Nedarim 58

Sugya Map

The Gemara on Nedarim 58a opens with a foundational distinction in halachic jurisprudence concerning bittul b'rov (nullification by majority) for prohibited items mixed with permitted ones. The core chakira revolves around the binary classification of davar שיש לו מתירין (an item whose prohibition can be removed) versus davar שאין לו מתירין (an item whose prohibition cannot be removed). This distinction dictates whether an issur (prohibition) is nullified in a mixture or remains assur b'chol shehu (prohibited in any amount).

The Core Issue: Davar שיש לו מתירין vs. Davar שאין לו מתירין

The Mishna establishes that for davar שיש לו מתירין, the Sages did not set a measure for its neutralization, meaning it remains prohibited b'chol shehu even in a vast majority of permitted items. Conversely, for davar שאין לו מתירין, the Sages did set a measure for its neutralization (e.g., bittul b'mei'ah for terumah, bittul b'matayim for orla).

Nafka Mina(s)

1. Scope of Bittul: The primary nafka mina is the applicability of bittul b'rov. If an item can eventually become permitted, it carries a higher chashivut (significance) that prevents its nullification, because one can always rectify the issur. If it cannot, its issur is often seen as less "active" or "fixable," hence bittul applies.
2. Status of Shevi'it Produce: The Gemara intensely grapples with the classification of Shevi'it (Sabbatical Year) produce. Is it davar שיש לו מתירין or davar שאין לו מתירין?
   • Initially, the Rabbis challenge R' Shimon, noting Shevi'it is davar שאין לו מתירין (after bi'ur), yet prohibits b'chol shehu according to Mishna Shevi'it 7:7. R' Shimon offers a nuanced distinction based on bi'ur vs. achilah.
   • The debate then shifts to whether Shevi'it produce can be nullified by new growth from the ground (bittul b'tzemicha min ha'karka). This is tested via the Shevi'it 6:3 Mishna (onions sprouting) and a baraita concerning chasayot at motzaei Shevi'it.
3. Nature of Issurim and Bittul b'Karka: The discussion culminates in R' Yitzchak's chiddush that Shevi'it is unique because issuro ba'karka v'bittulo ba'karka (its prohibition is due to the ground, and its nullification can be through the ground). This sevara (logical reasoning) is then challenged by the example of ma'aser rishon (first tithe), which also has issuro ba'karka but bittulo lo ba'karka. This raises a deep chakira into the gedarim (definitions) of various agricultural issurim.

Primary Sources

• Nedarim 58a: The Mishna's opening statement distinguishing davar שיש לו מתירין and davar שאין לו מתירין, and the subsequent Gemara discussion and baraitot.
• Mishna Shevi'it 7:7: "שביעית אוסרת בכל שהוא" (Sabbatical Year produce prohibits in any amount).
• Mishna Shevi'it 6:3: The case of sixth-year onions sprouting in Shevi'it.
• Baraita (Nedarim 58a): On weeding chasayot with a Samaritan at motzaei Shevi'it.
• Baraita (Nedarim 58a): On sowing a litra of untithed ma'aser rishon.
• Ran, Rashi, Tosafot (Nedarim 58a): The primary Rishonim analyzing these texts.

Text Snapshot

The foundational text of our sugya presents a clear dichotomy:

"כל דבר שיש לו מתירין, כגון טבל ומעשר שני והקדש וחדש — לא נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור. וכל דבר שאין לו מתירין, כגון תרומה ותרומת מעשר וחלה, ערלה וכלאי הכרם — נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור." (Nedarim 58a)

This Mishnaic statement, while concise, carries significant dikduk and leshon nuances that shape its interpretation:

• "כל דבר שיש לו מתירין": This phrase literally means "any item that has permitters." The active participle "מתירין" (permitters) suggests a potentiality – the ability for the item to become permitted. This isn't merely an item that might become permitted, but one for which a clear, prescribed tikkun (rectification) or hatara (permission) exists.

