Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nedarim, 57

1) WHEN THE "CHILUFIN" OF A NEDER ARE NOT PROHIBITED

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that when one makes a Neder saying that "these fruits are prohibited to me," he is prohibited not only from eating the fruits, but also from eating the "exchange" ("Chilufeihen") of the fruits (if they are traded for other fruits) and from that which grows ("Giduleihen") from the fruits (if they are replanted). When one makes a Neder by saying, "the fruits are prohibited to me, that I will not eat them" or "that I will not taste them," he is permitted to eat the Chilufin and the Gidulin of the fruits.

In the Gemara earlier (47a), Rami bar Chama asks what is the Halachah when a person makes a Neder prohibiting his fruits from someone else. Is the Mudar prohibited from eating the fruits that are received in exchange for the prohibited fruits? The Ran explains that the question of Rami bar Chama is not related to the ruling of the Mishnah here regarding a person who prohibits fruits to himself by saying "Konem Peros Elu Alai," because when a person says "Elu" ("*these* fruits") and makes the fruit Asur to himself, he certainly intends to prohibit the Chilufin and Gidulin as well. Rami bar Chama is asking about a case in which one makes his fruits prohibited to someone else, with or without saying the word "Elu" ("these"). Even if the Madir intended to prohibit the Chilufin of his fruits to the Mudar, he does not have the power to prohibit the Chilufin because the Chilufin is a "Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam" (an item which does not yet exist in his possession) and it is like prohibiting someone else's fruits on someone else, which one cannot do. Rather, the only reason the Chilufin could be prohibited is if the Chachamim instituted a penalty prohibiting the Chilufin of an item which is Asur b'Hana'ah. The grounds for such a penalty is because the person exchanged the fruit of Isur Hana'ah for other fruit. Rami bar Chama is asking if the Chachamim made such a penalty in such a case.

Why does Rami bar Chama not answer his question from the second case of the Mishnah, in which a person makes a Neder prohibiting fruit to himself by saying "she'Ani (or she'Eini) Ochel" or "she'Ani (or she'Eini) To'em?" If the Chachamim instituted a penalty and prohibited one from benefiting from the items received in exchange for an Isur Hana'ah, then even if a person prohibits fruits by saying "she'Ani Ochel" or "she'Ani To'em," the penalty should apply to prohibit the Chilufin received in exchange for the fruits even though the person did not say "Elu!" It must be that there is no such penalty!

ANSWER: If the Chachamim instituted a penalty prohibiting the Chilufin received in exchange for an Isur Hana'ah, it was only because it is prohibited to exchange an Isur Hana'ah in the first place, since one gets Hana'ah from the item by receiving something in return for it. In contrast, when a person prohibits fruits to himself by saying "she'Ani Ochel" or "she'Ani To'em," he is only prohibiting himself from *eating* the fruits (Achilah) and he has no intention to prohibit deriving benefit from the fruits (Hana'ah). Since he is not prohibited to derive benefit from them, he is permitted to exchange them. Hence, if he exchanges them, Rami bar Chama agrees that there is no reason for the Chilufin to be prohibited.

On the other hand, in a case where the person prohibits fruits to himself by saying, "I will not derive benefit from figs," and he does not say "Elu" ("*these* figs"), then Rami bar Chama's question will apply (see Chart).

57b

QUESTION: The Gemara cites the question of Yishmael Ish K'far Yama who asks if a fruit that is prohibited (for example, a fruit that grew during Shevi'is) grows in size (after Shevi'is) such that the new growth ("Gidulin") is enough to be Mevatel the old growth ("Ikar"), does the fruit become permitted through Bitul?

Most Rishonim explain that Yishmael Ish K'far Yama is taking for granted that the Gidulin are not like the Ikar and therefore they themselves are Mutar, but the question is whether or not they have the power to be Mevatel the Ikar so that it is Mutar as well. The RAN, however, explains that the question is not whether the new growth has the power to be Mevatel the old growth, but rather the question is whether the new growth is actually permitted and does not have the same status as the old growth, or whether the new growth has the same status as the old growth and is prohibited since it grew from the old growth.

