Nedarim 60a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara raises an objection:

To say:

the growths of teruma

growths ![](pamud.bmp "

precise column location")

permitted

are, and

elevate

they

the prohibition! Why should the growths themselves be permitted, so that they are able to nullify the original substance!?

But are the growths themselves permitted, so that they can nullify the original substance

But did we not learn

in the Mishna concerning terumot [9:4]:

The growths of teruma

are

teruma

, which shows that the growths themselves are prohibited.

And we answer:

We are speaking of the growths of growths [

that is, Rabbi Yannai is dealing with this], and Rabbi Yannai said as follows: An onion of the growths of teruma that one planted, and whose growths became more numerous than its original substance, since the growths of the growths became more numerous than the original substance—that is, the first growths, which are themselves prohibited because of “the growths of teruma”—it is permitted. And we still wonder:

We also learned this

in that same Mishna concerning terumot:

The growths of growths

of teruma are

ordinary produce

, that is, they are not prohibited because of teruma, and if so, what does Rabbi Yannai teach us by this!?

And we answer: From the Mishna concerning terumot we would have known only that the growths of growths are permitted with a substance whose seed is consumed. And

this he teaches us

Rabbi Yannai: The growths of growths are permitted

even with a substance whose seed does not get consumed

, since Rabbi Yannai spoke of an onion, whose seed does not get consumed.

And we object: Since Rabbi Yannai spoke of an onion, whose seed does not get consumed, then the real difficulty is: Why are the growths of growths permitted!?

But did we not learn: Untithed produce

that was “established” for tithing and became prohibited even for casual eating, and one planted it, its

growths

are permitted—

for casual eating, like other untithed produce that has not yet been established for tithing, which is permitted for casual eating —

with a substance whose seed is consumed.

But a substance whose seed does not get consumed

even

its growths of growths are prohibited.

And if so, this is an objection to Rabbi Yohanan, who permitted the growths of growths of teruma, whereas here the Mishna explains that even with untithed produce the growths of growths are prohibited, and all the more so with teruma!? And we answer:

When its growths became more numerous than its original substance, it is permitted—

it is only then that

this he teaches us

Rabbi Yannai!

a. This was explained according to the wording of the Ran, who wrote: That is, when we say concerning untithed produce that “the growths of growths are prohibited,” it is speaking where the growths of growths did not become more numerous than the original substance, that is, the growths and so on. We learn from the Ran’s words that just as with teruma the growths of growths must become more numerous than the growths , because the growths themselves are prohibited, as we learned: “The growths of teruma are teruma,” and as explained above, so too the growths of untithed produce themselves—with a substance whose seed does not get consumed—are prohibited, and the growths of growths must become more numerous than the growths. His words are novel, and the Ran did not make known the source for this. b. Further explanation is needed in the Ran’s words, where he wrote that if the growths of growths of untithed produce become more numerous than the growths, they are permitted. After all, untithed produce is a substance that has a permitted remedy, and is not nullified even in a thousand!? [One cannot object to the Gemara, because the Gemara’s wording refers to Rabbi Yannai’s statement, which concerns teruma and not untithed produce; but the Ran, who wrote this also concerning untithed produce, requires explanation.] It is possible that the reason for the nullification is not the ordinary nullification through a majority used throughout the Torah, but rather because he exerted himself and planted the onion, as explained above in the note, that this is effective even with a substance that has a permitted remedy. c. The wording of the Gemara, “This he teaches us,” implies that Rabbi Yannai’s primary novelty is that the growths nullify the original substance. This is somewhat contradictory to the Ran throughout this discussion, according to whom it is obvious that the growths nullify the original substance if their status is not like that of the original substance. In truth, however, this is not Rabbi Yannai’s only novelty, but rather, as the Gemara said above, Rabbi Yannai teaches us that even with a substance whose seed does not get consumed, the growths of growths are not prohibited in themselves.

We shall return to you, chapter “One who vows concerning vegetables”

Mishna:

One who said:

“Konam, wine that I taste today”—

is not forbidden

in it

except until it grows dark.

For the expression “today” indicates only until he completes that day on which he is standing.

And if he was standing in the middle of the week and said: “Konam, wine that I taste

this Shabbat

(week)

this,”

that person is

forbidden throughout the entire Shabbat

of the week in which he is standing.

And

also the day of

Shabbat

itself

is considered to be in the past

and he is forbidden on it.

But after Shabbat, he is not forbidden, because “this Shabbat” indicates only until he completes that week on which he is standing.

And if he was standing in the middle of the month and said: “Konam, wine that I taste in

this month,”

that person is

forbidden throughout the entire month,

and after that month he is permitted,

and the beginning

of the

month

that follows it is considered

for the future,

and he is permitted on it.

And if he said:

“This year,”

that person is

forbidden throughout the entire year.

And the New Year

that follows it is considered

for the future,

and he is not forbidden on it.

And if he said

“this week”

(seven years)

“this,”

that person is

forbidden throughout the entire week.

And the Sabbatical year

(the Sabbatical year) is considered

to be in the past,

and he is therefore forbidden even on it.

And if he said:

“one day,”

or

“one Shabbat,”

or “

one month,” “

one year,” “

one week”—

then he is forbidden for “one complete cycle.”

That is, when he said “one day,” he is forbidden from the moment at which he made the vow until that same time on the following day.

This person is forbidden for

one cycle.”

That is, when he said “one day,” he is forbidden from the same time at which he vowed until that same time on the following day.

Whereas with the other vows, he is

forbidden from day to day,

from the day on which he is standing until that same day in the coming Shabbat, month, year

and week.

One who said: “Konam, wine that I taste

until Passover,”

that person is

forbidden until Passover arrives. On Passover itself he is permitted, because in the language of people, when one says “until,” his intention is “and not including” [the endpoint].

But if he said: “

until Passover shall be,” that person is

forbidden until Passover departs, because his expression indicates: until the entire Passover has passed.

And if he said: “

until the face of Passover,” there is a doubt in this expression: whether it is interpreted as until the final moment of Passover, or until before Passover.

And since it is an expression of doubt, the tannaim disagreed concerning its law:

Rabbi Meir says:

he is not

forbidden

except

until Passover arrives, and on Passover itself he is permitted, because since the time after it is doubtful, a person does not place himself in a situation of doubt, and he intended to forbid only the certain time included in his words.

Rabbi Yosei says: He is forbidden

with regard to the doubt

until Passover departs, because sometimes a person places himself in a situation of doubt.

until Passover ends, because sometimes a person does place himself in a state of uncertainty.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “Konam, wine that I taste”

today is not forbidden except until it grows dark:

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said:

Although by law he is forbidden only until it grows dark, nevertheless I decree

that he shall not be permitted when the day ends, but

when it grows dark, it is necessary for him

to seek a sage’s ruling

and then he will be permitted.

And the Gemara explains:

“What is the reason?”

Rav Yosef said:

A decree

“Konam upon me

‘today,’”

because of “Konam upon me

‘one day,’”

which is not permitted when it grows dark, but only at that same time on the following day.

For if we permit him when he said “today” without a ruling, he will come to err and say the same even when he said “one day,” because he does not know how to distinguish between them.

Page 60b

He said to him

Abaye