  • Examples provided: Tevel (untithed produce), Ma'aser Sheni (second tithe), Hekdesh (consecrated items), and Chadash (new crop before Omer). Each of these has a specific mechanism for permission: Tevel by tithing, Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh by redemption (pidyon), and Chadash by the Omer offering.
  • "לא נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור": "The Sages did not determine a measure for them." This implies that such items are assur b'chol shehu (prohibited in any amount) when mixed with permitted items of their own species (min b'mino). The prohibition is so potent that it cannot be nullified, likely because the possibility of rectification renders nullification unnecessary or inappropriate.

• "וכל דבר שאין לו מתירין": "And any item that does not have permitters." This refers to items whose inherent prohibition cannot be removed through any action or passage of time.

  • Examples provided: Terumah (priestly heave-offering), Terumat Ma'aser (heave-offering of the tithe), Challah (dough-offering), Orlah (fruit of a tree in its first three years), and Kil'ay HaKerem (forbidden food crops in a vineyard). These are items whose issur is intrinsic and permanent (for non-Kohanim, etc.).
  • "נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור": "The Sages determined a measure for them." This indicates that these items can be nullified in a mixture, typically by a ratio like 1:100 (terumah), 1:200 (orlah and kil'ay hakerem), or 1:60 (min b'sh'eino mino).

The Gemara then immediately challenges this framework with Shevi'it:

"אמרו ליה לרבי שמעון: והא שביעית דבר שאין לו מתירין הוא, ולא נתנו בה חכמים שיעור, דתנן: שביעית אוסרת בכל שהוא! אמר להם: אף אני אומר, לא אסרה אלא לענין ביעור. אבל לענין אכילה בנותן טעם." (Nedarim 58a)

• "והא שביעית דבר שאין לו מתירין הוא": "But isn't Sabbatical-Year produce an item that cannot become permitted?" This is the core kushya. Once bi'ur (removal) time passes, Shevi'it produce becomes prohibited from consumption, and this prohibition is permanent; there's no way to "permit" it again. Thus, by definition, it should be davar שאין לו מתירין.
• "ולא נתנו בה חכמים שיעור, דתנן: שביעית אוסרת בכל שהוא!": "And yet the Sages did not determine a measure for its neutralization, as we learned in a Mishna: The Sabbatical-Year produce prohibits permitted produce of its own species with which it is mixed in any amount!" This direct quote from Mishna Shevi'it 7:7 presents the contradiction. If Shevi'it is davar שאין לו מתירין, it should be nullifiable, yet the Mishna says it prohibits b'chol shehu.
• "אמר להם: אף אני אומר, לא אסרה אלא לענין ביעור. אבל לענין אכילה בנותן טעם.": Rabbi Shimon's nuanced response: "I too said that Sabbatical-Year produce prohibits only with regard to removal. However, with regard to the permissibility of eating, the Sages determined a measure for their neutralization. The mixture is forbidden only if the measure of that produce is enough to impart flavor to the mixture."
  • Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between the issur of bi'ur (removal, which is assur b'chol shehu) and the issur of achilah (eating, which is b'noten ta'am – if it imparts flavor). This suggests that for eating, Shevi'it does nullify, aligning it with davar שאין לו מתירין. However, the Gemara rejects this, noting חומרא שאני (stringency is different), meaning the bi'ur law is a specific chumra and doesn't define the bittul status for other aspects.

This interplay sets the stage for the Gemara's deep dive into the unique nature of Shevi'it and the concept of bittul b'tzemicha min ha'karka.

Readings

The Mishna on Nedarim 58a presents a fundamental dichotomy in the laws of bittul b'rov (nullification by majority), distinguishing between davar שיש לו מתירין (an item whose prohibition can be removed) and davar שאין לו מתירין (an item whose prohibition cannot be removed). This conceptual fork shapes the entire sugya, and the Rishonim delve deeply into its precise definition and implications.

1. Rashi: The Rectifiable Prohibition

Rashi, in his characteristic brevity and clarity, frames the distinction primarily around the potential for rectification (tikkun) of the forbidden item. For Rashi, the essence of davar שיש לו מתירין is that it can be fixed and thereby become permitted. This underlying sevara (logical reasoning) is what prevents its nullification in a mixture.

