(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 59



(a) We just concluded that, according to Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yonasan, what grows is not Mevatel the Ikar, with the exception of Sh'mitah, because it is the ground which causes the Isur and therefore the Bitul. Rebbi Yanai disagrees. According to him - what grows from the ground is, in principle, Mevatel the Ikar in all areas of Halachah.

(b) To reconcile our Mishnah 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu she'Ani Ochel ... be'Davar she'Ein Zar'o Kalah, Afilu Gidulei Gidulin Asurin' with the opinion of Rebbi Yanai - Rebbi Aba explains that Konamos are different, inasmuch as they fall into the category of Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin (which are not subject to Bitul - mi'de'Rabbanan).

(c) We may well not ask on Rebbi Yanai from the previous Beraisa ('Litra Ma'aser Tevel', where the growth is also not Mevatel the Ikar), because we prefer to ask from a Mishnah. Alternatively - we knew already that Ma'aser is a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin' (whereas Konamos is a Chidush).

(a) The Mishnah in Terumos says that a Sa'ah of Terumah Temei'ah that fell into less than a hundred of Chulin - must be left to rot.

(b) The Tana mention specifically 'Terumah Temei'ah' because of the inference - to teach us that even Terumah Temei'ah becomes Bateil in a hundred.

(c) The mixture cannot be eaten, because even a Kohen may not eat Terumah Temei'ah. One does not follow the regular procedure of burning it - because, as is explained in Pesachim, we are afraid that, whilst he is burning it, he may just come to eat it.

(a) This Mishnah presents Rebbi Yanai with a Kashya - because of the inference (that if the Terumah fell into a hundred, it *would* become Bateil, despite the fact that Terumah, like Konamos, can be rescinded, in which case it ought to be considered a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin').

(b) We did not ask how Rebbi Yanai could permit Bitul, with regard to an onion of Terumah that the owner planted, in spite of the fact that Terumah is a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin' - because we could easily answer that he is speaking in the case of a Yisrael who inherited the onion from his maternal grandfather, who was a Kohen. He of course, does not have the power to have the Terumah rescinded.

(c) We answer that Terumah is not considered a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin like Konamos - because, whereas there is a Mitzvah to have the Konamos revoked (as we shall see shortly), there is no Mitzvah to do so with Terumah.

(d) If the Seifa had not stated ...

1. ... 'Im Haysah Tehorah, Timacher le'Kohen ... ' we might have answered - that we are speaking when the mixture had already reached the hands of the Kohen (who cannot have the Terumah revoked).
2. ... 'Chutz mi'Demei Osah Sa'ah' - we might have answered that we are speaking about a mixture that was in the hands of a Yisrael, who had inherited it from his maternal grandfather, who was a Kohen. He however, would have been permitted to sell the entire mixture to a Kohen (seeing as he is its rightful owner).
4) Konamos, unlike Terumah, are considered a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin', because of Rebbi Nasan - who says that when someone declares a Neder, it is as if he had constructed a Bamah, and if he subsequently fulfills it (rather than having it revoked), it is as if he had sacrificed on it.


(a) Concerning Rebbi Yochanan's ruling that a Litra of onions which the owner Ma'asered and then re-planted must be Ma'asered again from scratch - Rav Chisda asked Rabah what happened to the Heter (the Ikar, which had already been Ma'asered and was Chulin when it was re-planted)?

(b) This is different than Gidulin shel Heter, which are Mevatel the Ikar shel Isur - inasmuch as, unlike there, we are not talking about being Mevatel the taste (which *can* become nullified), but rather about being Mevatel the Chulin from its exemption from being Ma'asered, which it is illogical to nullify.

(c) Rav Chisda refutes Rabah's proof from the Mishnah in Shevi'is 'Betzalim she'Yardu Aleihem Geshamim ve'Tzimchu, Im Hayu Alin she'Lahen Shechorin, Asurin' (implying that the onions are completely Asur - a proof that what grows is Mevatel the Ikar completely) - by confining the Isur to the growth, but not to the Ikar (which remains permitted).

(d) Even though we explained earlier that, as far as eating is concerned, the Heter of growth is indeed Mevatel the Isur, even according to Rebbi Yochanan and presumably, this will also apply to the Isur of growth being Mevatel the Heter - we are not speaking here about eating, but about exchanging Chulin fruit for the onions (and the exchange that is equivalent to the Ikar - the part of the onions that were Chulin, is permitted [even though Chilufei Shevi'is is normally forbidden]).

6) Rabah did not want to explain the Mishnah like Rav Chisda - because then, he maintains, the Tana should have qualified his statement, and not just said 'Asurin'.




