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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 21, 2015 | 讛壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nedarim 58

讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讟讘诇 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 讜讞讚砖 诇讗 谞转谞讜 讘讛谉 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬注讜专 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讻讙讜谉 转专讜诪讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讞诇讛 讜注专诇讛 讜讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 谞转谞讜 讘讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬注讜专

For any item that can become permitted, i.e., a forbidden object whose prohibition can or will lapse, for example, untithed produce that can be permitted through tithing, and second tithe that is permitted through redemption or bringing it to Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 14:24鈥26), and consecrated items that are also permitted through redemption, and produce of the new crop that is permitted after the sacrifice of the omer offering (Leviticus 23:14), the Sages did not determine a measure for their neutralization, and no mixture with any quantity of permitted items neutralizes their prohibition. And for any item that cannot become permitted, for example, teruma, and teruma of the tithe, and 岣lla (Numbers 15:20鈥21); fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla]; and forbidden food crops in a vineyard (Deuteronomy 22:9), the Sages determined a measure for their neutralization.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讜诇讗 谞转谞讜 讘讛 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬注讜专 讚转谞谉 讛砖讘讬注讬转 讗讜住专转 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 诇讘讬注讜专

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: But isn鈥檛 Sabbatical-Year produce an item that cannot become permitted, and nevertheless, the Sages did not determine a measure for its neutralization, as we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 7:7): The Sabbatical-Year produce prohibits permitted produce of its own species with which it is mixed in any amount. Rabbi Shimon said to them: I too said that Sabbatical-Year produce prohibits permitted produce in a mixture and permitted growths that develop from it only with regard to the removal of the produce. Sabbatical-Year produce may be eaten only as long as produce of that species remains in the field, after which it must be removed from one鈥檚 possession. Since it is permitted to eat the produce before that time, its legal status during this period is that of an item that can become permitted.

讗讘诇 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 砖讗谞讬

However, with regard to the permissibility of eating Sabbatical-Year produce after the time of removal has passed, when eating that produce is prohibited, the Sages determined a measure for their neutralization. The mixture is forbidden only if the measure of that produce is enough to impart flavor to the mixture. Apparently, permitted growths can neutralize the prohibition of the original item. The Gemara rejects the proof: And perhaps here too, it is different when the ruling is a stringency. In this case, the stringency is that the original item is sacred with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. However, here too, there is no proof that the same would be true in cases where the result is a leniency.

讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讗 驻砖讟讛 讚转谞谉 讘爪诇讬诐 砖讬专讚讜 注诇讬讛诐 讙砖诪讬诐 讜爪诪讞讜 讗诐 讛讬讜 注诇讬谉 砖诇讛谉 砖讞讜专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讛讜专讬拽讜 诪讜转专讬谉

Rather, Yishmael of Kefar Yamma resolved his dilemma from this source, as we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 6:3): With regard to sixth-year onions upon which rain fell during the Sabbatical Year, and they sprouted, if their leaves were black [she岣rin], i.e., dark green, an indication of fresh, recent growth, the onions are forbidden as Sabbatical-Year growth. If their leaves turned green [horiku], i.e., lighter and yellower, and appeared withered, the onions are permitted, as they are considered a product of the sixth year.

专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讬转诇砖 讘注诇讬谉 砖诇讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讻谞讙讚谉 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讜转专讬谉 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讙讬讚讜诇讬 讛讬转专 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讜讚诇诪讗 讘诪讚讜讻谞讬谉

Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: There is a different indicator; if the plants can be uprooted by their leaves, clearly the leaves are fresh and recent, and they are forbidden. And in the parallel situation, if that indicator was discovered in a Sabbatical-Year onion that sprouted at the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, i.e., during the eighth year, the onions are permitted. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that one may conclude from here that permitted growth neutralizes the prohibition of the original plant? The Gemara rejects this conclusion: And perhaps the halakha is with regard to crushed [medukhanin], pounded onions, and the reason that the prohibition of the original plant is neutralized is not that the permitted growth neutralizes the prohibition, but that it is no longer fit for consumption.

讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讗 讚转谞讬讗

Rather, the dilemma can be resolved from this source; as it is taught in a baraita:

讛诪谞讻砖 注诐 讛讻讜转讬 讘讞住讬讜转 讗讜讻诇 诪讛谉 讗讻讬诇转 注专讗讬 讜诪注砖专谉 讜讚讗讬

One who weeds 岣sayot with a Samaritan may eat a casual meal from them without tithing, as any untithed produce may be eaten in the framework of a casual meal. And when he completes the labor on the 岣sayot, places them into a pile, and they require tithing, he tithes them as produce that is definitely obligated in tithing, not as doubtfully tithed produce, as the assumption is that the Samaritan did not tithe the 岣sayot.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讙讬讚讜诇讬 讛讬转专 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讜讚诇诪讗 讘讚讘专 砖讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讛谉 讞住讬讜转 讻讙讜谉 讛诇讜祝 讛砖讜诐 讜讛讘爪诇讬诐

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If the 岣sayot belong to a Jew who is suspect about observance of the Sabbatical Year, at the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year it is permitted to weed with him, as there is no concern that there might be Sabbatical-Year sanctity. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the permitted growths of the eighth year neutralize the prohibition, and that is why there is no concern about Sabbatical-Year sanctity? The Gemara rejects that inference: And perhaps the tanna is speaking with regard to an item whose seeds cease after it is sown, whose growths neutralize the original prohibition? The Gemara rejects that possibility: Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: These are 岣sayot, for example, arum, garlic, and onions, whose seeds do not cease?

讜讚诇诪讗 讘诪讚讜讻谞讬谉 讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 拽转谞讬 讜讚诇诪讗 讘转注专讜讘转 讛诪谞讻砖 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: And perhaps the tanna is speaking with regard to plants that were crushed before they sprouted growths? The Gemara answers: It is the case of one who is suspect about observance of the Sabbatical Year, that is taught in the baraita, and one who is suspect would not bother to eliminate the prohibition by crushing it. The Gemara asks: And perhaps the tanna is speaking with regard to a mixture of forbidden 岣sayot and permitted ones, and the reason that it is permitted is that the prohibition was neutralized by the majority of permitted 岣sayot? The Gemara answers: One who weeds, is taught in the baraita, indicating that he is eating the leaves as he weeds them, leaving no opportunity for the 岣sayot to be mixed with others.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖谞讬讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬住讜专讛 注诇 讬讚讬 拽专拽注 讘讟讬诇转讛 谞诪讬 注诇 讬讚讬 拽专拽注

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yonatan, who stated regarding orla and food crops in a vineyard that their permitted growth does not neutralize the prohibition of the original fruit or food crops respectively. Rabbi Yitz岣k said: The Sabbatical-Year produce is different. Since its prohibition is engendered by means of the ground, its nullification is effected by means of the ground as well. The prohibition can be neutralized by means of the growth that results from replanting the forbidden plant in a permitted manner.

讛专讬 诪注砖专 讚讗讬住讜专讜 注诇 讬讚讬 拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 讘讟讬诇转讜 注诇 讬讚讬 拽专拽注 讚转谞讬讗 诇讬讟专讗 诪注砖专 讟讘诇 砖讝专注讛 讘拽专拽注 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻注砖专 诇讬讟专讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪注砖专 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讜转讛 诇讬讟专讗 诪注砖专 注诇讬讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 there the case of tithe, whose prohibition is engendered by means of the ground, but its nullification is not effected by means of the ground? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a litra of untithed first tithe from which the teruma of the tithe was not taken, which one sowed in the ground, and it grew and it is now approximately ten litra, that additional growth is obligated to have tithe taken and is subject to the halakhot of Sabbatical-Year produce. And with regard to that original litra of untithed first tithe that he sowed, one tithes for it from produce in a different place, and not from the litra itself, based on a calculation of how much teruma of the tithe needed to be taken from that litra. Apparently, the growth that results from sowing the first tithe in the ground does not neutralize its prohibition.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 58