Chiddush and Elaboration

Rashi states: "כגון טבל - שיש לו מתירין שמתקנו וניתר ומעשר והקדש יש לו מתירין על ידי פדייה וחדש עומר מתירו להכי אפילו באלף לא בטלי דהא אפשר להו בתקנתא." (Rashi Nedarim 58a:1:1 s.v. כגון טבל) Here, Rashi explicitly outlines the tikkun for each example:

• Tevel: "שמתקנו וניתר" – one rectifies it (by tithing) and it becomes permitted. The issur of tevel is not intrinsic to the produce itself but rather a consequence of a chesaron (deficiency) in its processing. Once tithes are separated, the chesaron is removed, and the issur vanishes.
• Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh: "על ידי פדייה" – through monetary redemption. These items possess a kedusha (sanctity) that can be transferred onto coins, thereby releasing the original item from its sacred status and rendering it chullin (non-sacred).
• Chadash: "עומר מתירו" – the Omer offering permits it. This prohibition is time-bound, and a specific ritual act (the bringing of the Omer) acts as its "permitter."

The pivotal phrase "להכי אפילו באלף לא בטלי דהא אפשר להו בתקנתא" (Therefore, even in a thousand, they are not nullified, for they can be rectified) encapsulates Rashi's understanding. The issur of davar שיש לו מתירין is not permanent or irreparable. Since there is a path to permit the item, the Sages did not allow it to be nullified. To allow bittul would effectively circumvent the tikkun process and potentially undermine the issur's significance. This implies a proactive responsibility on the part of the owner to perform the tikkun rather than relying on bittul.

For davar שאין לו מתירין, Rashi correspondingly explains: "דתרומה בטלה במאה וערלה במאתים." (Rashi Nedarim 58a:1:2 s.v. נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור) Since there is no tikkun available for these items (e.g., terumah remains terumah; orla fruit remains orla), their issur is permanent, and thus bittul is an appropriate mechanism for mixed cases, reflecting their inability to be individually rectified. Rashi's approach emphasizes the halachic metzi'us (reality) of potential tikkun as the defining characteristic.

2. Ran: Nuance in Nullification and Intent

The Ran offers a more intricate analysis of davar שיש לו מתירין, introducing crucial distinctions regarding the type of mixture and the underlying sevara of "יש לו מתירין." His commentary reveals a deeper conceptual framework for bittul.

Chiddush 1: Min b'Mino vs. Min b'Sh'eino Mino

The Ran's first major chiddush addresses a common assumption about davar שיש לו מתירין. While Rashi's comment "אפילו באלף לא בטלי" might suggest that davar שיש לו מתירין is never nullified, the Ran clarifies: "כל דבר שיש לו מתירין כגון טבל - שנתערב בחולין ויש לו מתירין שיכול להפריש ממקום אחר ומעשר שני והקדש יש להם היתר בפדייה: לא נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור - שאוסרים בכל שהוא במינן מיהו שלא במינן בנותן טעם כיון דהשתא אסירי כמו שכתבתי למעלה." (Ran Nedarim 58a:1:1 and 58a:1:3 s.v. כל דבר שיש לו מתירין and s.v. לא נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור) The Ran explicitly states that davar שיש לו מתירין is assur b'chol shehu only "במינן" (in mixtures of the same species). However, "שלא במינן" (in mixtures of different species), they are nullified "בנותן טעם" (if they do not impart flavor).