(a) Rav Chisda, who just established the Mishnah in Shevi'is 'Betzalim she'Yardu Aleihem Geshamim ve'Tzimchu, Im Hayu Alin she'Lahen Shechorin, Asurin' by the Tosefes, reconciles this with the Beraisa, where Raban Shimon ben Gamliel comments 'ha'Gadel be'Chiyuv, Chayav, ha'Gadel bi'Petur, Patur' (seemingly duplicating the opinion of the Tana of the Mishnah) - by establishing the author of the Mishnah as Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.

(b) We reconcile this Mishnah with Rebbi Yochanan, who said 'Litra Betzalim she'Tiknah ve'Zar'ah, Mis'aseres le'Fi Kulah' - by pointing out that the Mishnah speaks when he did not make any effort to be Mevatel the Ikar; whereas in the case of Rebbi Yochanan, where he re-planted the Ikar so that it should become Bateil in the growth, the growth is indeed Mevatel the Ikar completely.

(c) From the Mishnah in Shevi'is, we see that even though the section of onions that grows does not become Bateil to the Ikar, yet it does not nullify it either, in spite of the theory to the contrary (that if it is not Batel to it, it automatically nullifies it), that we cited earlier. This might well be because it is Isur that usually becomes Bateil in Heter, and not the other way round. Alternatively, it might be because, as we just explained, in the case of the Mishnah, he made no effort to nullify the Ikar, whereas in Rebbi Yochanan's case, he did.

(d) When, earlier in the Sugya, we attempted to resolve Yishmael Ish K'far Yama's She'eilah (of 'Batzel she'Okro bi'Shevi'is') from (Rebbi Yonasan's case of) 'Batzel she'Nat'o be'Kerem, ve'Ne'ekar ha'Kerem', we did not use the same argument to refute the proof from there - because, although it would have been feasible to do so in that case, we would not have been able to do so vis-a-vis (Rebbi Yochanan's case of ) 'Yaldah she'Sivchah bi'Zekeinah'.

(a) Despite having just learned that according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, when one deliberately plants Isur to become Bateil in the Gidulin, it does become Bateil, the Beraisa that we discussed earlier ' ... ve'Osah Litra Me'aser Alehah mi'Makom Acher le'Fi Cheshbon' clearly does not subscribe to that S'vara (not because he disagrees with it in principle, but) - because Ma'aser is different.

(b) This in turn, is because Ma'aser has a Pasuk of its own "Aser Te'aser es Tevu'as *Zar'echa*" - from which we learn that it is only when one sows one's own seeds that one needs to Ma'aser what grows, but not when one sows Tevel, which is not one's personal property.

(c) Bearing in mind that we are talking about seeds that do not decompose before re-growing - the problem with this Derashah is that min ha'Torah, all seeds that do not decompose are Patur from being Ma'asered when they re-grow. So how can we learn from this Pasuk that when one sows one's own seeds, one needs to Ma'aser what grows?

(d) In fact, the Pasuk is no more than an Asmachta. The real reason that Tevel that is re-planted cannot become Bateil ...

1. ... in the Sh'mitah-year is - because Isur does not become Bateil in Isur (irrespective of the fact that the two Isurim are different.
2. ... in the other years of the cycle - because Tevel does not become Bateil in Tevel.
(a) Rebbi Yanai, who learns that Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, reconciles his statement with the Mishnah in Terumos 'Gidulei Terumah Terumah' - by establishing it by Gidulei Gidulin (when he took what grew from the re-planted Terumah and re-planted it again).

(b) Gidulei Gidulin are Tevel. When Rebbi Yanai says 'Mutar' - he means that even a Yisrael is permitted to eat it casually, which he would not be allowed to do, if it was Terumah.

(c) In light of the Mishnah which specifically states 'Gidulei Gidulav Chulin (not Terumah)', Rebbi Yanai is coming to teach us - that this even applies to seeds which do not decompose (whereas the Mishnah is speaking about seeds which do.

(d) Rebbi Yanai establishes the Mishnah in Terumos, which specifically states that Gidulei Gidulav by seeds which do not decompose are forbidden - when the growth does not exceed the Ikar, and which does not therefore become Bateil.

10) In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yanai is talking about an onion, whose seeds do not decompose before re-growing, and that the Mishnah in Terumos specifically forbids such plants, how could we initially ask 'Ha Nami Tanina, Gidulei Gidulin Chulin'? (seeing as that speaks about seeds which do decompose) - on the assumption that perhaps Rebbi Yanai only mentioned an onion as an example, but not to exclude other species whose seeds do decompose. And it is with regard to them that we ask 'Ha Nami Tanina, Gidulei Gidulin Chulin'?

***** Hadran Alach ha'Noder min ha'Yerek *****

Next daf


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