In today’s daf, 109a, beginning at the top of the page, the Gemara presents a question from Rami bar Hama against the opinion of Rabbi Yannai.
What was Rabbi Yannai’s opinion? Earlier, he said that if a person plants an onion of terumah and it grows, the growths can nullify the original bulb. As a result, the entire item is no longer considered terumah. Rabbi Yannai therefore maintains that growths, even though their prohibition does not originate in the ground, can nullify the original item.
Yesterday, we learned the position of the Rabbis. They said that only something whose prohibition comes from the ground can be nullified by growths that come from the ground. Shemitah, for example, is a law pertaining to the ground. Just as the Sabbatical-year prohibition comes from the ground, the growth of the following year can nullify the original item. Rabbi Yannai, however, said that this principle is not limited to something whose prohibition comes from the ground. Even terumah, whose prohibition is not connected to the ground, can be nullified when an onion of terumah is planted and grows. The growths can nullify the original bulb, and the entire item is considered ordinary produce rather than terumah.
Rami bar Hama raises a difficulty from our Mishnah. The Mishnah says: “If a person says, ‘These fruits are forbidden to me,’ or, ‘They are forbidden to my mouth,’ the fruits themselves are forbidden, as are their exchanges and their growths.” In other words, if he explicitly forbade these particular fruits, he may not eat the fruits themselves, their exchange, or anything that grows from them.
However, if he merely said, “Fruit is forbidden to me to eat or taste,” without referring to these particular fruits, he may have the exchanges and the growths. The Mishnah then qualifies this ruling: this applies when the seed disintegrates. But if the seed does not disintegrate, even the growths of the growths are forbidden, because a piece of the original item remains present in the mixture.
What do we see from here? We see that growths do not nullify the original item. A person made a vow, and the original onion became forbidden. The growth is also forbidden, and the growth of the growth is also forbidden. The growths that emerge from something prohibited retain its prohibition; they do not have the ability to nullify the original item.
How, then, can Rabbi Yannai say that the growths of terumah nullify the original terumah? According to that logic, the growth of terumah should be considered like terumah itself and should also be forbidden. The prohibition of terumah does not come from the ground, yet we have just seen a case of a prohibition that does not come from the ground in which the growths retain the status of the original item. Not only the growths, but even the growths of the growths, remain forbidden. This is therefore a difficulty against Rabbi Yannai.
Abaye answers that vows are different. Alternatively, one may explain that vows belong to the category of something that has a permitted avenue of resolution and therefore is not subject to nullification by a majority.
Why are vows different? A person can go to a rabbi and have the vow dissolved. Since there is a way out of the vow, we have a principle that something with a permitted avenue of resolution is not subject to the laws of nullification. We rely on nullification only when there is no other way to permit the item. In the case of a vow, why rely on nullification? The person can go to a rabbi and have the vow annulled. Therefore, in the case of vows, the growths remain forbidden because the item has a permitted avenue of resolution.
Terumah, by contrast, is considered something without a permitted avenue of resolution, and therefore nullification applies to it. This is the distinction we want to establish between vows and terumah: in the case of a vow, there is no nullification because one can go to a rabbi and have the vow dissolved, whereas terumah is subject to nullification because it does not have that same avenue of resolution.
The Gemara challenges this distinction. What are you saying? A person can also go to a rabbi and change the status of terumah. For example, he can have the terumah designation transferred to a different item. Nevertheless, we know that terumah is nullified in a mixture when there is a hundred times as much ordinary produce as terumah. Thus, even though there is a way to remove the terumah designation, terumah is still subject to nullification.
We have a Mishnah that demonstrates this. Suppose a seah of terumah falls into a pile containing less than one hundred times its volume. The entire mixture must be allowed to spoil, because it may not be given to a priest in its current form, and the priest cannot use the mixture for any benefit. He cannot use it even as fuel. Therefore, if terumah falls into less than one hundred measures of ordinary produce, the entire pile must be left to spoil.
But if the terumah falls into a quantity of one hundred measures, the terumah is nullified. This shows that even though terumah can theoretically be transferred or removed, it is still subject to nullification. What, then, can we say? You claimed that vows are not nullified because they have a permitted avenue of resolution. But terumah also has an avenue of resolution, and nevertheless we say that nullification applies.
The Gemara answers that the Mishnah is discussing a case in which the terumah had already reached the hands of a priest. When can one go to a rabbi and have the terumah designation removed? That is while the Israelite is still holding it. Once it has reached the priest, the matter is finished; the designation cannot be removed. In the case of the Mishnah, the terumah was already in the priest’s possession. Since there was no longer any way to undo the designation, it was something without a permitted avenue of resolution, and nullification applied.
