(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nedarim, 59


QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Machlokes between Rabah and Rav Chisda regarding onions that were replanted after Ma'aser was separated from them. Rabah says in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that when the onions grow and the new growth is larger than the original onions, even the original onions become Chayav in Terumos u'Ma'aseros (again). Rav Chisda asks, "Where did the Heter go?" -- Ma'aser was already separated from the original onions, and only the new part should be Chayav in Ma'aser. Rav Chisda holds that the Gidulin, which are Chayav in Ma'aser, are not Mevatel the Ikar, which is Patur from Ma'aser since Ma'aser was already separated from that part.

The RAN points out that in the preceding Dafim of the Gemara, there was a lengthy Sugya discussing whether Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar. Why is the Gemara starting a new discussion about this topic here? Moreover, the Gemara already said that we say that the Gidulin *are* Mevatel the Ikar wherever doing so would be l'Chumra, and here it is certainly l'Chumra to have the Gidulin be Mevatel the Ikar!

The Ran answers that the Machlokes between Rabah and Rav Chisda does not depend on whether the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, for both Rabah and Rav Chisda agree that the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar. Hence, if the Ikar is Asur and the Gidulin are Mutar, it is permitted to eat the entire onion, since the Ikar does not add any taste to the rest of the onion. What, then, is the Machlokes between Rabah and Rav Chisda? Why does Rabah say that the onions that were replanted become completely Asur (Chayav in Ma'aser), while Rav Chisda says that the Ikar remains Mutar (Patur from Ma'aser) and only the Gidulin are Asur?

The Machlokes is whether Bitul can be applied to Halachos that depend on monetary value and not on Isur and Heter. The requirement to separate Ma'aser from produce is a question of monetary value. Do we say that the Ikar becomes Batel to the Gidulin and it becomes Chayav in Ma'aser, like a normal case of Bitul? Or do we say that since the value of the Ikar with relation to the Gidulin in the mixture is known, it suffices to separate Ma'aser for the Gidulin alone, because the Mi'ut is not transformed to have the same status as the Rov? The Mi'ut is insignificant in comparison with the Rov with regard to taste (and therefore we do not have to take the Mi'ut into account).

The Gemara continues and cites a Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding onions of the sixth year that were replanted in the Shevi'is year. The Tana Kama says that the entire onion becomes Kadosh with Kedushas Shevi'is. This affects the monetary value of the onion in that if one exchanges it for other produce, the value of the entire onion becomes Kadosh in the new produce. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argues and says that only the new part that grew (the Gidulin) has Kedushas Shevi'is but not the original part. The Gemara suggests that the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel are arguing about he same issue as Rabah and Rav Chisda.

According to the Ran, the Gemara is comparing the two arguments because with regard to Shevi'is, too, we want to apply Bitul to the *value* of the produce and not just to the status of Isur or Heter to be eaten. The Ran (DH v'Ad Kan), however, asks how Raban Shimon ben Gamliel can say that the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar if everyone agrees (as the Ran asserts at the beginning of the Sugya on 57b and reiterates throughout the Sugya) that the Gidulin *are* Mevatel the Ikar when they do not have the same status as the Ikar.

The Ran offers two answers for why the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar in this case. First, he says that the Ikar is *Heter* in this case and "it is not the manner of Heter to become Batel." Second, he says that the person did not do an *action* to bring about a Bitul of the Ikar; rather, the Ikar is becoming Batel by itself. When one does not do an action, the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar.

Why is the Ran bothered with the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel? Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is simply saying the same as Rav Chisda, and the Ran himself already explained why, according to Rav Chisda, the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar -- because it is not a question of an Isur of Achilah rather a question of the monetary value of the item!

Conversely, according to the Ran here (59b), if the reasoning of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is because Heter cannot become Batel, the Ran should say that this also explains the reasoning of Rav Chisda, who says that the Ikar does not have a Chiyuv of Ma'aser even though the Gidulin do! (KEREN ORAH)

Also, how could the Ran suggest that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reasoning is because the person did not perform an action to be Mevatel the status of the Ikar? Rav Chisda says the same thing as Raban Shimon ben Gamliel -- that the Ikar is not Batel -- and yet he is discussing a case where the person certainly did do an action (by burying the onions)!

ANSWER: The RAN is apparently offering an alternative explanation to the one that he suggested earlier for the Machlokes between Rabah and Rav Chisda. Instead of saying that the Machlokes involves whether the value of an item can become Batel (whether the Mi'ut acquires the status of the Rov in such a case), the Ran is now explaining that the Machlokes is whether the Mi'ut turns into the Rov, acquiring the status of the Rov, or whether it simply loses its strength of Isur with regard to making the food prohibited from eating.

