Nedarim 59b (נט:) — the Talmud in English

If their leaves were black

[tending toward blackness], then they are

forbidden

like produce of the Sabbatical year, since the blackness of the leaves demonstrates that their growth is sound and that they grew from Sabbatical-year soil.

And if

they turned yellow,

the leaves, then they are

permitted,

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

The Gemara assumes that even the original bulb is forbidden on account of the laws of the Sabbatical year when the leaves have turned black, since the Mishna states without qualification: “they are forbidden.” And if one sells them, all the money received for them acquires the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, as is the law with produce of the Sabbatical year, which confers its sanctity upon the money exchanged for it; it is not said that the money acquires sanctity only to the extent of the added growth, but not with regard to the original bulb.

Therefore, we raise an objection:

And if they are black

the leaves,

why are they forbidden!?

Let us say: The permitted portion among them—where did it go!?

He said

Rab Ḥisda

rejected him,

Rabba:

Do you think that it is concerning

the

original bulb

that he

states

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

it is concerning the added growth

that he

states: They are forbidden.

This is to teach us that the growths do not follow the status of the original bulb. But the permitted original bulb remains in its state of permissibility.

The Gemara raises an objection to this:

If so,

if even the tanna of the Mishna prohibited only the added growth, then

what did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel come to say—

who disagreed with the tanna of our Mishna—

by saying

[what did he come to dispute]!?

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

That which grows during the period of obligation—

during the Sabbatical year—

is obligated

in removal, like produce of the Sabbatical year; but

that which grows during the period of exemption—

during the sixth year—

is exempt.

But if it is as Rav Ḥisda said, that even the tanna of our Mishna prohibited only the added growth, then

the first tanna is also saying exactly this,

like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. In what, then, did they disagree!?

And we answer:

The entire Mishna was taught by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The tanna of the Mishna is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the beraita did not come to disagree with the Mishna, but to explain the view of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Mishna. If so, no proof can be brought from this Mishna for the position of Rabbi Yoḥanan, your teacher.

It follows, according to Rav Ḥisda’s rejection, that not only is there no support for Rabbi Yoḥanan from this Mishna; on the contrary, it is proven from here that we say, “The permitted portion among them—where did it go?” and therefore that which grows during the period of exemption is exempt, contrary to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that growths of a forbidden substance nullify the permitted portion!?

And Rabba said concerning this: Even if you should say that Rav Ḥisda’s interpretation is correct, that the entire Mishna is the teaching of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and that this Mishna provides no support for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position, nevertheless, this interpretation poses no difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan—

and

because

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel held this view only up to this point,

that growths of a forbidden substance do not nullify the permitted portion, only where

one did not exert himself

to plant them and nullify them, since the rain fell upon them on its own.

But where one did exert himself

—for example, in the case of a litra of onions that one tithed and planted—even a permitted original bulb

is nullified by the majority

of the 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.

This is merely an incidental support, and this is the intent of the Gemara:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said that growths nullify the original when one exerted himself only where one of the two was permitted and the other forbidden, since two dissimilar substances nullify one another. But in the case of a litra of tithe tevel that one planted during the Sabbatical year, where both the original and the growths are forbidden—although their prohibitions are not identical, since one is tevel and the other is produce of the Sabbatical year—the growths do not nullify the original.

The body of the matter

[it was brought above, on 57b]:

Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata'a said that Rabbi Yannai said: In the case of an onion of teruma

which is forbidden to non-kohanim even in incidental eating,

that one planted

in the ground,

and its growths became more numerous

those growths being tevel,

than its original portion

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

The entire onion is

permitted

with regard to teruma, and it has reverted to being tevel; it is permitted to eat it incidentally until it becomes fixed.