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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nedarim 58



(a) Rebbi Ami, whose proof from Rav Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan (that when what grows becomes a majority, it is Mevatel the Ikar) has been refuted, makes a further attempt at resolving Yishmael Ish K'far Yama's She'eilah from Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa. According to Rebbi Shimon, the Chachamim did not give a Shiur (to become Batel) to Tevel, Ma'aser Sheini, Hekdesh and Chadash - is because they all fall under the category of 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin' (which forbids even when it is only a 'Kol she'Hu'); whereas they did give a Shiur to Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser, Chalah, Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem they fall under the category of 'Davar she'Ein Lo Matirin' (which can become Bateil).

(b) What makes ...

1. ... Tevel a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin - is the fact that one can separate Ma'asros from another source.
2. ... Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin - is the fact that they can be redeemed.
3. ... Chadash a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin - is the bringing of the Omer.
(c) The Tana is talking about becoming Bateil in the same kind as itself - but if it became Bateil in another kind, it is Bateil 'be'Nosen Ta'am' (which is usually one sixtieth - i.e. one in sixty).

(d) The Sugya in Avodah-Zarah gives the reason for Tevel not becoming Bateil as being - 'ke'Hetero Kach Isuro' (meaning that just as Tevel becomes rectified by separating just one grain, so too does just one grain render what it falls into, forbidden.

(a) With regard to Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser and Chalah, the fact that one can be Sho'el (have them rescinded through a Chacham) does not place them in the category of 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin' - because there is no Mitzvah to do so.

(b) The Shiur Bitul be'Minan (in the same kind), regarding ...

1. ... Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser and Chalah is - one in a hundred.
2. ... Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem - one in two hundred.
(c) The Shiur of all of these, should they become mixed in she'Lo be'Minan is - one in sixty.
(a) The Mishnah in Shevi'is rules 'ha'Shevi'is Oseres Kol-she'Hu be'Minah'. Apart from Shevi'is-fruit becoming mixed together with other fruit - the Mishnah is referring to a sixth-year onion which one re-planted in the Sh'mitah.

(b) Considering that Shevi'is is a 'Davar she'Ein Lo Matirin', Rebbi Shimon (who does not argue with the Rabbanan there) establishes the Beraisa - by fruit which grew before the Z'man ha'Bi'ur (which differs from fruit to fruit, and) which is a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin', seeing as one is permitted to eat it up until the Z'man ha'Bi'ur.

(c) Fruit that grows after the time of Bi'ur, according to Rebbi Shimon, is 'Bateil be'Nosen Ta'am'.

(a) Rebbi Ami is trying to prove from the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon - that what grows is not drawn after the Ikar, and is even Mevatel it.

(b) Rebbi Ami proves from Rebbi Shimon that what grows is not drawn after the Ikar from the fact that it is Mevatel it - because we take for granted that whatever is not Mevatel the Ikar becomes drawn after it.

(c) We reject this proof too. There is no proof from Rebbi Shimon that an onion of Sh'mitah that is re-planted in the eighth year is Mevatel the Isur - because he is speaking about the reverse case, about a sixth-year onion that was re-planted in the Sh'mitah, and here again, the growth is Mevatel the Ikar only le'Chumra, but strictly speaking, the growth is not Mevatel the Ikar.

(d) In spite of having used this S'vara to reject the previous proof, we nevertheless persist in citing this Beraisa - because, unlike the previous case, here we are dealing with *two* Chumros (firstly, that up until the Bi'ur, we treat any mixture like a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin' disallowing Bitul; secondly, the growth, which should not become Asur at all, is in fact, Asur. We might therefore have thought that we could not use the same S'vara here, because to such an extent, we would not go le'Chumra.

(a) So he tries to resolve the She'eilah from another Mishnah in Shevi'is. The Tana say there with regard to sixth-year onions on which rain fell and which subsequently grew, that if their leaves were ...
1. ... bordering on black (a clear indication that they grew mainly in the Sh'mitah) - 'Asurin'.
2. ... green - 'Mutarin' (because they grew mainly in the sixth year, and not in the Sh'mitah).
(b) Rebbi Chananya ben Antignos gauges that the onions grew well in the Sh'mitah, and are therefore forbidden - by the fact that they can be detached by their leaves.

