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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 22, 2015 | 讜壮 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 59

讗诪专讬 诪注砖专 讚讬讙讜谉 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讙专讬诐 诇讬讛

The Sages of the Gemara say: With regard to tithe, the ground does not engender the obligation; placement of the produce in a pile engenders the obligation, as it is only at that point that one is obligated to tithe his produce. Therefore neutralization of the prohibition is not effected by planting it in the ground.

诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 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

Rami bar 岣ma raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai based on the mishna (57a): 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, it is prohibited for him to partake even of the growths of its growths. Apparently, permitted growths do not neutralize the prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 砖讗谞讬 拽讜谞诪讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诪转砖讬诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讻讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘

Rabbi Abba said: Konamot are different; since if he wishes to do so he can request that a halakhic authority dissolve the vows and render the objects of the vows permitted, their legal status is like that of an item that can become permitted, and its prohibition is not nullified by a majority of permitted items.

讜讛专讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪讬转砖讬诇 注诇讛 讜讘讟诇讬 讘专讜讘 讚转谞谉 住讗讛 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪诪讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 转专拽讘 讛讗 诇诪讗讛 转注诇讛 讗诪专讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讬讚 讻讛谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讬转砖讬诇 注诇讛

The Gemara asks: And isn鈥檛 there the case of teruma, in which if he wishes he can request that a halakhic authority dissolve the designation of the produce as teruma and yet it is nullified by a majority of permitted items? As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 5:1): A se鈥檃 of ritually impure teruma that fell into less than one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce must be left to decay. The impure teruma, which is forbidden to all, renders the entire mixture forbidden. The Gemara infers: If it fell into one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce, its prohibition is neutralized. The Sages of the Gemara say in response: We are dealing with teruma that is in the possession of a priest, for which the owner can no longer request that a halakhic authority dissolve the designation. However, as long as the teruma is in the owner鈥檚 possession he can request that its designation be dissolved, and therefore its prohibition cannot be neutralized.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讟讛讜专讛 转诪讻专 诇讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of that mishna: If the teruma mixed with the non-sacred produce was ritually pure, it may be sold to a priest, who treats all the produce as though it were teruma. This indicates that the mishna is dealing with teruma in its owner鈥檚 possession that was not yet given to a priest. Rather, we are dealing with the case of an Israelite who inherited the produce from a member of the house of his mother鈥檚 father, who is a priest. The heir owns the teruma; however, since he was not the one who designated it as teruma, he may not request that the designation be dissolved.

[讜讛讗] 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 转讬诪讻专 诇讻讛谉 讞讜抓 诪讚诪讬 讗讜转讛 住讗讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in that latter clause of that mishna: It must be sold to a priest; however, the price must reflect the value of the entire mixture except for the value of that se鈥檃 of teruma that fell into the non-sacred produce, as the teruma belongs to the priest. If the mishna is referring to the case of an heir who owns the teruma, why can he not collect the value of that se鈥檃 as well, as it is his property?

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讘砖诇诪讗 拽讜谞诪讜转 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讬转砖讜诇讬 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讻诇 讛谞讜讚专 讻讗讬诇讜 讘谞讛 讘诪讛 讜讛诪拽讬讬诪讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诪拽讟讬专 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讬转砖讜诇讬 注诇讛

Rather, say that there is another distinction between konamot and other cases where one may request dissolution by a halakhic authority. Granted, in the case of konamot, there is a mitzva to request that a halakhic authority dissolve them, due to the statement of Rabbi Natan, as Rabbi Natan said: Anyone who vows, it is as if he built a personal altar outside the Temple, and one who fulfills that vow, it is as though he burns an offering upon it. However, in the case of teruma, what mitzva is there to request that a halakhic authority dissolve its designation? Therefore, items forbidden by konamot are considered items that can become permitted, and teruma is not.

讙讜驻讗 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 讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗谉 爪讗讬转 诇讱 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讱 讛讬转专 砖讘讛谉 诇讛讬讻谉 讛诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 讚讻讜讜转讛 讘爪诇讬诐 砖讬专讚讜 注诇讬讛诐 讙砖诪讬诐 讜爪讬诪讞讜

搂 With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a litra of onions that one tithed, and then sowed, it is tithed according to the entire crop. Rabba sat and stated this halakha. Rav 岣sda said to him: Who listens to you and Rabbi Yo岣nan, your teacher? The permitted part of the litra, to where did it go? The original litra that he sowed was permitted by virtue of the fact that he tithed it, but why is he obligated to tithe the entire crop? The original litra should be subtracted from the crop that must be tithed. Rabba said to Rav 岣sda: Didn鈥檛 we learn a corresponding halakha 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,

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 讜讻讬 砖讞讜专讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讬诪讗 讛讬转专 砖讘讛谉 诇讛讬讻谉 讛诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 注诇 注讬拽专 拽转谞讬 讗转讜住驻转 拽转谞讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讙讚诇 讘讞讬讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讛讙讚诇 讘驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专

if their leaves were black, the onions are forbidden. If their leaves turned green, the onions are permitted. And if the leaves are black, why are the onions forbidden? Let us say in this case too: The permitted part, the original onion, to where did it go? Rav 岣sda said to Rabba: Do you maintain that this halakha is taught about the primary, original onion, that it is prohibited? It is taught with regard to the additional growth that sprouted, and it is those leaves that are forbidden. The Gemara asks: If so, what is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who apparently disagrees with the tanna of the mishna, coming to say? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: That which grew during a period of liability is liable and is considered Sabbatical-Year produce, and that which grew during a period of exemption is exempt. According to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 explanation, the first tanna, cited in the mishna, also said that.

讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚诇讗 拽讗 讟专讞 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as this entire mishna, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught it. In the baraita Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is not disagreeing with the opinion of the first tanna of the mishna; he is merely restating it. And nevertheless, the mishna and the baraita pose no difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabba, as you heard that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that the prohibition of the primary, original part is not neutralized only in a case where he did not exert himself, and the leaves sprouted on their own. However, in the case where he exerted himself, e.g., by sowing or planting, the prohibition of the original onions is neutralized by the majority.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗 讜讛专讬 诇讬讟专讗 诪注砖专 讟讘诇 讚拽讟专讞 讜拽转谞讬 讜讗讜转讛 诇讬讟专讗 诪注砖专 注诇讬讜 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 砖讗谞讬 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 注砖专 转注砖专 讜讙讜壮 讜讛讬转讬专讗 讝专注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讝专注讬 讗讬谞砖讬

The Gemara asks: And anywhere that one exerts himself, is the original part nullified by the majority? The Gemara asks: And isn鈥檛 there the case of one who sowed a litra of untithed tithe, where he exerts himself to sow it, and it is taught: And that original litra of untithed first tithe that he sowed, one proportionally tithes for it from produce in a different place, and its prohibition is not neutralized by the growth. The Gemara answers: It is different with regard to tithe, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall tithe all the produce of your seed that is brought forth in the field鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:22), indicating that all permitted seeds that are sown must be tithed, since permitted seeds that were tithed, people typically sow. Forbidden seeds that were not tithed, people do not typically sow, but the Sages penalized one who sowed untithed seeds and required him to tithe that which he was originally obligated to tithe and decreed that it is not neutralized by the majority.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 转讬专转讗讛 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 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讙讬讚讜诇讬

搂 With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi 岣nina Tirta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. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that growths that are

  • 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 59

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 59

讗诪专讬 诪注砖专 讚讬讙讜谉 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讙专讬诐 诇讬讛

The Sages of the Gemara say: With regard to tithe, the ground does not engender the obligation; placement of the produce in a pile engenders the obligation, as it is only at that point that one is obligated to tithe his produce. Therefore neutralization of the prohibition is not effected by planting it in the ground.

诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 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

Rami bar 岣ma raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai based on the mishna (57a): 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, it is prohibited for him to partake even of the growths of its growths. Apparently, permitted growths do not neutralize the prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 砖讗谞讬 拽讜谞诪讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诪转砖讬诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讻讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘

Rabbi Abba said: Konamot are different; since if he wishes to do so he can request that a halakhic authority dissolve the vows and render the objects of the vows permitted, their legal status is like that of an item that can become permitted, and its prohibition is not nullified by a majority of permitted items.

讜讛专讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪讬转砖讬诇 注诇讛 讜讘讟诇讬 讘专讜讘 讚转谞谉 住讗讛 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪诪讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 转专拽讘 讛讗 诇诪讗讛 转注诇讛 讗诪专讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讬讚 讻讛谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讬转砖讬诇 注诇讛

The Gemara asks: And isn鈥檛 there the case of teruma, in which if he wishes he can request that a halakhic authority dissolve the designation of the produce as teruma and yet it is nullified by a majority of permitted items? As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 5:1): A se鈥檃 of ritually impure teruma that fell into less than one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce must be left to decay. The impure teruma, which is forbidden to all, renders the entire mixture forbidden. The Gemara infers: If it fell into one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce, its prohibition is neutralized. The Sages of the Gemara say in response: We are dealing with teruma that is in the possession of a priest, for which the owner can no longer request that a halakhic authority dissolve the designation. However, as long as the teruma is in the owner鈥檚 possession he can request that its designation be dissolved, and therefore its prohibition cannot be neutralized.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讟讛讜专讛 转诪讻专 诇讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of that mishna: If the teruma mixed with the non-sacred produce was ritually pure, it may be sold to a priest, who treats all the produce as though it were teruma. This indicates that the mishna is dealing with teruma in its owner鈥檚 possession that was not yet given to a priest. Rather, we are dealing with the case of an Israelite who inherited the produce from a member of the house of his mother鈥檚 father, who is a priest. The heir owns the teruma; however, since he was not the one who designated it as teruma, he may not request that the designation be dissolved.