The Gemara tries to prove that the Gidulin are not like the Ikar and are permitted, and that they *can* be Mevatel the Ikar. The Gemara quotes the statement of Rebbi Yitzchak in the name of Rebbi Yochanan who says that if a person separated Terumos u'Ma'aseros from onions and then replanted the onions in the ground and they increased in size, such that there is more new growth of onion than the original growth of onion, he is obligated to separate Ma'aser not only from the new part that grew but from the entire onion, including the original growth, as well. We see from this ruling that any new growth that sprouts forth from an item that is exempt from Terumos u'Ma'aseros is itself obligated in Terumos u'Ma'aseros (that is, the Gidulin are *not* like the Ikar), and that they can be Mevatel the Ikar and cause the Ikar to become obligated in Ma'aser as well.

The Gemara concludes that even if the Gidulin cannot be Mevatel the Ikar, the Chachamim were Machmir to treat Gidulin *not* like the Ikar when doing so will cause a Chumra. Hence, the Gidulin have a Chiyuv Ma'aser, and since the Gidulin are the Rov, the Ikar becomes Batel to the Gidulin and has a Chiyuv Ma'aser as well.

The Ran asks from here on those Rishonim who explain that the Gidulin are certainly not like the Ikar and that Yishmael Ish K'far Yama's question was only with regard to whether the Gidulin can be Mevatel the Ikar. According to their opinion, the Gidulin of the onion that was planted are certainly Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Oraisa, while the original onion is Patur from Ma'aser mid'Oraisa. The Chachamim instituted that the original onion, the Ikar, is also Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Rabanan. The Ran asks how could the Chachamim institute that Ma'aser be separated from the entire onion as one? If one separates Ma'aser from part of the onion itself, one might separate Ma'aser from the Ikar (which is Patur mid'Oraisa) on behalf of the Gidulin (which is Chayav mid'Oraisa), which would be separating "Min ha'Petur Al ha'Chiyuv," or vice versa, which is invalid! On the other hand, if one separates Ma'aser from another onion which is Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Oraisa on behalf of this onion, then he is separating too much Ma'aser, since mid'Oraisa he only should have separated Ma'aser for the Gidulin and not for the Ikar. The Ma'aser that he separated on behalf of the Ikar is not considered Ma'aser and remains Tevel, and it prevents the Levi from eating that bundle of Ma'aseros.

The Ran proves from here that if the Gidulin cannot be Mevatel the Ikar, it is because the Gidulin themselves have the same status, mid'Oraisa, as the Ikar. Therefore, if the Gidulin cannot be Mevatel the Ikar and make it Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Oraisa, then the Gidulin themselves are not Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Oraisa either, and the entire onion is only Chayav in Ma'aser *mid'Rabanan*! On the other hand, if the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, then the entire onion is Chayav mid'Oraisa. Thus, either way, one may separate Ma'aser from the onion on behalf of the entire onion, without any problem of separating "Min ha'Petur Al ha'Chiyuv."

The ROSH, TOSFOS, and other Rishonim disagree with the Ran and explain the question of Yishmael Ish K'far Yama in the first manner described above; the Gidulin are certainly permitted, and the question is whether or not they can be Mevatel the Ikar. How will these Rishonim answer the question of the Ran? Also, according to these Rishonim, why did Yishmael Ish K'far Yama entertain the possibility that the Gidulin should *not* be Mevatel the Ikar? For what reason should they not be able to be Mevatel the Ikar?

ANSWERS:

(a) The ROSH explains that the reason the Gidulin might not be Mevatel the Ikar is because they are not really mixed together. Rather, the Gidulin *surround* the Ikar, growing out from it and standing differentiated from it. On the other hand, the Gidulin might be Mevatel the Ikar (because the Gidulin entirely surround the Ikar and the differentiating-line between them is not clear).

Regarding the Ran's question about separating Ma'aser from the onion, the Rosh writes that all parts of the entire onion nurture from the soil equally. Consequently, every part of the onion grows to some extent after it was planted, and if he separates from any part of the onion for the rest of the onion, the proportions of Chiyuv and Petur are equal and the Ma'aser will be valid. (Even according to those who say "Ein Bilah" with regard to dry objects, here -- since the Chiyuv Ma'aser depends on the absorption of nutrients and moisture from the soil -- it is considered like a Davar Lach, a liquid item, and there are equal portions of Chiyuv and Petur in every part of it.)