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 58

讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讟讘诇 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 讜讞讚砖 诇讗 谞转谞讜 讘讛谉 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬注讜专 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讻讙讜谉 转专讜诪讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讞诇讛 讜注专诇讛 讜讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 谞转谞讜 讘讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬注讜专

For any item that can become permitted, i.e., a forbidden object whose prohibition can or will lapse, for example, untithed produce that can be permitted through tithing, and second tithe that is permitted through redemption or bringing it to Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 14:24鈥26), and consecrated items that are also permitted through redemption, and produce of the new crop that is permitted after the sacrifice of the omer offering (Leviticus 23:14), the Sages did not determine a measure for their neutralization, and no mixture with any quantity of permitted items neutralizes their prohibition. And for any item that cannot become permitted, for example, teruma, and teruma of the tithe, and 岣lla (Numbers 15:20鈥21); fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla]; and forbidden food crops in a vineyard (Deuteronomy 22:9), the Sages determined a measure for their neutralization.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讜诇讗 谞转谞讜 讘讛 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬注讜专 讚转谞谉 讛砖讘讬注讬转 讗讜住专转 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 诇讘讬注讜专

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: But isn鈥檛 Sabbatical-Year produce an item that cannot become permitted, and nevertheless, the Sages did not determine a measure for its neutralization, as we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 7:7): The Sabbatical-Year produce prohibits permitted produce of its own species with which it is mixed in any amount. Rabbi Shimon said to them: I too said that Sabbatical-Year produce prohibits permitted produce in a mixture and permitted growths that develop from it only with regard to the removal of the produce. Sabbatical-Year produce may be eaten only as long as produce of that species remains in the field, after which it must be removed from one鈥檚 possession. Since it is permitted to eat the produce before that time, its legal status during this period is that of an item that can become permitted.

讗讘诇 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 砖讗谞讬

However, with regard to the permissibility of eating Sabbatical-Year produce after the time of removal has passed, when eating that produce is prohibited, the Sages determined a measure for their neutralization. The mixture is forbidden only if the measure of that produce is enough to impart flavor to the mixture. Apparently, permitted growths can neutralize the prohibition of the original item. The Gemara rejects the proof: And perhaps here too, it is different when the ruling is a stringency. In this case, the stringency is that the original item is sacred with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. However, here too, there is no proof that the same would be true in cases where the result is a leniency.

讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讗 驻砖讟讛 讚转谞谉 讘爪诇讬诐 砖讬专讚讜 注诇讬讛诐 讙砖诪讬诐 讜爪诪讞讜 讗诐 讛讬讜 注诇讬谉 砖诇讛谉 砖讞讜专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讛讜专讬拽讜 诪讜转专讬谉

Rather, Yishmael of Kefar Yamma resolved his dilemma from this source, as we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 6:3): With regard to sixth-year onions upon which rain fell during the Sabbatical Year, and they sprouted, if their leaves were black [she岣rin], i.e., dark green, an indication of fresh, recent growth, the onions are forbidden as Sabbatical-Year growth. If their leaves turned green [horiku], i.e., lighter and yellower, and appeared withered, the onions are permitted, as they are considered a product of the sixth year.

专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讬转诇砖 讘注诇讬谉 砖诇讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讻谞讙讚谉 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讜转专讬谉 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讙讬讚讜诇讬 讛讬转专 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讜讚诇诪讗 讘诪讚讜讻谞讬谉

Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: There is a different indicator; if the plants can be uprooted by their leaves, clearly the leaves are fresh and recent, and they are forbidden. And in the parallel situation, if that indicator was discovered in a Sabbatical-Year onion that sprouted at the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, i.e., during the eighth year, the onions are permitted. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that one may conclude from here that permitted growth neutralizes the prohibition of the original plant? The Gemara rejects this conclusion: And perhaps the halakha is with regard to crushed [medukhanin], pounded onions, and the reason that the prohibition of the original plant is neutralized is not that the permitted growth neutralizes the prohibition, but that it is no longer fit for consumption.

讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讗 讚转谞讬讗

Rather, the dilemma can be resolved from this source; as it is taught in a baraita:

讛诪谞讻砖 注诐 讛讻讜转讬 讘讞住讬讜转 讗讜讻诇 诪讛谉 讗讻讬诇转 注专讗讬 讜诪注砖专谉 讜讚讗讬

One who weeds 岣sayot with a Samaritan may eat a casual meal from them without tithing, as any untithed produce may be eaten in the framework of a casual meal. And when he completes the labor on the 岣sayot, places them into a pile, and they require tithing, he tithes them as produce that is definitely obligated in tithing, not as doubtfully tithed produce, as the assumption is that the Samaritan did not tithe the 岣sayot.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讙讬讚讜诇讬 讛讬转专 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讜讚诇诪讗 讘讚讘专 砖讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讛谉 讞住讬讜转 讻讙讜谉 讛诇讜祝 讛砖讜诐 讜讛讘爪诇讬诐

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If the 岣sayot belong to a Jew who is suspect about observance of the Sabbatical Year, at the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year it is permitted to weed with him, as there is no concern that there might be Sabbatical-Year sanctity. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the permitted growths of the eighth year neutralize the prohibition, and that is why there is no concern about Sabbatical-Year sanctity? The Gemara rejects that inference: And perhaps the tanna is speaking with regard to an item whose seeds cease after it is sown, whose growths neutralize the original prohibition? The Gemara rejects that possibility: Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: These are 岣sayot, for example, arum, garlic, and onions, whose seeds do not cease?

讜讚诇诪讗 讘诪讚讜讻谞讬谉 讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 拽转谞讬 讜讚诇诪讗 讘转注专讜讘转 讛诪谞讻砖 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: And perhaps the tanna is speaking with regard to plants that were crushed before they sprouted growths? The Gemara answers: It is the case of one who is suspect about observance of the Sabbatical Year, that is taught in the baraita, and one who is suspect would not bother to eliminate the prohibition by crushing it. The Gemara asks: And perhaps the tanna is speaking with regard to a mixture of forbidden 岣sayot and permitted ones, and the reason that it is permitted is that the prohibition was neutralized by the majority of permitted 岣sayot? The Gemara answers: One who weeds, is taught in the baraita, indicating that he is eating the leaves as he weeds them, leaving no opportunity for the 岣sayot to be mixed with others.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖谞讬讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬住讜专讛 注诇 讬讚讬 拽专拽注 讘讟讬诇转讛 谞诪讬 注诇 讬讚讬 拽专拽注

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yonatan, who stated regarding orla and food crops in a vineyard that their permitted growth does not neutralize the prohibition of the original fruit or food crops respectively. Rabbi Yitz岣k said: The Sabbatical-Year produce is different. Since its prohibition is engendered by means of the ground, its nullification is effected by means of the ground as well. The prohibition can be neutralized by means of the growth that results from replanting the forbidden plant in a permitted manner.

讛专讬 诪注砖专 讚讗讬住讜专讜 注诇 讬讚讬 拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 讘讟讬诇转讜 注诇 讬讚讬 拽专拽注 讚转谞讬讗 诇讬讟专讗 诪注砖专 讟讘诇 砖讝专注讛 讘拽专拽注 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻注砖专 诇讬讟专讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪注砖专 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讜转讛 诇讬讟专讗 诪注砖专 注诇讬讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 there the case of tithe, whose prohibition is engendered by means of the ground, but its nullification is not effected by means of the ground? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a litra of untithed first tithe from which the teruma of the tithe was not taken, which one sowed in the ground, and it grew and it is now approximately ten litra, that additional growth is obligated to have tithe taken and is subject to the halakhot of Sabbatical-Year produce. And with regard to that original litra of untithed first tithe that he sowed, one tithes for it from produce in a different place, and not from the litra itself, based on a calculation of how much teruma of the tithe needed to be taken from that litra. Apparently, the growth that results from sowing the first tithe in the ground does not neutralize its prohibition.

Scroll To Top