Nedarim 59a — the Talmud in English

They said

the members of the yeshiva to reconcile:

Tithe

is not considered an item whose prohibition is through the ground, because

digeon

[miruach]

is what causes it

to become obligated in tithe.

Rami bar Hama raised an objection

to Rabbi Yannai, who said above, on 57b: “An onion of teruma that one planted, and its growths became greater than its principal, is permitted,” because the growths nullify it—from our Mishna:

One who says:

“The fruits הללו are konam to me; konam they are upon my mouth; konam they are to my mouth,”

behold, this person is

forbidden through their exchanges and through their growths;

but if he said:

“What I eat” and “what I taste,” he is permitted through their exchanges and through their growths—

and all this is only

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

for the principal, which is forbidden, is mixed into it.

It follows that with regard to an item whose seed is not consumed, the principal is not nullified within the growths; and this is a difficulty against Rabbi Yannai, who said: “The growths nullify the principal”

a. It was explained on the basis of the Ran, who explained that the question is against Rabbi Yannai ; and as for why he did not write that the question is also against Rabbi Yohanan, who said above, on 57b: “A litra of onions that one prepared and planted is tithed according to all of it,” so that the growths nullify the principal! ? It may be said that in this matter too one can say as the Gemara says there: “For stringency it is different.” b. According to the method of the Ran, this question of Rami bar Hama is not upon the essential subject of our discussion, because according to the method of the Ran, our discussion is not discussing at all whether the growths nullify the principal, but whether the growths are permitted; and it is obvious to us that the growths nullify the principal when the growths do not have the status of the principal. c. The Ran asked: Why did Rami bar Hama not raise the objection from the beraita brought at the end of the page: “A litra of maaser tevel that one planted in the ground and it improved, and it is now like ten litra, is obligated in tithe, and one separates from that litra according to the calculation,” for it follows that the growths do not enhance the principal! ? And he answered: It is preferable to raise the difficulty from the Mishna; and furthermore, tevel for terumat maaser is an obvious case of an item that has a permitted remedy, and even in a thousand it is not nullified. Rabbi Abba

said in answer:

Rabbi Abba:

The case of konamot is different, since if he wishes, he can request dissolution

of them

[for if he wishes, he asks about them],

they are equivalent to an item that has a permitted remedy.

And

an item that has a permitted remedy

is not nullified by the majority.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this:

But teruma, since if he wishes he can request dissolution of it, and

nevertheless

it is nullified!?

For

For

we learned

in a Mishna in Trumot:

A se’a of impure teruma that fell into less than one hundred [seahs] of ordinary produce—the entire mixture shall be burned

the entire mixture, since teruma is nullified only in one hundred and one.

It follows by implication:

indeed,

if the teruma fell

into one hundred

of ordinary produce,

it is nullified,

the teruma.

And it is demonstrated that even teruma, with regard to which it is possible to request dissolution, is nullified and is not included in the category of an item that has a permitted remedy!?

They said

the members of the yeshiva to reconcile:

We are dealing with teruma in the possession of a kohen

in the Mishna of Trumot,

for he is unable

the one who separated it

to request dissolution of it,

since it reached the possession of a kohen.

The Gemara is astonished:

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 shall be sold to a kohen,

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

Rather,

the Gemara reconciles the Mishna of Trumot so that this difficulty should not arise: Is this not an item that has a permitted remedy?

We are dealing with an Israelite to whom teruma fell

teruma

from the house of his maternal grandfather,

a kohen, we are dealing

in the Mishna in tractate Trumot, for the teruma had already reached the possession of a kohen, and he inherited it to his Israelite grandson. And then the one who separated it cannot request dissolution of it, since it reached the possession of a kohen. But now it does not belong to a kohen, and therefore it shall be sold to a kohen.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against this:

But

this is what

is taught

in that

latter clause: “It shall be sold to a kohen, apart from the value of that se’a,”

and this is because the Mishna is dealing with teruma that has not yet reached the possession of a kohen, and he must fulfill through it the mitzva of giving; therefore it shall be sold to a kohen, apart from the value of that se’a.

It is thus demonstrated that the teruma had not yet reached the possession of a kohen, and the difficulty is: for it is an item that has a permitted remedy!?

Rather,

the Gemara reconciles it in another manner:

Say

[say thus]:

Granted, konamot

therefore are items that have a permitted remedy, because

it is a mitzva to request dissolution of them, because of Rabbi Natan.

For Rabbi Natan said: Anyone who vows is as though he built a private altar

outside, during the time when private altars were forbidden,

and one who maintains it

without requesting dissolution of it, his act is more severe, and he is

as though he sacrifices upon it

an offering outside the Temple!

But with regard to teruma, what mitzva

is there

to request dissolution of it

[what mitzva is there to request dissolution of it]? And therefore, although it is possible to request dissolution of it, it is not considered on this account an item that has a permitted remedy.

The essential matter

[it was brought above, on 57b]:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

A litra of onions

of tevel

that he prepared

[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: he takes one-tenth corresponding to what grew after the second planting, and also corresponding to the principal that was not consumed and had already been prepared.

And because the growths, which are tevel, nullify the principal.

Rabba sat and recited this teaching

[Rabba said Rabbi Yohanan’s words before Rav Hisda].

Rav Hisda said to him

to Rabba:

Who will listen to you and to your master Rabbi Yohanan

[who will listen to you and to your master Rabbi Yohanan]!? And is it so that

the permitted part among them—where did it go!?

Meaning, until now we have heard only that it is the prohibition that is nullified in the permitted substance, because when he tastes, he does not taste the taste of the prohibition at all. But with regard to fruits that have been prepared, it is impossible to say that because of nullification by the majority their permitted status is nullified and a prohibition of tevel is newly imposed upon them.

He said to him

Rabba to Rav Hisda:

Did we not learn a similar case

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

And we learned:

Onions

of the sixth year

upon which rain fell

in the Sabbatical year

and they grew—