Nedarim 59b — the Talmud in English

If their leaves were black

[tending toward blackness], then they are

forbidden

like the produce of the Sabbatical year, for the blackness of the leaves proves that their growth is good and that they grew from Sabbatical-year soil.

And if

they turned yellow,

the leaves, then they are

permitted,

for this proves that they did not grow from Sabbatical-year soil, but rather from the bulbs themselves.

And the Gemara assumes that even the root is forbidden on account of the Sabbatical year when the leaves became black, for it was taught without qualification: “they are forbidden.” And if he sells them, all the money will be seized by the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, in accordance with the law of Sabbatical-year produce, which seizes its monetary substitute; and it was not said that it seizes its monetary substitute only corresponding to the addition, but not the root.

Therefore, we raise an objection:

And if they are black

And therefore we raise an objection:

But if they are black,

why are they forbidden!? Let us say: Where has the permitted portion among them gone!?

He said

that Rav Hisda

rejected it

to Rabba:

Do you hold that concerning

the

root

it is that he

teaches

that if the leaves became black they are forbidden!? It is not so. Rather,

concerning the addition

it is that he

teaches: “they are forbidden.”

And this informs us that the growths do not follow after the root. But the permitted root remains in its permitted status.

And the Gemara objects to this:

If so,

if even the tanna of the Mishna forbade only the addition, then

what did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel come

—who disagreed with the tanna of our Mishna—

to say

[what did he come to disagree about]!?

For it was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

That which grows in a period of obligation

—in the Sabbatical year—

is liable

for removal, according to the law of Sabbatical-year produce; but

that which grows in a period of exemption

—in the sixth year—

is exempt.

But if it is as Rav Hisda said, that even the tanna of our Mishna forbade only the addition, it follows that

the first tanna also says precisely this

like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; and about what did they disagree!?

And we answer:

The entire Mishna was taught by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The tanna of the Mishna is Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, and the beraita did not come to disagree with the Mishna, but rather to explain the view of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Mishna; and if so, one cannot prove from this Mishna in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan, your teacher.

And according to Rav Hisda’s rejection, it follows that not only is there no support for Rabbi Yohanan from this Mishna, but, on the contrary, it is proven from here that we say, “Where has the permitted portion among them gone?” Therefore, that which grows in a period of exemption is exempt, unlike Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that forbidden growths nullify the permitted portion!?

And Rabba said about this: Even if you should say according to Rav Hisda’s interpretation, that the entire [Mishna] is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s and there is no support for Rabbi Yohanan’s view from this Mishna, nevertheless there is no difficulty against Rabbi Yohanan even according to this interpretation—

and

because

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel has told you this only

that forbidden growths do not nullify the permitted portion in a case

where he did not trouble himself

to sow them and nullify them, for rain fell upon them on its own.

But where he does trouble himself

—as in the case of a litra of onions that he prepared and sowed—even a permitted root

is nullified in the majority

of forbidden growths.

And we raise an objection:

But

a litra of tithe tevel

that one planted in the ground, and it improved, becoming equivalent to ten litras,

where one did exert himself

to plant it,

and

nevertheless

it is taught

in the beraita cited above, on 58b:

And from that litra he separates tithe elsewhere according to the proportion—

this shows that even when one exerted himself, the growths of the Sabbatical year, which are exempt from tithe, do not nullify the original. This is a difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that growths nullify the original where one exerted himself!? And we answer:

The case of tithe is different, for the verse says

“You shall surely tithe”,

because people plant permitted seed, but people do not plant forbidden seed.

And it is merely an incidental support, and this is the intention of the Gemara:

Rabbi Yohanan said that the growths nullify the root when he troubled himself only where one of them was permitted and the other forbidden, for two things that are not equal nullify one another; but in the case of a litra of tithe that was untithed produce, which he sowed during the Sabbatical year, where both the root and the growths are forbidden—although their prohibitions are not equal, for this one is untithed produce and that one is Sabbatical-year produce—the growths do not nullify the root.

The body of the matter

The matter itself

[brought above, 57b]:

Rabbi Hanina Tirata'ah said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: An onion of teruma

that he planted

in the ground,

and its growths increased

which are untithed produce

over its root

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

The entire onion is

permitted

with regard to teruma, and it returned to its untithed status and is permitted for temporary eating until it becomes fixed.