(c) About the same situation on Motza'ei Shevi'is - he says that they are permitted.

(d) In order to reject Rebbi Ami's proof from here too, that what grows is not Bateil to the Ikar, and even renders it Bateil - we establish the Mishnah by onions that were pounded before being re-planted, which is why what subsequently grew was not drawn after them and were therefore Mevatel them.




(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa says that someone who is weeding among Chasi'os with a Kuti, may eat from them casually, and is obligated to Ma'aser them. Chasi'os - incorporates all species whose seeds do not decompose before growing (such as the family of onions).

(b) We have thought that they are forbidden - because they may have already reached the stage of Ma'aser before they were planted.

(c) The concession to eat them might be based on the fact that the obligation to Ma'aser them is only mi'de'Rabbanan (so we are lenient when there is a Safek) - or it may be because, seeing as we rule 'Me'asran Vadai', it is clear that we do not consider the possibility that they may have already reached the stage of Ma'aser before they were planted.

(a) In the same Beraisa, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says (with regard to a Yisrael who is suspected of breaking the Sh'mitah) - 'Im Yisrael Chashud al ha'Shevi'is, le'Motza'ei Shevi'is Mutar'.

(b) Rebbi Ami finally resolve Yishmael Ish K'far Yama's She'eilah from there - because Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar only permits it because what grows after Sh'mitah is Mevatel the Ikar.

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar cannot be speaking about ...

1. ... a species whose seeds decompose before growing - because the Tana specifically wrote 'Chasi'os', whose seeds do not decompose.
2. ... someone who pounded the onions before planting them - because he refers to someone who is 'Chashud al ha'Shevi'is', and it is only someone who keeps Shevi'is who would bother to do that.
3. ... a case when the onions are mixed with other species - because he wrote 'ha'Menachesh', implying that he is speaking about someone who is particular about keeping them separate.
(d) To avoid Rebbi Yochanan ('Yaldah she'Savchah bi'Zekeinah ... Asur') and Rebbi Yonasan ('Batzel she'Nat'o be'Kerem ... Asur') clashing with this Mishnah - Rebbi Yitzchak explain the reason for this Mishnah (based on the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Shavsah ha'Aretz Shabbos la'Hashem") - that the root of the Isur of Sh'mitah-produce is the fact that it grew in the land, and seeing as the land was responsible for the Isur, it also causes it to become Bateil. In other words, Sh'mitah is unique in this regard, and by other Isurim, the growth is not Mevatel the Ikar.
(a) We just learned that the Isur of Sh'mitah is based in the land. The basis of the Isur of ...
1. ... Orlah - is the fact that the time has not yet expired.
2. ... Kil'ayim - the mixture of the species forbidden by the Torah.
(b) We have learned in a Beraisa 'Litra Ma'aser Tevel she'Zar'ah be'Karka ve'Hishbichah, ve'Harei Hu ke'Eser Litrin, Chayeves be'Ma'aser' u'va'Shevi'is'. The ramifications of ...
1. ... 'Chayeves be'Ma'aser are - Ma'aser min ha'Ma'aser (whose obligation already came into effect before the Ma'aser was sown.
2. ... 'u'va'Shevi'is' are - that it must be got rid of before the time of Bi'ur.
3. ... the conclusion of this Beraisa 've'Osah Litra Me'aser Alehah mi'Makom Acher le'Fi Cheshbon' are - the Ma'aser min ha'Ma'aser must be separated from an external source, and not from within itself, because, seeing as what grew is Patur from Ma'aser, one would be separating from what is Patur to cover what is Chayav.
(c)If, as we initially believe, the obligation to Ma'aser is based in the land, our problem is - why is the growth not Mevatel the Ikar (like it is by Shevi'is)?

(d) In fact, we answer - the obligation to Ma'aser is, based not in the land, but in the 'Digun' (also known as 'Miru'ach' - flattening the pile of produce after winnowing).

Next daf


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