The Rosh seems to be contradicting what he writes earlier. Earlier, he writes that the reason the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar is because the Gidulin are visibly separate from the Ikar and the parts of the onion are not unidentifiably mixed. Next, the Rosh writes the opposite, saying that even though the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar, there is an equal proportion of Chiyuv and Petur in every part of the onion!

The way to resolve this contradiction might be to say that visibly, the new portion (the Gidulin) is distinct from the old portion (for it is on the outside, and it is fresher). However, internally, the new portion is actually distributed throughout the entire onion. (This is why the Rosh writes that the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar, because the Gidulin and Ikar "are not *entirely* mixed together.") Therefore, although there are equal portions of Chiyuv and Petur in every part of the onion, Bitul does not occur because Bitul depends on what we see, and we do not see the Gidulin and the Ikar mixed together. (See the question of the SHITAH MEKUBETZES on this approach, end of 58b.)

(b) The RASHBA answers that the Chiyuv of Ma'aser of onions is only mid'Rabanan (see Ran 58b, DH Ochel me'Hem), and thus even the Gidulin are only Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Rabanan. Therefore, the Chachamim could institute that one separate Ma'aser either from the Ikar or from the Gidulin on behalf of the entire onion.

(c) TOSFOS explains that the reasoning for the opinion that the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar is that the Ikar is considered a Davar Chashuv (a significant entity) in comparison to the Gidulin, and a Davar Chashuv does not become Batel (see Chulin 100a). However, the Halachah that a Davar Chashuv is not Batel is only mid'Rabanan; mid'Oraisa a Davar Chashuv *is* Batel. According to Tosfos, therefore, everyone agrees that mid'Oraisa the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar. Consequently, according to Tosfos it is obvious why there is no problem with separating Ma'aser from the Ikar on behalf of the Gidulin -- both the Ikar and the Gidulin are Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Oraisa!

The RASHBA, too, explains like Tosfos that mid'Oraisa the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar. Nevertheless, the Rashba asks the question of the Ran, how can one separate Ma'aser from the Ikar for the Gidulin? If, however, the Rashba learns that mid'Oraisa the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, then why should one *not* be able to separate Ma'aser from the Ikar on behalf of the Gidulin?

The Rashba might not have accepted this answer to the Ran's question, because if this answer is true, then it is so obvious that the Gemara's Havah Amina would be difficult to understand. If it is true that mid'Oraisa the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, then what was the Gemara's question in the first place when it thought that we could prove from the case of Ma'aser that the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar? It is clear that one must separate Ma'aser for the entire onion in this case because *mid'Oraisa* the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, is me'aser l'fi kulah here because *mid'Oraisa* the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, even according to the opinion that holds that Gidulin of Heter are not Mevatel an Ikar of Isur. It seems, perhaps, that the Rashba therefore understands the Gemara's question differently. The Gemara is asking that mid'Oraisa, items of Heter can be Mevatel items of Isur, but items of Isur cannot be Mevatel items of Heter (like the Gemara points out on 59a, and as explained in the Ran 59b, DH v'Ad Kan). However, the Gemara thinks that when Rebbi Yitzchak says that the Gidulin of Isur are Mevatel the Ikar and the entire onion is Chayav in Ma'aser, he must mean that it is Chayav *mid'Rabanan* because the Chachamim enacted a Chumra that the Isur *can* be Mevatel the Heter. The Gemara asks that if this Bitul is only mid'Rabanan (because it is a case of Isur being Mevatel a Heter), and we know, also, that the Chachamim said that the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar because the Ikar is a Davar Chashuv, then there should not be Bitul here at all -- even mid'Rabanan!

The Gemara answers that the Chachamim considered the Ikar to be a Davar Chashuv (and hence not Batel) only as a *Chumra* and not where it would lead to a leniency, a Kula. Therefore, in this case, the Gidulin are Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Oraisa, and the Ikar is Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Rabanan. That is why the Rashba asks that one should not be able to separate Ma'aser from the Ikar on behalf of the Gidulin -- because it will be separating "Min ha'Petur Al ha'Chiyuv."