The Gemara challenges this answer from the continuation of the Mishnah. The Mishnah says that when terumah falls into less than one hundred measures, the owner should sell the mixture to a priest, excluding the value of the terumah itself. For example, if there are ninety-nine measures of ordinary produce and one measure of pure terumah, the Israelite may not eat the mixture. What does he do? He sells it to a priest for the value of ninety-nine measures, subtracting the value of the terumah, because he cannot charge the priest for the terumah itself. The priest can then eat the entire mixture.
But if the mixture is sold to the priest, this indicates that it was still in the possession of the Israelite. If it was still in the Israelite’s possession, he should still be able to go to a rabbi and have the terumah designation removed. It should therefore be something with a permitted avenue of resolution. Why, then, do we say that nullification applies?
The Gemara proposes another case. Perhaps the Israelite inherited the terumah from his grandfather, who was a priest. The grandfather’s property passed to his Israelite grandson, and the grandson is now holding the terumah. In such a case, the terumah did not come into the Israelite’s possession through an ordinary transfer from a priest; it became his through inheritance.
Can the Israelite now have the terumah designation annulled? No. Once it had been in the hands of the priest, the designation could no longer be removed. Therefore, at this point it is something without a permitted avenue of resolution, and nullification applies. This explains why the Mishnah says that if there are ninety-nine measures of ordinary produce and one measure of terumah, the mixture should be sold to a priest. The mixture is in the Israelite’s possession, but there is no longer any way to undo the terumah designation.
The Gemara challenges this as well from the wording of the Mishnah: “Sell it to a priest, excluding the value of that seah.” If the terumah had already belonged to a priest and had then passed to the Israelite through inheritance, why must he subtract the value of the terumah? He should be able to sell the entire mixture to the priest for its full value. The priest had already owned the terumah, and the grandfather had transferred it as part of the inheritance. Why should the Israelite be unable to charge for that measure?
The Gemara ultimately gives a different answer. It is a mitzvah to have a vow dissolved. This is taught in the name of Rabbi Natan, who said: “Anyone who makes a vow is considered as though he built a private altar.” Building a private altar is not a positive thing. During the time of the Temple, a person was not permitted to build a private altar. What is the mentality of someone who does so? He thinks he is being especially righteous. He says, “I am doing more than God commanded. I am not relying only on the authorized altar in the Temple; I am building another one.” Sometimes more is less.
Rabbi Natan says that the same mentality applies to someone who makes a vow. There are already enough things that are forbidden. Why add another prohibition and place oneself in a situation in which one might violate the vow? Nevertheless, if a person makes the vow and observes it, it is as though he brought an offering on that private altar. Even if he keeps the vow, he has placed himself at risk and has not done the right thing.
We therefore see that it is not merely possible to have a vow dissolved; it is a mitzvah to have it dissolved. Since there is a way out of the vow, and since one is specifically encouraged to make use of that way out, a vow is considered something with a permitted avenue of resolution. Therefore, nullification does not apply to vows.
Terumah is different. Although an Israelite can technically go to a rabbi and transfer the terumah designation to another item, there is no mitzvah to do so. It is not an automatic or preferred solution in the same way as the dissolution of a vow. Therefore, terumah is considered something without a permitted avenue of resolution and is subject to nullification.
This answers Rami bar Hama’s question. Rabbi Yannai said that if a person has a bulb of terumah and plants it, the growths can nullify the original bulb. Thus, there is nullification in the case of terumah, even though its prohibition does not originate in the ground. The Rabbis had said that only something whose prohibition comes from the ground can be nullified by growths from the ground, as with Shemitah. Rabbi Yannai extended the principle even to terumah.
Rami bar Hama asked: What about vows? The Mishnah says that the growths of a forbidden item also remain forbidden. Why do the growths not nullify the original item? The answer is that vows are different because they have a permitted avenue of resolution. In fact, more than merely having a way out, it is a mitzvah to have the vow dissolved. Terumah, by contrast, does not have that status. Therefore, vows are not nullified, whereas terumah is.
The Gemara now returns to another statement that was taught earlier. Rabbi Yohanan said that if a person has a litra of onions, and he had already designated the appropriate tithes from it, and then he planted the onions, he must separate tithes according to the entire resulting amount.
For example, suppose a person had a quantity of onions and had already separated the required tithes. He then replanted the onions, and they grew. Even though part of the original item had already been tithed, the new crop must be tithed according to the full amount. If the original onion represented one hundred percent of the item and twenty percent of it had already been tithed, that does not exempt the resulting growth. Once it was replanted and grew, tithes must be separated from the entire measure.
Rava objects: What is the practical meaning of this ruling? Where did the exemption go? If part of the item was already tithed, why must tithes be separated again from the entire amount? Even if one generally says that growths overpower the original item, that principle should apply when the original item is forbidden and the growths are permitted, or in a case involving what one wants to eat. Since the majority consists of growths, one can say that the growths nullify the original prohibition.