This is a significant refinement. Rashi's general statement "אפילו באלף לא בטלי" could be misconstrued to apply to all mixtures. The Ran, however, distinguishes. For min b'mino, where the forbidden item is indistinguishable from the permitted, the principle of davar שיש לו מתירין holds its full weight, preventing bittul because one could theoretically separate and fix the forbidden part. But for min b'sh'eino mino, where the forbidden item is identifiable and distinct, its issur is treated more like a flavor, and if it doesn't impart taste, it is nullified. This aligns with the general principle that bittul b'shishim (nullification by sixty) applies to min b'sh'eino mino for most issurim. The Ran suggests that even davar שיש לו מתירין doesn't override this basic principle for min b'sh'eino mino. He also adds a fascinating parenthetical note for tevel: "ובפרק בתרא דמס' ע"ז יהיב טעמא אחרינא לטבל דלא בטיל משום דכהתירו כך איסורו" (And in the last chapter of Tractate Avodah Zarah, it gives another reason why tevel is not nullified: because its prohibition is like its permission). This hints at a deeper, perhaps more intrinsic, connection between the issur and hetter of tevel, implying its issur is uniquely robust.

Chiddush 2: The Role of Mitzvah in "יש לו מתירין"

The Ran offers another profound insight into the definition of "יש לו מתירין" by addressing why terumah (which can technically be permitted to a Kohen) is not considered davar שיש לו מתירין. "וכל דבר שאין לו מתירין כגון תרומה ותרומת מעשר וחלה - דאע"ג דמצי לאתשולי עלייהו כיון דליכא מצוה למיעבד הכי לא מיקרו דבר שיש לו מתירים כדאמרינן לקמן" (Ran Nedarim 58a:1:4 s.v. וכל דבר שאין לו מתירין) The Ran notes that while one could hypothetically give terumah to a Kohen (making it permitted for the Kohen), this does not categorize it as davar שיש לו מתירין. His reasoning: "כיון דליכא מצוה למיעבד הכי" (since there is no mitzva to do so). This implies that "יש לו מתירין" refers not just to a theoretical possibility of permission, but to a halachically preferred or mandated method of rectification for the owner. Since a non-Kohen has no mitzva to ensure terumah is eaten by a Kohen, it's not considered "having permitters" from the perspective of the one in possession of the mixture. This adds a subjective, mitzva-oriented layer to the definition, moving beyond a purely objective assessment of the item's potential for hetter.

3. Tosafot: Practical Mechanisms of Rectification

Tosafot, known for their analytical depth and exploration of alternative terutzim, contribute a practical understanding of how davar שיש לו מתירין might be rectified even when mixed. Their focus is on the metzi'us (reality) of tikkun.

Chiddush and Elaboration

Tosafot on Nedarim 58a states: "כל דבר שיש לו מתירין כגון טבל - שנתערב בחולין דמצי מעשר עליו מדמאי או מעציץ שאינו נקוב" (Tosafot Nedarim 58a:1:1 s.v. כל דבר שיש לו מתירין) Tosafot provides concrete ways to perform tikkun for tevel even when it's mixed with chullin:

1. "מצי מעשר עליו מדמאי": One can take tithes for it from d'mai (doubtfully tithed produce). D'mai is produce about which there is a doubt whether ma'aser has been taken. The Rabbis ordained that one must tithe d'mai (a takanat Chachamim). Tosafot suggests that one could designate d'mai as ma'aser for the mixed tevel. This is a creative solution that allows tikkun without needing to isolate the specific tevel kernels.
2. "או מעציץ שאינו נקוב": Or from produce grown in an atzitz she'eino nakuv (a pot without a hole). Produce grown in such a pot is generally exempt from certain terumot and ma'aserot because it is not directly connected to the ground. However, one can still designate it to perform tikkun for tevel that is obligated. This is another method of obtaining permitted produce to separate as tithes for the mixed tevel.

These terutzim highlight that the concept of "יש לו מתירין" is not merely theoretical. Even when an item is mixed and seemingly lost, there are halachic maneuvers to perform the necessary tikkun. This demonstrates that the chashivut (importance) of the issur is such that Chazal expected one to go to significant lengths to rectify it rather than relying on bittul. Tosafot's approach emphasizes the practicality of avoiding bittul when tikkun is an option, reinforcing the Mishna's ruling.

4. Ritva: The Sevara of Intrinsic vs. Rectifiable Prohibition

The Ritva, often building upon the Ran's insights, further clarifies the conceptual underpinnings of the davar שיש לו מתירין distinction. He focuses on the nature of the prohibition itself.

