The Eddie B. Sit Edition presents an audio series of the *Gemara* Nedarim, specifically Daf Nun Chet. This Daf is being studied for the elevation of the souls of Zekeni Yechiel Yosef ben Sarah and Avraham ben Esther, may their souls rest in Gan Eden. We also pray for a complete recovery for Moshe ben Dina, Shlomo ben Miriam, Sarah bat Rachel, and Rachel bat Batya. May it be Your will, and let us say Amen.
We begin today's Daf on Nuch Chet Amud Rishon, seven lines from the bottom. The discussion revolves around a specific case that the *Gemara* has not yet resolved: a person planted a fruit or an onion during the *Shemittah* and it was plucked out in the eighth year. The question arises regarding an onion that was uprooted in the seventh year and replanted in the eighth year. Did the subsequent growth of the onion in the eighth year constitute a *heter* (permissible growth)? If this growth is considered *heter*, it could nullify the *shevi'it* (seventh year) product, making the onion permissible. Conversely, if the growth is viewed as stemming from the original *ikar* (root), which is a product of *shevi'it*, then the growth would also be classified as *assur* (forbidden).
The *Gemara* engages in a back-and-forth analysis, presenting various proofs, each of which is ultimately rejected. It then introduces another case for consideration. The *Gemara* states, "Rather, we can solve it from this case," and cites a *Mishnah*: "Onions that were rained upon in the seventh year and started to grow." Here, if the leaves of these onions are dark, they are considered *assur* because it indicates that they are drawing nutrients from the *karka* (ground) of *shevi'it*. However, if the leaves are light, they are deemed *muttar* (permissible) as they are drawing nutrients from the bulb itself rather than from the *shevi'it* ground.
Rabbi Hanania ben Antignos offers a different criterion: if the leaves are so strong that one could pull the onion out by its leaves, it becomes *assur*, as this indicates that the onion has received its nutrients from the ground. Conversely, if this occurs at *motza'ei shevi'it* (the end of the seventh year), the opposite holds true. If the leaves are darkened, it indicates that they are drawing from the ground of the eighth year, which is permissible. Similarly, if the leaves are strong, it would also suggest that they received nutrients from the eighth year's ground, thus rendering them permissible.
The *Gemara* then questions what can be learned from this discussion, concluding that the growth of *heter* can indeed override the *issur*. The *Ran* elaborates on this, discussing the implications of the Mishnah regarding onions that were rained upon in the seventh year and grew. If the leaves are dark, it proves that they grew from the ground of *shevi'it*, thus rendering them *assur*. However, if they are greenish, they did not draw their nutrients from the *karka* of *shevi'it*, but rather from the onion itself, thus making them *muttar*.
The discussion continues, emphasizing that the growth of *heter* can nullify the *issur*. However, a counterpoint arises: perhaps we are dealing with crushed bulbs, which would mean that the growth does not relate back to the *ikar*. The *Gemara* seeks to clarify this by citing a *Braitah* about a worker pruning in the fields. The worker is permitted to eat from the vegetables as long as they have not yet reached the obligation of *ma'aser* (tithing). The obligation of *ma'aser* only applies once the produce is gathered into piles.
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar introduces another case: if a Jew is suspected of working during *shevi'it*, the fruit is permissible after *motza'ei shevi'it*. The logic follows that the growth in the eighth year can nullify the *issur* from the seventh year. The *Gemara* challenges this by suggesting that perhaps the original bulb was crushed and thus does not relate back to the *ikar*. However, it is argued that a person who is suspected of planting during *shevi'it* would not crush their bulbs, as they are not concerned about the laws of *shevi'it*.
The *Gemara* concludes that the growth of *heter* does indeed nullify the *issur*. However, it raises the question of whether the growth is merely mixed with an *issur*. The *Gemara* affirms that the growth is indeed *heter*, and thus can nullify the *issur* if the majority of the growth is permissible.
As the discussion unfolds, the *Gemara* references the differing opinions of Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yonatan, who maintain that growth is connected to the *ikar* and does not nullify the *issur*. Rav Yitzchak offers a resolution, stating that the case of *shevi'it* is unique because its prohibition derives from the ground, and thus its nullification can also occur through the ground of the eighth year.
The *Gemara* presents a challenge regarding *ma'aser*, which also derives from the ground but does not nullify through it. The *Gemara* ultimately explains that the obligation of *ma'aser* arises from the gathering of produce, not merely from its growth in the ground. This distinction allows for the conclusion that while the *issur* of *shevi'it* can be nullified by the growth of the eighth year, the *ma'aser* obligation remains intact.
In summary, the *Gemara* affirms that the growth of *heter* can indeed nullify the *issur*, particularly in the context of *shevi'it*, where the ground's role is pivotal in determining the status of the produce. The discussion underscores the complexity of halachic rulings regarding agricultural practices and the nuances of growth and nullification.