Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 20, 2015 | 讚壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 57

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 讛讗诇讜 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 注诇 驻讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 诇驻讬 讗住讜专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诪讜转专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 讘讚讘专 砖讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

MISHNA: For one who says: This produce is konam upon me, or it is konam upon my mouth, or it is konam to my mouth, it is prohibited to partake of the produce, or of its replacements, or of anything that grows from it. If he says: This produce is konam for me, and for that reason I will not eat it, or for that reason I will not taste it, it is permitted for him to partake of its replacements or of anything that grows from it. This applies only with regard to an item whose seeds cease after it is sown. However, with regard to an item whose seeds do not cease after it is sown, e.g., bulbs, which flower and enter into a foliage period and repeat the process, it is prohibited for him to partake even of the growths of its growths, as the original, prohibited item remains intact.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 拽讜谞诐 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 注诇 驻讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 诇驻讬 讗住讜专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诪讜转专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 讘讚讘专 砖讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗讘诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

For one who says to his wife: Your handicraft is konam upon me, or it is konam upon my mouth, or it is konam to my mouth, it is prohibited to benefit from her handicraft, and from their replacements and anything that grows from them. However, if he said to his wife: Your handicraft is konam for me only in the sense that I will not eat from your handicraft, or that I will not taste from your handicraft, it is permitted for him to benefit from their replacements and anything that grows from them. This applies only with regard to an item whose seeds cease after it is sown. However, with regard to an item whose seeds do not cease after it is sown, it is prohibited for him to benefit even from the growths of their growths.

砖讗转 注讜砖讛 讗讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇 注讚 讛驻住讞 砖讗转 注讜砖讛 讗讬谞讬 诪转讻住讛 注讚 讛驻住讞 注砖转讛 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛转讻住讜转 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 砖讗转 注讜砖讛 注讚 讛驻住讞 讗讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讗转 注讜砖讛 注讚 讛驻住讞 讗讬谞讬 诪转讻住讛 注砖转讛 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛转讻住讜转 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 砖讗转 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 注讚 讛驻住讞 讗诐 讛讜诇讻转 讗转 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 注讚 讛讞讙 讛诇讻讛 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗转讜 注讚 讛驻住讞

If the husband said: From that which you prepare, I will not eat until Passover, or, with that which you prepare, I will not cover myself until Passover, then, if she prepared it before Passover, it is permitted for him to eat or to cover himself with them after Passover. If, however, he said: From that which you prepare until Passover, I will not eat, or from that which you prepare until Passover, I will not cover myself, then, if she prepared it before Passover, it is prohibited for him to eat or cover himself with it after Passover. If he said to her: Benefit from me until Passover if you go to your father鈥檚 house from now until the festival of Sukkot is forbidden for you, and she went to his house before Passover, it is prohibited for her to derive benefit from him until Passover.

诇讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讘讘诇 讬讞诇 砖讗转 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 注讚 讛讞讙 讗诐 讛讜诇讻转 讗转 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 注讚 讛驻住讞 讛诇讻讛 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗转讜 注讚 讛讞讙 讜诪讜转专转 诇讬诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻住讞

If she derived benefit from him before Passover and went to visit her father after Passover, she is liable for violating the prohibition of: He shall not profane his word (Numbers 30:3), as the condition was fulfilled and she violated the vow retroactively. If the husband vowed: Benefit from me is konam for you until the Festival if you go to your father鈥檚 house from now until Passover, then if she went to his house before Passover, it is prohibited for her to derive benefit from him until the Festival, and it is permitted for her to go to her father鈥檚 house after Passover, as that time period is not included in his stipulation.