Chiddush and Elaboration

The Ritva (Chiddushei HaRitva Nedarim 58a s.v. כל דבר שיש לו מתירין) explains that the reason davar שיש לו מתירין is not nullified is not just because it can be fixed, but because its issur is a chesaron (deficiency) that is meant to be completed. It's an issur that is provisional, awaiting its tikkun. Therefore, it retains its identity and cannot be passively absorbed and nullified by a majority. The issur is not an inherent flaw in the cheftza (object) itself, but rather a temporary status that is meant to be resolved.

In contrast, for davar שאין לו מתירין, the issur is intrinsic and permanent to the cheftza (e.g., orla fruit is inherently forbidden, terumah for a non-Kohen is permanently forbidden). Since this issur cannot be removed, Chazal allowed for bittul in mixtures as a practical accommodation, recognizing that the issur is unavoidable for that specific cheftza but can be diluted in a larger whole.

The Ritva's perspective deepens the sevara of the Mishna. It's not just about the option of fixing, but about the purpose of the issur. If the issur serves as a catalyst for a tikkun, then bittul would negate that purpose. If the issur is a final state, then bittul becomes a necessary tool for managing mixtures. This distinction helps explain why Shevi'it is so difficult to categorize, as its issur (especially after bi'ur) seems permanent, yet its kedusha is unique.

In summary, Rashi provides the straightforward, tikkun-centric interpretation. The Ran refines this by distinguishing mixture types and adding the criterion of mitzva for "יש לו מתירין." Tosafot offers practical halachic mechanisms for such tikkun. The Ritva elevates the discussion to the conceptual nature of the issur itself, distinguishing between provisional and intrinsic prohibitions. These Rishonim collectively illuminate the profound principles underlying the Mishna's initial statement, laying the groundwork for the Gemara's subsequent kushyot and terutzim.

Friction

The sugya in Nedarim 58a, while establishing a clear distinction, immediately plunges into profound friction points, particularly concerning the classification of Shevi'it produce and the mechanism of bittul b'tzemicha min ha'karka (nullification through growth from the ground). The Gemara's struggle highlights the complex interplay of gedarim (definitions) of various issurim.

1. Friction Point: The Enigma of Shevi'it's Bittul

The Mishna's dichotomy sets up an expectation: davar שיש לו מתירין is assur b'chol shehu, while davar שאין לו מתירין is subject to bittul. The Gemara immediately challenges this with Shevi'it: "אמרו ליה לרבי שמעון: והא שביעית דבר שאין לו מתירין הוא, ולא נתנו בה חכמים שיעור, דתנן: שביעית אוסרת בכל שהוא!" (Nedarim 58a) The Rabbis pose a direct kushya: Shevi'it produce, after the time of bi'ur (removal from one's home), is davar שאין לו מתירין because its prohibition is permanent – it can no longer be eaten. Yet, Mishna Shevi'it 7:7 states: "Shevi'it prohibits in any amount" (אוסרת בכל שהוא). This seems to contradict the Nedarim Mishna, as a davar שאין לו מתירין should be nullifiable.

Terutz 1 (Rabbi Shimon's Distinction):

Rabbi Shimon offers a nuanced distinction to resolve the apparent contradiction: "אמר להם: אף אני אומר, לא אסרה אלא לענין ביעור. אבל לענין אכילה בנותן טעם." (Nedarim 58a) Rabbi Shimon argues that the assur b'chol shehu for Shevi'it applies only to the issur of bi'ur (the obligation to remove the produce from one's possession when its species is no longer found in the field). For achilah (eating) after the time of bi'ur, the produce does nullify b'noten ta'am (if it imparts flavor). According to this, Shevi'it for eating is indeed davar שאין לו מתירין and is nullifiable, thus aligning with the Nedarim Mishna. The assur b'chol shehu for bi'ur is a distinct, specific stringency.

