נדרים נז

נדרים נז

מַתְנִי׳ ״קֻוֽנָּם פֵּירוֹת הָאֵלּוּ עָלַי״, ״קֻוֽנָּם הֵן עַל פִּי״, ״קֻוֽנָּם הֵן לְפִי״ — אָסוּר בְּחִילּוּפֵיהֶן וּבְגִידּוּלֵיהֶן. ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל״, וְ״שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם — מוּתָּר בְּחִילּוּפֵיהֶן וּבְגִידּוּלֵיהֶן, בְּדָבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָּלֶה. אֲבָל בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָּלֶה — אֲפִילּוּ גִּידּוּלֵי גִידּוּלִין אֲסוּרִין.

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.

הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״קֻוֽנָּם מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַיִךְ עָלַי״, ״קֻוֽנָּם הֵן עַל פִּי״, ״קֻוֽנָּם הֵן לְפִי״ — אָסוּר בְּחִילּוּפֵיהֶן וּבְגִידּוּלֵיהֶן. ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל״, ״שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם״ — מוּתָּר בְּחִילּוּפֵיהֶן וּבְגִידּוּלֵיהֶן, בְּדָבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָּלֶה. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָּלֶה — אֲפִילּוּ גִּידּוּלֵי גִידּוּלִין אֲסוּרִין.

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.

״שֶׁאַתְּ עוֹשָׂה אֵינִי אוֹכֵל עַד הַפֶּסַח״, ״שֶׁאַתְּ עוֹשָׂה אֵינִי מִתְכַּסֶּה עַד הַפֶּסַח״, עָשְׂתָה לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח — מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל וּלְהִתְכַּסּוֹת אַחַר הַפֶּסַח. ״שֶׁאַתְּ עוֹשָׂה עַד הַפֶּסַח אֵינִי אוֹכֵל״, וְ״שֶׁאַתְּ עוֹשָׂה עַד הַפֶּסַח אֵינִי מִתְכַּסֶּה״, עָשְׂתָה לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח — אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל וּלְהִתְכַּסּוֹת אַחַר הַפֶּסַח. ״שֶׁאַתְּ נֶהֱנֵית לִי עַד הַפֶּסַח אִם הוֹלֶכֶת אַתְּ לְבֵית אָבִיךְ עַד הֶחָג״, הָלְכָה לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח — אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ עַד הַפֶּסַח.

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’s 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.

לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח — בְּ״בַל יַחֵל״. ״שֶׁאַתְּ נֶהֱנֵית לִי עַד הֶחָג אִם הוֹלֶכֶת אַתְּ לְבֵית אָבִיךָ עַד הַפֶּסַח״, הָלְכָה לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח — אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ עַד הֶחָג, וּמוּתֶּרֶת לֵילֵךְ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח.

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’s 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’s house after Passover, as that time period is not included in his stipulation.

גְּמָ׳ הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״קֻוֽנָּם מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַיִךְ עָלַי״, ״קֻוֽנָּם הֵן עַל פִּי״, ״קֻוֽנָּם הֵן לְפִי וְכוּ׳״, יִשְׁמָעֵאל אִישׁ כְּפַר יַמָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אִישׁ כְּפַר דְּיַמָּא, הֶעֱלָה בְּיָדוֹ בָּצָל שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וּנְטָעוֹ בַּשְּׁמִינִית, וְרַבּוּ גִּידּוּלָיו עַל עִיקָּרוֹ. וְהָכִי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: גִּידּוּלָיו הֶיתֵּר וְעִיקָּרוֹ אָסוּר, כֵּיוָן דְּרָבוּ גִּידּוּלָיו מֵעִיקָּרוֹ — אוֹתָן גִּידּוּלֵי הֶיתֵּר מַעֲלִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, אוֹ לָא? אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ.

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.

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, פְּשַׁט לֵיהּ מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא תְּרִיתָאָה אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בָּצָל שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ, וְרַבּוּ גִּידּוּלָיו עַל עִיקָּרוֹ — מוּתָּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי זְרִיקָא: שָׁבֵיק מָר תְּרֵין וְעָבֵיד כְּחַד?!

Yishmael came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who resolved it for him from that which Rabbi Ḥanina Terita’a 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 Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: Did the Master abandon the opinion of two Sages and conduct himself in accordance with the opinion of one Sage?

מַאן נִינְהוּ תְּרֵין? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יַלְדָּה שֶׁסִּיבְּכָהּ בִּזְקֵינָהּ, וּבָהּ פֵּירוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹסִיפָה מָאתַיִם — אָסוּר.

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 Yoḥanan 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.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַבִּי נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: בָּצָל שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ בַּכֶּרֶם, וְנֶעֱקַר הַכֶּרֶם — אָסוּר.

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Naḥmani 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 Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yonatan disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, and therefore, there is no clear resolution to the dilemma.

הֲדַר אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי וּפְשַׁיט לֵיהּ מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לִיטְרָא בְּצָלִים שֶׁתִּיקְּנָה וּזְרָעָהּ, מִתְעַשֶּׂרֶת לְפִי כוּלָּהּ. אַלְמָא אוֹתָן גִידּוּלִין מְבַטְּלִין עִיקָּר.

Yishmael then came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Ami, who resolved it for him from that which Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

דִּלְמָא לְחוּמְרָא שָׁאנֵי.

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.

אֶלָּא, מִן הָדָא דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר:

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