QUESTIONS: The Gemara attempts to prove that Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar from a
Beraisa. The Beraisa quotes Rebbi Shimon who says that Shevi'is is considered a
"Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" with regard to the Chiyuv of Bi'ur, implying that if a
fruit of the sixth year is replanted and grows even a miniscule amount during the
seventh year (Shevi'is), the entire fruit becomes Asur. With regard to eating it
after the time of Bi'ur, on the other hand, it is *not* a "Davar she'Yesh Lo
Matirin," and the Isur (the growth of Shevi'is) is Batel b'Nosen Ta'am (if the taste
of the Isur is not discernible, the Isur is Batel).
How can the Gemara prove from the Halachah that Shevi'is is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo
Matirin" that the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar? When a fruit of the sixth year grows
during the Shevi'is year and increases in size, it becomes Asur because of the little
bit of Shevi'is mixed in with the entire fruit, and not because the growth of the
Shevi'is is Mevatel the Ikar! What, then, is the Gemara's proof?
In addition, later the Gemara says that even according to the opinion that Gidulin
are not Mevatel the Ikar, if the pieces of the fruit are "Meduchanin," ground or
chopped up, then the Gidulin *are* Mevatel the Ikar. Why should chopping it up make a
difference?
ANSWERS: The explanation of these two points in the Gemara depends on the three
approaches of the Rishonim (the Ran, Rosh, and Tosfos) to explaining the question of
Yishmael Ish K'far Yama (56b; see Insights there).
(a) According to the RAN, the question of Yishmael Ish K'far Yama is whether the
Gidulin have the same status as the Ikar or whether they have a different status.
Since the Mishnah says that any amount of Gidulin that grew during Shevi'is prohibits
the entire fruit, it is obvious that the Gidulin do not have the same status as the
Ikar (because the Gidulin are Asur and the Ikar is Mutar). Since the Gidulin are
Asur, they can then be Mevatel the Ikar.
When the Gemara says that the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar when the fruit is chopped
up, it means that if an onion is chopped up and then replanted, then the Ikar has
less input into the production of the Gidulin. Therefore, the Gidulin are not going
to be like the Ikar. In that case, then, even though the Ikar is Asur, the Gidulin
can still remain Mutar.
(b) According to the ROSH, the question of Yishmael Ish K'far Yama was whether the
Gidulin are considered to be thoroughly and homogeneously mixed with the Ikar such
that the Gidulin could be Mevatel the Ikar. (Even though the Ikar itself increased in
size because of being replanted, nevertheless Bitul cannot occur unless the two items
are visibly mixed together. See Insights to 57b). The Gemara's proof from Shevi'is is
that if the Gidulin that grow during Shevi'is could cause the entire fruit to be Asur
because of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin," it must be that the Gidulin and the Ikar are
considered to be mixed, because the Chachamim would institute the Chumra of "Davar
she'Yesh Lo Matirin" only when it is evident that the Isur is mixed in and it does
not look like the Isur is standing apart from the Heter.
When the Gemara says that the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar when the fruit is chopped
up, it means that the onion is chopped up *after* the Gidulin grew and now all parts
are mixed up. Hence, it is treated like any other mixture and the Gidulin is Mevatel
the Ikar.
(c) TOSFOS says that the reason why the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar is because
the Ikar is a "Davar Chashuv." The Gemara's proof from Shevi'is is that if the Ikar
is a Davar Chashuv, then the Gidulin should not make the Ikar prohibited even when
the Gidulin are a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin."
When the Gemara says that when the fruit is chopped up it is Batel, it means that
since the Ikar is chopped up it is no longer a Davar Chashuv. Consequently, it can
become Batel to the Gidulin.