• Critique of Terutz 1: The Gemara rejects R' Shimon's terutz as a general proof: "ואולי הכא נמי חומרא שאני." (Nedarim 58a) Perhaps the rule for bi'ur is a specific chumra (stringency) and does not reflect the general bittul status of Shevi'it. This rejection means R' Shimon's distinction, while valid for Shevi'it, doesn't provide a general framework for reconciling the Nedarim Mishna with the Shevi'it Mishna in all cases of davar שאין לו מתירין. The Gemara is looking for a more fundamental principle.

Terutz 2 (Rabbi Yitzchak's Unique Geder for Shevi'it):

After a series of attempts to prove bittul b'tzemicha min ha'karka from Shevi'it sources (which the Gemara initially tries to refute), the sugya arrives at Rabbi Yitzchak's explanation: "אמר רבי יצחק: שביעית שאני, הואיל ואיסורו בארץ, ביטולו בארץ נמי." (Nedarim 58a) Rabbi Yitzchak offers a unique sevara for Shevi'it: Its prohibition (issuro) stems from the ground (ba'karka), and therefore its nullification (bittulo) can also be effected through the ground (ba'karka). This means new growth from the ground, even if originating from forbidden Shevi'it produce, can nullify the original prohibition. This explains why Shevi'it behaves differently from other davar שאין לו מתירין that are not nullified by growth (like orla and kil'ay hakerem).

• Critique of Terutz 2 (The Ma'aser Rishon Kushya): The Gemara immediately challenges R' Yitzchak's sevara with a powerful counter-example: "תיובתא דרבי יוחנן ורבי יונתן! אמר רבי יצחק: שביעית שאני, הואיל ואיסורו בארץ, ביטולו בארץ נמי. ורמינהו: מעשר, איסורו בארץ הוא, ואין ביטולו בארץ! דתניא: ליטרא טבל מעשר שזרעה בקרקע, וצמחה ועמדה על עשרה ליטרין – חייבת במעשר ובשביעית. ועל אותה ליטרא מפריש עליה ממקום אחר בשיעור." (Nedarim 58a) The Gemara asks: "Isn't there the case of ma'aser (tithe), whose prohibition is engendered by means of the ground, but its nullification is not effected by means of the ground?" The baraita cited details a scenario where one sows a litra of untithed ma'aser rishon (first tithe). It grows to ten litra. The baraita states that the new growth is subject to ma'aser and Shevi'it, but for the original litra of untithed ma'aser, one must separate tithes from a different place "based on a calculation." This implies that the new, permitted growth does not nullify the issur of the original ma'aser rishon. This directly refutes R' Yitzchak's proposed sevara that issuro ba'karka automatically leads to bittulo ba'karka.

• Potential Terutzim for the Ma'aser Rishon Kushya:

  • Distinction in Nature of Kedusha (Rashba/Ran): The Rashba (Chiddushei HaRashba Nedarim 58a s.v. שביעית שאני) and Ran (Nedarim 58a s.v. ורמינהו מעשר) distinguish between the kedusha of Shevi'it and ma'aser. Shevi'it is a kedushat karka (sanctity of the land) that applies to all produce that grows from it during the Sabbatical Year. The issur is thus inherently tied to the land's cycle. When the land produces chullin (non-sacred) produce in the eighth year, this new chullin growth can effectively "overcome" or dilute the residual kedusha of the previous year's produce, especially if the original item becomes secondary. Ma'aser rishon, however, is a kedushat cheftza (sanctity of the object). The issur is on the specific produce that was designated or should have been designated as ma'aser. When this ma'aser is sown, it is the forbidden cheftza itself that grows and increases. The ground merely acts as a medium for its multiplication, not for its transformation or nullification. The issur is inherent to the litra of ma'aser, and its progeny inherit that issur or retain the need for separate tikkun. Therefore, the ground's role is different in each case.
  • "Isur Guf" vs. "Isur Peros" (Pnei Yehoshua): The Pnei Yehoshua (Chiddushei Pnei Yehoshua Nedarim 58a s.v. ורמינהו מעשר) might elaborate that Shevi'it is an issur on the peros (fruits/produce) that grow from the land during a specific time, and the land itself is holy. Ma'aser rishon, however, is an issur guf (an intrinsic prohibition on the body of the produce) that requires designation for a Levi. Even when sown, the original guf (body) of the forbidden ma'aser is still present and growing. This distinction emphasizes whether the issur is primarily on the produce's origin/time or its inherent identity as a designated item.