[讜讛讗] 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 转讬诪讻专 诇讻讛谉 讞讜抓 诪讚诪讬 讗讜转讛 住讗讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in that latter clause of that mishna: It must be sold to a priest; however, the price must reflect the value of the entire mixture except for the value of that se鈥檃 of teruma that fell into the non-sacred produce, as the teruma belongs to the priest. If the mishna is referring to the case of an heir who owns the teruma, why can he not collect the value of that se鈥檃 as well, as it is his property?

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讘砖诇诪讗 拽讜谞诪讜转 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讬转砖讜诇讬 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讻诇 讛谞讜讚专 讻讗讬诇讜 讘谞讛 讘诪讛 讜讛诪拽讬讬诪讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诪拽讟讬专 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讬转砖讜诇讬 注诇讛

Rather, say that there is another distinction between konamot and other cases where one may request dissolution by a halakhic authority. Granted, in the case of konamot, there is a mitzva to request that a halakhic authority dissolve them, due to the statement of Rabbi Natan, as Rabbi Natan said: Anyone who vows, it is as if he built a personal altar outside the Temple, and one who fulfills that vow, it is as though he burns an offering upon it. However, in the case of teruma, what mitzva is there to request that a halakhic authority dissolve its designation? Therefore, items forbidden by konamot are considered items that can become permitted, and teruma is not.

讙讜驻讗 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 讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗谉 爪讗讬转 诇讱 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讱 讛讬转专 砖讘讛谉 诇讛讬讻谉 讛诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 讚讻讜讜转讛 讘爪诇讬诐 砖讬专讚讜 注诇讬讛诐 讙砖诪讬诐 讜爪讬诪讞讜

搂 With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a litra of onions that one tithed, and then sowed, it is tithed according to the entire crop. Rabba sat and stated this halakha. Rav 岣sda said to him: Who listens to you and Rabbi Yo岣nan, your teacher? The permitted part of the litra, to where did it go? The original litra that he sowed was permitted by virtue of the fact that he tithed it, but why is he obligated to tithe the entire crop? The original litra should be subtracted from the crop that must be tithed. Rabba said to Rav 岣sda: Didn鈥檛 we learn a corresponding halakha 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,

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 讜讻讬 砖讞讜专讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讬诪讗 讛讬转专 砖讘讛谉 诇讛讬讻谉 讛诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 注诇 注讬拽专 拽转谞讬 讗转讜住驻转 拽转谞讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讙讚诇 讘讞讬讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讛讙讚诇 讘驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专

if their leaves were black, the onions are forbidden. If their leaves turned green, the onions are permitted. And if the leaves are black, why are the onions forbidden? Let us say in this case too: The permitted part, the original onion, to where did it go? Rav 岣sda said to Rabba: Do you maintain that this halakha is taught about the primary, original onion, that it is prohibited? It is taught with regard to the additional growth that sprouted, and it is those leaves that are forbidden. The Gemara asks: If so, what is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who apparently disagrees with the tanna of the mishna, coming to say? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: That which grew during a period of liability is liable and is considered Sabbatical-Year produce, and that which grew during a period of exemption is exempt. According to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 explanation, the first tanna, cited in the mishna, also said that.

讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚诇讗 拽讗 讟专讞 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as this entire mishna, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught it. In the baraita Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is not disagreeing with the opinion of the first tanna of the mishna; he is merely restating it. And nevertheless, the mishna and the baraita pose no difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabba, as you heard that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that the prohibition of the primary, original part is not neutralized only in a case where he did not exert himself, and the leaves sprouted on their own. However, in the case where he exerted himself, e.g., by sowing or planting, the prohibition of the original onions is neutralized by the majority.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗 讜讛专讬 诇讬讟专讗 诪注砖专 讟讘诇 讚拽讟专讞 讜拽转谞讬 讜讗讜转讛 诇讬讟专讗 诪注砖专 注诇讬讜 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 砖讗谞讬 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 注砖专 转注砖专 讜讙讜壮 讜讛讬转讬专讗 讝专注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讝专注讬 讗讬谞砖讬

The Gemara asks: And anywhere that one exerts himself, is the original part nullified by the majority? The Gemara asks: And isn鈥檛 there the case of one who sowed a litra of untithed tithe, where he exerts himself to sow it, and it is taught: And that original litra of untithed first tithe that he sowed, one proportionally tithes for it from produce in a different place, and its prohibition is not neutralized by the growth. The Gemara answers: It is different with regard to tithe, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall tithe all the produce of your seed that is brought forth in the field鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:22), indicating that all permitted seeds that are sown must be tithed, since permitted seeds that were tithed, people typically sow. Forbidden seeds that were not tithed, people do not typically sow, but the Sages penalized one who sowed untithed seeds and required him to tithe that which he was originally obligated to tithe and decreed that it is not neutralized by the majority.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 转讬专转讗讛 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 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讙讬讚讜诇讬

搂 With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi 岣nina Tirta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. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that growths that are

Scroll To Top