Nedarim - Daf 57
- קונם פירות האלו עלי...אסור בחילופיהן ובגידוליהן
The next Mishnah states: קונם פירות האלו עלי, קונם הן על פי, קונם הן לפי – One who says: “Konam these fruit on me,” or “these are konam upon my mouth,” or “these are konam to my mouth,” אסור בחילופיהן ובגידוליהן – he is forbidden even in their exchanges (meaning goods received in exchange for them) and in their growths (meaning that which grows from them). The Ran explains that by specifying an object, it is like hekdesh, and therefore shares these two properties of hekdesh. The Mishnah continues: שאני אוכל ושאני טועם מותר בחילופיהן ובגידוליהן – If he vowed, “Fruit are konam for my eating,” or “for my tasting,” he is permitted in their exchanges and growths. Their exchanges and growths are not a violation of his neder, since he is not eating or tasting the original forbidden product. Finally, these halachos are qualified: בדבר שזרעו כלה – This is only in an item whose seed decomposes. אבל בדבר שאין זרעו כלה אפילו גידולי גידולין אסורין – But an item whose seed does not decompose, even the growths of its growths are forbidden. The Ran explains that even in the first case of the Mishnah, its first growths are only forbidden because they are similar to exchanges (i.e., the original seed was “exchanged” for its subsequent plant), but what grows from them is not (because secondary exchanges are permitted). In contrast, an item whose seed does not decompose forbids even secondary growths, because some amount of the original forbidden item remains.
- An onion picked during shemittah and replanted in the eighth year - If new growths nullify the original root
The Gemara presents a question: בצל שעקרו בשביעית – An onion that was picked during shemittah, giving it shemittah sanctity, ונטעו בשמינית ורבו גידוליו על עיקרו – and he then replanted it during the eighth year, and its new growths exceeded its original root, what is the halachah? [In this context, “exceeded” means by an amount sufficient to nullify the original root, meaning sixty to one] The inquiry is defined: כיון דרבו גידוליו מעיקרו – Do we say since the growths exceeded the root, אותן גידולי היתר מעלין את האיסור או לא – those permitted growths nullify the forbidden root and the entire plant is permitted, or not, rather the growths are themselves forbidden as an extension of the forbidden root? The Ran explains that the question is about whether the new growths are permitted or are forbidden as extensions; the nullification of the original root is a secondary result.
- Proofs from Amoraim about growths nullifying roots – Young tree with orlah fruit grafted onto old tree
Rebbe Yitzchak Nafcha attempted to resolve the question from a statement said in the name of Rebbe Yannai: בצל שנטעו ורבו גידוליו על עיקרו מותר - if an onion of terumah was planted and its growths exceeded the root (which, in terumah, would require a ratio of one hundred to one), it is mutar and the entire onion loses its terumah status (although it is original tevel and would require tithing). He was challenged that there are two Amoraim who forbid this: Rebbe Yochanan said that a young tree with fruit (which was forbidden as orlah) which was grafted onto an old (permitted) tree, even if the fruit grow two-hundred-fold (the requisite amount for orlah nullification), they remain forbidden, despite the fact that the young tree is considered part of the old tree (and its new growths would be permitted, if not that they grew from forbidden fruit). Rebbe Yonasan said about an onion planted in a vineyard (which is forbidden as kilayim), even after the vineyard was uprooted and the onion grew two-hundred-fold, the onion remains forbidden. Both Amoraim held that the new growth does not nullify the old root (rather, the growth itself is forbidden as extension).