讙诪壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 拽讜谞诐 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 注诇 驻讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 诇驻讬 讜讻讜壮 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讬诪讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讚讬诪讗 讛注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘爪诇 砖注拽专讜 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜谞讟注讜 讘砖诪讬谞讬转 讜专讘讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬讜 注诇 注讬拽专讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讙讬讚讜诇讬讜 讛讬转专 讜注讬拽专讜 讗住讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚专讘讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬讜 诪注讬拽专讜 讗讜转谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讛讬转专 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讜 诇讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: For one who says to his wife: Your handicraft is konam upon me, or it is konam upon my mouth, or it is konam to my mouth, it is prohibited to benefit from her handicraft. Yishmael, a man of Kefar Yamma, and some say, a man of Kefar Dima, raised a dilemma with regard to an onion that one uprooted during the Sabbatical Year, which was therefore sanctified with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, and he then planted it during the eighth year, and its growths that developed in the eighth year exceeded its principal original Sabbatical-Year onion. And this is the dilemma that he raised: Its eighth-year growth is permitted, and its Sabbatical-Year principal is prohibited. Since its growth exceeded its principal, do those permitted growths neutralize the prohibition of the onion, or do they not? Yishmael came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Ami, and he did not have an answer readily available.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 诪谉 讛讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 转专讬转讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘爪诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟注讜 讜专讘讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬讜 注诇 注讬拽专讜 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 砖讘讬拽 诪专 转专讬谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻讞讚

Yishmael came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, who resolved it for him from that which Rabbi 岣nina Terita鈥檃 said that Rabbi Yannai said: With regard to an onion of teruma that one planted, if its growths exceeded its principal, it is permitted. Here too, the eighth-year growth should neutralize the prohibition of the Sabbatical-Year onion. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say it was Rabbi Zerika who said to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣: Did the Master abandon the opinion of two Sages and conduct himself in accordance with the opinion of one Sage?

诪讗谉 谞讬谞讛讜 转专讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬诇讚讛 砖住讬讘讻讛 讘讝拽讬谞讛 讜讘讛 驻讬专讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜住讬驻讛 诪讗转讬诐 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks: Who are they, the two Sages who disagree with his opinion? The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a young vine within three years of its planting, whose fruits are orla and forbidden, that one grafted onto an old, permitted vine, and there were fruits on the younger vine, even though the younger vine added two hundred times the number of fruits that were there when it was grafted, and those additional fruits are permitted because they draw their nourishment from the older vine, the fruit that was on the younger vine before it was grafted is forbidden. Although, in principle, when the permitted part of the mixture is two hundred times the forbidden orla, the prohibition is neutralized, in this case, the prohibition is not neutralized, as the forbidden fruit was there from the outset.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘爪诇 砖谞讟注讜 讘讻专诐 讜谞注拽专 讛讻专诐 讗住讜专

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: With regard to an onion that one planted in a vineyard, creating a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard, and then the vineyard was uprooted, and most of the onion grew in a permitted manner, it is forbidden. Apparently, both Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yonatan disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, and therefore, there is no clear resolution to the dilemma.

讛讚专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛 诪谉 讛讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬讟专讗 讘爪诇讬诐 砖转讬拽谞讛 讜讝专注讛 诪转注砖专转 诇驻讬 讻讜诇讛 讗诇诪讗 讗讜转谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 注讬拽专

Yishmael then came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Ami, who resolved it for him from that which Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a litra of onions that one tithed, and then he sowed a field with the entire litra of onions, when the field yields the crop, it is tithed according to the entire crop. Although some of the onions that he sowed were already tithed, he is obligated to tithe them because the volume of the growths exceeds the volume of the original onions and the entire crop has untithed status. Apparently, those growths neutralize the prohibition of the primary, original, tithed onions.

讚诇诪讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara rejects that resolution: There is no proof from the ruling in the case of the litra of onions, as perhaps it is different when the ruling is a stringency. Perhaps, due to the concern that the growths neutralize the prohibition of the original, the ruling is that he must tithe the entire crop. However, there is no proof that the same would be true in cases where the ruling is a leniency, e.g., to neutralize the prohibition of the Sabbatical Year or teruma.

讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

Rather, proof may be cited from this source; as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 57

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 讛讗诇讜 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 注诇 驻讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 诇驻讬 讗住讜专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诪讜转专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 讘讚讘专 砖讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

MISHNA: For one who says: This produce is konam upon me, or it is konam upon my mouth, or it is konam to my mouth, it is prohibited to partake of the produce, or of its replacements, or of anything that grows from it. If he says: This produce is konam for me, and for that reason I will not eat it, or for that reason I will not taste it, it is permitted for him to partake of its replacements or of anything that grows from it. This applies only with regard to an item whose seeds cease after it is sown. However, with regard to an item whose seeds do not cease after it is sown, e.g., bulbs, which flower and enter into a foliage period and repeat the process, it is prohibited for him to partake even of the growths of its growths, as the original, prohibited item remains intact.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 拽讜谞诐 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 注诇 驻讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 诇驻讬 讗住讜专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诪讜转专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 讘讚讘专 砖讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗讘诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

For one who says to his wife: Your handicraft is konam upon me, or it is konam upon my mouth, or it is konam to my mouth, it is prohibited to benefit from her handicraft, and from their replacements and anything that grows from them. However, if he said to his wife: Your handicraft is konam for me only in the sense that I will not eat from your handicraft, or that I will not taste from your handicraft, it is permitted for him to benefit from their replacements and anything that grows from them. This applies only with regard to an item whose seeds cease after it is sown. However, with regard to an item whose seeds do not cease after it is sown, it is prohibited for him to benefit even from the growths of their growths.

砖讗转 注讜砖讛 讗讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇 注讚 讛驻住讞 砖讗转 注讜砖讛 讗讬谞讬 诪转讻住讛 注讚 讛驻住讞 注砖转讛 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛转讻住讜转 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 砖讗转 注讜砖讛 注讚 讛驻住讞 讗讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讗转 注讜砖讛 注讚 讛驻住讞 讗讬谞讬 诪转讻住讛 注砖转讛 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛转讻住讜转 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 砖讗转 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 注讚 讛驻住讞 讗诐 讛讜诇讻转 讗转 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 注讚 讛讞讙 讛诇讻讛 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗转讜 注讚 讛驻住讞

If the husband said: From that which you prepare, I will not eat until Passover, or, with that which you prepare, I will not cover myself until Passover, then, if she prepared it before Passover, it is permitted for him to eat or to cover himself with them after Passover. If, however, he said: From that which you prepare until Passover, I will not eat, or from that which you prepare until Passover, I will not cover myself, then, if she prepared it before Passover, it is prohibited for him to eat or cover himself with it after Passover. If he said to her: Benefit from me until Passover if you go to your father鈥檚 house from now until the festival of Sukkot is forbidden for you, and she went to his house before Passover, it is prohibited for her to derive benefit from him until Passover.

诇讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讘讘诇 讬讞诇 砖讗转 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 注讚 讛讞讙 讗诐 讛讜诇讻转 讗转 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 注讚 讛驻住讞 讛诇讻讛 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗转讜 注讚 讛讞讙 讜诪讜转专转 诇讬诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻住讞

If she derived benefit from him before Passover and went to visit her father after Passover, she is liable for violating the prohibition of: He shall not profane his word (Numbers 30:3), as the condition was fulfilled and she violated the vow retroactively. If the husband vowed: Benefit from me is konam for you until the Festival if you go to your father鈥檚 house from now until Passover, then if she went to his house before Passover, it is prohibited for her to derive benefit from him until the Festival, and it is permitted for her to go to her father鈥檚 house after Passover, as that time period is not included in his stipulation.