The Ran's third explanation is that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is discussing a case where the person did not do an action to cause the Rov to be Mevatel the Mi'ut. Even though Rav Chisda clearly applies Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling to a case where a person did do an action to create a Rov and to cause a Bitul, the Ran is suggesting that the previous Sugya until now (when the Gemara assumes that the Rov is always Mevatel the Mi'ut when one performed an action), was following the opinion of Rabah and not Rav Chisda, and that the Rov cannot be Mevatel the Mi'ut even if one performed an action.

OPINIONS: The RAN, in one explanation (see previous Insight), suggests that only an item of Isur can become Batel to an item of Heter, but Heter cannot become Batel to Isur. This is also the opinion of the RAMBAN and the RAN in Avodah Zarah (73a). The MISHNAH L'MELECH (Hilchos Me'ilah 7:6) suggests that for this reason, if an item of Heter becomes mixed in a Rov of Isur, a person will not get Malkus for eating part of the mixture, because the Heter remains Mutar and cannot become Batel to the Isur, and he might have eaten the Heter. (From our Sugya it appears that this applies only when he performed no action to cause Bitul. If, however, he performed an action to cause Bitul, then we would rule that the Heter does become Batel, according to Rabah.)

What is the Ran's logic for the assertion that Heter cannot become Batel in Isur?

(a) The OR SAMEI'ACH (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 15:10) and the ONEG YOM TOV (OC #4) explain that Bitul applies only to an object that bears a *title*. Through Bitul, an object loses its title (of Isur or Chiyuv). An object that is Mutar, though, does not bear any title, and thus it cannot become Batel. Since Bitul serves only to make an object lose its title and not to acquire a title, the Heter remains Heter. (See SHA'AREI YOSHER 3:15.)

(b) The CHIDUSHEI HA'RIM (YD #9) explains that Bitul occurs only when the candidate for Bitul is an opposing entity to the Rov in the mixture (like the Ran explains on 52a). A Mi'ut of Isur in a Rov of Heter is considered an opposing entity, since the Isur will prohibit the entire food if it does not become Batel. However, when the Rov is Isur, then the Mi'ut of Heter does not oppose that Isur, because it is not trying to cause the entire food to become permitted; the Rov will remain Asur even if there is some Heter in it! Since the Mi'ut of Heter is not challenging the Rov, it does not become Batel. (This logic will explain the first explanation of the Ran on 59a that Bitul applies only to permit an object for Achilah, but not to annul the Mi'ut with regard to its value, for the value of the Mi'ut affects only the Mi'ut and not the Rov.)

QUESTION: Rabah proposes that when a person makes an effort (performs an action) to cause Bitul, then even Heter (or value) can become Batel in Rov. The Gemara asks that if making an effort can cause a Rov to be Mevatel a Mi'ut, then why is it that when a person plants Ma'aser Tevel, even though the quantity of Gidulin is greater than the quantity of original fruit, and the Gidulin are not considered to be Ma'aser Tevel but rather normal Tevel, nevertheless the original fruit that was planted is still Chayav in Terumas Ma'aser and is not Batel to the Gidulin (i.e. it does not become normal Tevel).

Why is the Gemara suggesting that the original fruit should be Batel? The original fruit which is Ma'aser Tevel is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin," like all Tevel, as the Gemara mentions earlier (58a), since he could just separate Terumah from other produce ("mi'Makom Acher"), and a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" does not become Batel! Why does the Gemara have to say that there is a special Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that teaches that it is not Batel? (See GILYON HA'SHAS on 60a.)


(a) The rule that a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" does not become Batel applies only when the Ikar, with its status of Isur, is insignificantly small and therefore it does not contribute a taste to the Rov. Since the original fruit is still present, we can say that if it is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" it is not Batel and it prohibits the entire mixture. However, when a person makes an effort to cause Bitul of the Mi'ut, the Gemara understands that such a Bitul can even apply to laws that depend on the *value* of the Mi'ut (or if the Mi'ut is Heter). If so, it must be that in such cases, the Mi'ut itself changes status and takes upon itself the status of the Rov, and even if it is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" it should be Batel, because it loses the title of Tevel altogether. (M. Kornfeld)

(b) The ROSH explains that the original fruit remains Ma'aser Tevel even mid'Oraisa (see Rosh here and end of 58b). Accordingly, the fact that the Ikar is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" will not suffice to prevent it from becoming Batel, since, mid'Oraisa, a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" is Batel, and it is only mid'Rabanan that it is not Batel. (See, however, the RAN, who points out that all foods that are "Ein Zar'o Kalah" are only Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Rabanan.)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,