Previous Folio / Nedarim Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 59a

— I will tell you: The tithe obligation is caused by the storing up [of the grain].1

Rami b. Hama objected: [If a man says,] 'KONAM BE THESE FRUITS TO ME, 'BE THEY KONAM FOR MY MOUTH, OR 'BE THEY KONAM TO MY MOUTH,' HE IS FORBIDDEN [TO BENEFIT] FROM WHAT IS EXCHANGED FOR THEM OR WHAT GROWS FROM THEM. [IF HE SAYS, 'KONAM] IF I EAT OR TASTE OF THEM,' HE IS PERMITTED [TO BENEFIT] FROM WHAT IS EXCHANGED FOR THEM OR WHAT GROWS OF THEM, [THAT IS] IN A THING OF WHICH THE SEED ITSELF PERISHES; BUT IF THE SEED DOES NOT PERISH, EVEN THAT WHICH GROWS OF THAT WHICH [FIRST] GREW FROM IT IS FORBIDDEN!2  — Said R. Abba: Vows3  are different: since if he wishes he can demand absolution from tithes, they are as [forbidden] things that may become permitted and [hence] are not nullified by excess.4  But with terumah likewise he may, if he wishes, demand absolution from it,5  and yet it can be nullified?6  For we learnt: If a se'ah7  of unclean terumah falls into less than a hundred of hullin it must [all] rot.8  [This implies. but if it falls] into a hundred [se'ahs of hullin], it is nullified? — I will tell you: This refers to terumah in the priest's hands, in regard to which he can demand no absolution.9  If so, consider the second clause: If it was undefiled, it should [all] be sold to a priest.10  But this refers to [terumah in the hands of] an Israelite, who inherited it from his maternal grandfathers a priest.11  But the second clause teaches, It must be sold to a priests save for the value of that se'ah?12  — But answer thus: As for vows, it is well, since it is meritorious to seek absolution from them on account of R. Nathan's dictum, Viz., He who vows, is as though he built a high place; and he who fulfils it, is as though he burned incense thereon. But what merit is there in seeking absolution from terumah.?13

The text [above] states: 'R. Johanan said: If a litra of onions was tithed and then planted, the whole of it must be retithed'. Now Rabbah14  was sitting and stating this law, whereupon R. Hisda said to him: Who will obey you and R. Johanan your teacher: whither has the permitted portion in them departed? He replied: But did we not learn something similar? Viz., 'Onions [of the sixth year] upon which rain fell, and which grew [in the seventh], —

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Until the grain is harvested and actually piled up in a stack, there is no obligation for the priestly dues. Thus it is not an obligation caused by the soil.
  2. This proves that the increase does not nullify the original, thus refuting R. Ammi's view.
  3. Konamoth, Lit., 'Vows expressed by Konam'.
  4. V. p. 183, n. 8.
  5. If one declares certain grain terumah in error, he can have this declaration nullified, and the grain reverts to its former state.
  6. Cur. edd. add 'by mere excess'. Wilna Gaon deletes this, since mere excess is insufficient, a hundred times its quantity being required.
  7. V. Glos.
  8. Unclean terumah may not he eaten by anyone, and therefore nothing can be done with the mixture.
  9. The Israelite who declares it terumah can have his declaration nullified only before it reaches the hands of the priest but not after.
  10. Obviously then it was still in the hands of an Israelite.
  11. Thus it had already belonged to a priest, and cannot be revoked.
  12. Which belongs to the priest as terumah. But under the circumstances here posited, even that se'ah too belongs to the Israelite.
  13. Therefore something prohibited by a vow is treated as that which can become permitted, since it ought to be revoked; but this does not apply to terumah.
  14. Var. lec.: Raba.

Nedarim 59b

 if the leaves are blackish, they are forbidden; if greenish, they are permitted.'1  But even if blackish, why are they forbidden? Let us say, whither has the permitted portion in them departed? — He replied: Do you think that it refers to the original stock? [Only] with respect to the increase is it taught. They are forbidden. If so, what does R. Simeon b. Gamaliel come to teach? For it was taught [thereon:] R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: That which grew under the obligation [of removal]2  is under that obligation: that which grew in a state of exemption is exempt. Surely the first Tanna too says thus? — The whole Mishnah is stated by R. Simeon h. Gamaliel.3  Yet you learn R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's view [to be thus] only where he took no trouble;4  but where one takes trouble,5  it [the stock] is nullified by the excess [of the increase].6  Now, where one takes trouble, is it nullified by the excess? But what of the case of the litra of tithe, itself tebel, where he took trouble, yet it is taught, 'whilst as for the original litra, a tithe thereof must he separated from elsewhere according to calculation'?7  — The tithe is different, because Scripture saith, Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of thy sowing.'8  and people sow what is permitted, but do not sow what is forbidden.9

The text [above states:] 'R. Hanina of Torata said in R. Jannai's name: If one plants an onion of terumah, and its increase exceeds the stock, it is [all] permitted.' Shall we say that the permitted increase

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. V. 58a.
  2. Viz., in the Sabbatical year.
  3. The second clause is merely stating a reason for the ruling in the first.
  4. As in this case, the sixth year onions having been left in the earth during the seventh year.
  5. Where he plants the onions.
  6. This is Rabbah's remark: though it would appear that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's view is opposed to his, in reality it is not.
  7. V. supra 58b.
  8. Deut. XIV, 22.
  9. U.e., we oblige him to give terumah on the original tithe, since he did wrong in sowing it without rendering the terumah. It is thus in the nature of a fine, that he should not profit by his neglect. But normally the original stock is nullified, when lahour is required to produce the excess.