讙诪壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 拽讜谞诐 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 注诇 驻讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 诇驻讬 讜讻讜壮 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讬诪讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讚讬诪讗 讛注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘爪诇 砖注拽专讜 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜谞讟注讜 讘砖诪讬谞讬转 讜专讘讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬讜 注诇 注讬拽专讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讙讬讚讜诇讬讜 讛讬转专 讜注讬拽专讜 讗住讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚专讘讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬讜 诪注讬拽专讜 讗讜转谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讛讬转专 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讜 诇讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: For one who says to his wife: Your handicraft is konam upon me, or it is konam upon my mouth, or it is konam to my mouth, it is prohibited to benefit from her handicraft. Yishmael, a man of Kefar Yamma, and some say, a man of Kefar Dima, raised a dilemma with regard to an onion that one uprooted during the Sabbatical Year, which was therefore sanctified with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, and he then planted it during the eighth year, and its growths that developed in the eighth year exceeded its principal original Sabbatical-Year onion. And this is the dilemma that he raised: Its eighth-year growth is permitted, and its Sabbatical-Year principal is prohibited. Since its growth exceeded its principal, do those permitted growths neutralize the prohibition of the onion, or do they not? Yishmael came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Ami, and he did not have an answer readily available.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 诪谉 讛讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 转专讬转讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘爪诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟注讜 讜专讘讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬讜 注诇 注讬拽专讜 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 砖讘讬拽 诪专 转专讬谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻讞讚

Yishmael came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, who resolved it for him from that which Rabbi 岣nina Terita鈥檃 said that Rabbi Yannai said: With regard to an onion of teruma that one planted, if its growths exceeded its principal, it is permitted. Here too, the eighth-year growth should neutralize the prohibition of the Sabbatical-Year onion. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say it was Rabbi Zerika who said to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣: Did the Master abandon the opinion of two Sages and conduct himself in accordance with the opinion of one Sage?

诪讗谉 谞讬谞讛讜 转专讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬诇讚讛 砖住讬讘讻讛 讘讝拽讬谞讛 讜讘讛 驻讬专讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜住讬驻讛 诪讗转讬诐 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks: Who are they, the two Sages who disagree with his opinion? The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a young vine within three years of its planting, whose fruits are orla and forbidden, that one grafted onto an old, permitted vine, and there were fruits on the younger vine, even though the younger vine added two hundred times the number of fruits that were there when it was grafted, and those additional fruits are permitted because they draw their nourishment from the older vine, the fruit that was on the younger vine before it was grafted is forbidden. Although, in principle, when the permitted part of the mixture is two hundred times the forbidden orla, the prohibition is neutralized, in this case, the prohibition is not neutralized, as the forbidden fruit was there from the outset.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘爪诇 砖谞讟注讜 讘讻专诐 讜谞注拽专 讛讻专诐 讗住讜专

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: With regard to an onion that one planted in a vineyard, creating a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard, and then the vineyard was uprooted, and most of the onion grew in a permitted manner, it is forbidden. Apparently, both Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yonatan disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, and therefore, there is no clear resolution to the dilemma.

讛讚专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛 诪谉 讛讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬讟专讗 讘爪诇讬诐 砖转讬拽谞讛 讜讝专注讛 诪转注砖专转 诇驻讬 讻讜诇讛 讗诇诪讗 讗讜转谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 注讬拽专

Yishmael then came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Ami, who resolved it for him from that which Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a litra of onions that one tithed, and then he sowed a field with the entire litra of onions, when the field yields the crop, it is tithed according to the entire crop. Although some of the onions that he sowed were already tithed, he is obligated to tithe them because the volume of the growths exceeds the volume of the original onions and the entire crop has untithed status. Apparently, those growths neutralize the prohibition of the primary, original, tithed onions.

讚诇诪讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara rejects that resolution: There is no proof from the ruling in the case of the litra of onions, as perhaps it is different when the ruling is a stringency. Perhaps, due to the concern that the growths neutralize the prohibition of the original, the ruling is that he must tithe the entire crop. However, there is no proof that the same would be true in cases where the ruling is a leniency, e.g., to neutralize the prohibition of the Sabbatical Year or teruma.

讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

Rather, proof may be cited from this source; as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says:

Scroll To Top