reached the possession of a kohen, who bequeathed it to his Israelite grandson. Consequently, the one who separated it cannot have it annulled, since it had reached the possession of a kohen. But now it does not belong to a kohen, and therefore it is sold to a kohen.

The Gemara raises an objection to this:

But

this is what

it teaches

in that

latter clause: “It is sold to a kohen except for the value of that se’a,”

which is because the Mishna is dealing with teruma that has not yet reached the possession of a kohen, and the owner must fulfill the mitzva of giving it. Therefore, it is sold to a kohen except for the value of that se’a.

It is thus proven that the teruma has not yet reached the possession of a kohen, and the difficulty returns: It is an item that has a remedy!?

Rather,

the Gemara resolves the matter in another way:

Say [

that one should say ]

Granted, with regard to konamot

they are therefore considered items that have a remedy, because

it is a mitzva to have them annulled, because of the statement of Rabbi Natan.

For Rabbi Natan said: “Anyone who takes a vow is as though he built a private altar

outside, at a time when private altars are forbidden,

and one who maintains it

without having it annulled, his act is even more severe, and he is

as though he were offering a sacrifice upon it

a sacrifice outside the Temple!

But with regard to teruma, what mitzva

is there

to have it annulled [

what mitzva is there to have it annulled ]? Therefore, although it is possible to have it annulled, it is not considered an item that has a remedy for this reason.

With regard to the matter itself [

cited earlier, on page 57b ]

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

A litra of onions

of untithed produce

that he rectified [

he separated its terumot and tithes ],

and planted it [

planted it ] in the ground, and the onions grew and increased,

it

is tithed according to all of it,

meaning that one takes one-tenth corresponding to what grew after the second planting, and also corresponding to the original bulb, which was not consumed and had already been rectified.

This is because the growths, which are untithed produce, nullify the original.

Rabba was sitting and reciting this teaching [

Rabba repeated Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words before Rav Ḥisda ].

Rav Ḥisda said

to Rabba:

“Who will listen to you and to your master Rabbi Yoḥanan [

who will listen to you and to your master Rabbi Yoḥanan ]!? But

where has the permitted element among them gone!?

That is, until now we have heard only that it is the forbidden element that is nullified within the permitted element, since when one tastes it, he does not taste the flavor of the forbidden element at all. But with regard to produce that has been rectified, it is impossible to say that its permitted status is nullified because of nullification by the majority and that the prohibition of untithed produce is newly imposed upon it.

Rabba said

to Rav Ḥisda:

“Did we not learn a similar law [

did we not learn in a Mishna a law similar to what Rabbi Yoḥanan said ]!?

For we learned:

Onions

of the sixth year

upon which rain fell

in the Sabbatical year

and they grew—