But when we are discussing the obligation to separate tithes, one should have to tithe only the portion that has not yet been tithed. Why would one have to separate tithes from the growths and also from the original item? The original portion has already been tithed. Why should it become obligated again?
Rava answers that we have encountered a similar principle in the laws of the Sabbatical year. Suppose a person planted an onion during the sixth year and it continued growing during the seventh year. If the leaves that emerge are dark, they are considered growths of the seventh year and are forbidden, because they received nourishment from the ground during the Sabbatical year. If the leaves are light or greenish, they are considered to have received their nourishment from the onion itself, which originated in the sixth year, and they retain the status of the sixth year.
Recall the case: a person took an onion from the sixth year and replanted it during the seventh year. It then produced leaves. We determine the status of the leaves by their appearance. If they are dark, they are considered seventh-year growths because they drew their nourishment from the seventh-year ground. If they are light, they are considered sixth-year growths because they were nourished by the original onion.
Rava says that this demonstrates that a portion of the original item can become absorbed into the new growth. Even if the leaf had already begun growing during the sixth year, and only the remainder grew during the seventh year, the entire leaf might have been understood to become forbidden when it is dark. Thus, the exemption of the earlier portion appears to have been swallowed up by the later growth. The same principle should apply to onions that were already tithed and then replanted: the growths can absorb the original portion, and tithes must be separated from the entire amount.
The Gemara rejects Rava’s proof. When the source says that dark leaves are forbidden, it does not mean that the entire leaf is forbidden. It refers only to the portion that grew during the seventh year. The part that had already grown during the sixth year remains permitted. Thus, the statement does not demonstrate that the new growth nullifies the status of the earlier portion.
This is also evident from the position of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said explicitly: “That which grows during the time of obligation is obligated, and that which grows during the time of exemption is exempt.” The portion that grew during the seventh year is subject to the laws of Shemitah, while the portion that grew during the sixth year remains permitted. The first Tanna can be understood in the same way: when the source says that the leaves are forbidden, it means that the new seventh-year growth is forbidden, while the earlier growth remains permitted.
The Gemara responds that perhaps the entire teaching was stated by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. If so, it cannot serve as proof that the first Tanna agrees with him. We therefore do not yet have a proof for Rava’s statement.
We should review the discussion. Rava transmitted a ruling in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: if a person had an onion from which he had already separated tithes and then replanted it, he must separate tithes from the entire resulting amount. Rabbi Hisda objected that part of the onion had already been tithed. Why should he have to tithe that portion again?
Rava answered that we find a similar concept in the laws of Shemitah. An onion from the sixth year was replanted in the seventh year, and the leaves were discussed. Rava attempted to show that even if part of the leaf had begun growing during the sixth year, the entire leaf becomes forbidden when the later growth is a dark seventh-year growth.
The Gemara rejected that explanation. The statement that a dark leaf is forbidden refers only to the new part that grew during the seventh year. The older part remains permitted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said this explicitly: that which grows during the time of obligation is obligated, and that which grows during the time of exemption is exempt. Therefore, the case does not prove that an earlier exempt portion is nullified by the later growth.
At this point, the Gemara says that the distinction depends on whether the person actively caused the growth or whether it happened on its own. In the case of the onion from the sixth year that remained in the ground and continued growing during the seventh year, the person did nothing to create a nullification. It remained in the ground, rain fell, and the onion grew. In such a case, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that each portion retains its original status: the sixth-year portion remains permitted, and the seventh-year portion is forbidden.
But if a person actively replanted an item with the intention of causing its original status to be absorbed into the new growth, the rule is different. For example, if he took a seventh-year product and replanted it during the eighth year specifically so that the new growth would nullify the original item, then the growths can nullify the original.
The Ran explains that this is the distinction. One cannot bring a proof from the case in which part of the leaf is forbidden and part is permitted, because that case involves growths that did not completely absorb the original item. The growths of a replanted onion are different: the person intentionally planted the onion in the ground again, and the new growths can therefore nullify the original portion.
Thus, in the case of the previously tithed onions, the person actively replanted them. The new growths can nullify the original status, and the entire item becomes subject to tithing again. This is different from the case in which an onion simply remained in the ground and continued growing on its own.
However, a difficulty remains. The Ran stated an earlier principle that if one regards the growths as a separate item from the original, the growths can nullify the original when they constitute the majority. How, then, can the earlier part remain permitted while the later part is forbidden? Once we say that the growths are separate from the original item, the majority should be able to nullify the minority. If the growths are not separate, then the entire item should retain one status. How can one divide the item and say that the permitted portion remains permitted while the forbidden portion remains forbidden?
We must clarify what nullification means. Nullification makes a forbidden item permitted; it does not make a permitted item forbidden. In the earlier case, the original item was itself forbidden—it was a seventh-year product—and the permitted growths could therefore nullify the prohibition of the original item. In the present case, however, the original item is permitted: it is a sixth-year product. The later growth is forbidden. We do not say that the forbidden growth can nullify the permitted original item and make the entire item forbidden. Nullification works to remove a prohibition; it does not create a prohibition in something that was originally permitted.
That is why the two cases are fundamentally different. When the original item is forbidden and the majority growths are permitted, the growths can nullify the prohibition. When the original item is permitted and the later growths are forbidden, the forbidden growths do not nullify the permitted original. The permitted portion remains permitted, and the later forbidden portion remains forbidden.
The Gemara now returns to the rule about tithes. The case there involves a quantity of produce that was not completely tithed. The person replanted it, intending to create new growth. Normally, when a person actively plants an item in order to generate new growth, the growths can nullify the original. Why, then, does the original untithed portion remain significant? Why must he separate tithes for the original measure from another place instead of simply tithing the entire new amount once?
The Gemara answers that tithes are different. The Torah says that one must tithe all produce that grows from the ground. The ordinary case is that a person plants permitted produce. For example, a person has onions from which he already separated tithes. He then replants the bulb in order to produce additional onions. The Torah teaches that the new produce must be tithed. One cannot say, “I already tithed this bulb, so everything that grows from it is exempt.” Whatever one plants and grows must be tithed again.
That is the meaning of the verse concerning tithes: what is planted and grows must be tithed. The ordinary situation is that a person plants permitted produce, and the growths can nullify the original for purposes of the new obligation. But if a person plants produce that was still untithed, the original untithed status remains. He must separate tithes both for the original measure and for the new growth.
Therefore, in the case of the one litra that was not completely tithed and was replanted, the new growth does not nullify the original obligation. He must separate tithes from the new amount, and he must also account for the original litra from another place. The fact that he actively replanted the item does not change this, because the laws of tithes contain a specific principle that preserves the original obligation when untithed produce is planted.
The Ran explains this from the wording of the verse. “You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed.” The verse refers specifically to seed that is fit to be planted—that is, produce that is permitted and already prepared for planting. Such produce can become nullified into its growths. But produce that was not yet properly tithed is not considered the ordinary “seed” referred to by the verse. Its original obligation remains, and the growths do not nullify it.
Thus, the rule that a person actively plants an item and thereby causes its growths to nullify the original applies to the ordinary case of permitted, properly prepared produce. It does not apply when the person plants untithed produce. In that case, the original obligation remains intact, and tithes must be separated both for the growths and for the original portion.
The Gemara now presents one final matter. Earlier, Rabbi Yannai said that if a person planted an onion of terumah and the growths became the majority, the growths can nullify the original terumah, and the item becomes permitted. The Gemara asks: What does this mean? Are you saying that the growths of permitted produce can somehow serve as the terumah portion? There is an explicit Mishnah that says, “The growths of terumah are terumah.” How, then, can Rabbi Yannai say that growths that came from terumah nullify the original bulb?
Rabbi Yannai’s statement was already taught earlier in the page. His innovation was that terumah can become nullified through its growths. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yannai was misunderstood. He was not speaking about the first-generation growths. The first growths are certainly terumah. He was speaking about the growths of those growths.
The case is as follows: a person takes a bulb of terumah and plants it. The first growths that emerge from the bulb are terumah and do not nullify the original bulb. But if those growths are themselves replanted and produce a third generation, the growths of the growths can nullify the first growths. The third-generation growths are therefore permitted and are not considered terumah.
The Gemara says that this principle is also found in a Tannaitic source. It states that the growths of the growths are ordinary produce. Therefore, Rabbi Yannai’s statement seems unnecessary. What additional point is he teaching?
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yannai teaches that this rule applies even when the original seed does not disintegrate. The Mishnah may have been understood as permitting the growths of the growths only when the original seed completely disintegrates, so that no physical piece of the original remains. Rabbi Yannai teaches that even when the seed does not disintegrate and a piece of the original remains, the growths of the growths can still be permitted.
Normally, when a seed disintegrates, there is no remaining piece of the original item, and it is easier to say that the later growths have a different status. Rabbi Yannai comes to teach that the same rule applies even when the seed does not disintegrate. Although a piece of the original remains in the later item, the growths of the growths can still nullify the first growths and become permitted.
We therefore have the following distinction. The first growths of an onion of terumah are terumah and do not nullify the original bulb. But when those growths are replanted and produce another generation, the growths of the growths can be nullified and are considered ordinary produce. Rabbi Yannai’s additional teaching is that this applies even to a type of seed that does not completely disintegrate.