2. Friction Point: The Chasayot Baraita and the Generality of Bittul b'Tzemicha

Before R' Yitzchak's terutz, the Gemara seeks a conclusive proof for bittul b'tzemicha min ha'karka from the baraita about chasayot (lettuce-like plants) at the end of Shevi'it: "ההוא דקא עקר חסייאתא עם כותי, אוכל מהן אכילת עראי בלא מעשר. ומתעשרות ודאי. רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר: ישראל חשוד על השביעית, במוצאי שביעית מותר לעקר עמו." (Nedarim 58a) The baraita states that if one weeds chasayot with a Jew "suspect about observance of the Sabbatical Year" at the conclusion of Shevi'it (i.e., in the eighth year), it is permitted. The implication, as the Gemara notes, is that "היתרא גדל מבטל את האיסור" (permitted growth neutralizes the prohibition of the original plant). This appears to be a tayufta (conclusive refutation) against R' Yochanan and R' Yonatan, who hold that orla and kil'ay hakerem are not nullified by permitted growth.

Gemara's Attempts to Reject the Proof (and their Frictions):

The Gemara makes several attempts to explain away the chasayot baraita, each leading to its own friction:

1. "ואולי ב(מדוכנין) [מדוכנין]?" (Nedarim 58a) – Perhaps it refers to crushed chasayot? If the plants were crushed, they might be considered pagum (damaged) and no longer food, thus losing their kedusha or issur.

   • Rejection: "חשוד על השביעית קתני, וחשוד לא טרח ומדכן." (Nedarim 58a) One "suspect about Shevi'it" would not bother to crush the chasayot to nullify the prohibition; they are already lax in Shevi'it. This rejection highlights the practical reality of the hashud (suspect) individual.

2. "ואולי במין שזרעו כלה?" (Nedarim 58a) – Perhaps it refers to a plant whose original seed ceases to exist after sprouting (e.g., wheat, where the seed itself decays). In such a case, the new growth is entirely a new entity, making its permissibility obvious.

   • Rejection: "והתניא: אלו הן חסייאות: ארזלין, שומים ובצלים – וזרען אין כלה!" (Nedarim 58a) A baraita explicitly lists arum, garlic, and onions as chasayot, and their seeds do not cease (they regenerate from the original bulb/root). This is a strong, textual refutation, directly disproving the Gemara's attempt to limit the case. This kushya against the Gemara's own terutz is particularly potent.

3. "ואולי בתערובת?" (Nedarim 58a) – Perhaps it refers to a mixture of forbidden chasayot with permitted ones, and the permission is due to bittul b'rov of the mixture itself.

   • Rejection: "המעקר קתני, המעקר לא טרח לערב." (Nedarim 58a) The baraita says "one who weeds," implying he is eating the leaves as he weeds them, without opportunity for mixture. This emphasizes the immediate nature of the consumption.

The repeated rejections of these limiting terutzim by the Gemara itself build strong evidence for the chasayot baraita implying that bittul b'tzemicha min ha'karka does apply to Shevi'it produce. This forces the Gemara to accept the chasayot baraita as a tayufta against R' Yochanan and R' Yonatan regarding orla and kil'ay hakerem, unless a sevara can differentiate Shevi'it from orla (which leads to R' Yitzchak's issuro ba'karka explanation). The friction here is between the apparent generality of the chasayot baraita and the specific rulings for orla and kil'ay hakerem. The Gemara's struggle underscores the complexity of defining the parameters of bittul when new growth is involved.

Intertext

The sugya in Nedarim 58a, with its exploration of davar שיש לו מתירין versus davar שאין לו מתירין and the unique bittul mechanism for Shevi'it, resonates deeply across various strata of halachic thought. Its principles provide a framework for understanding prohibitions in mixtures and the impact of tzemicha min ha'karka (growth from the ground).

1. Orlah and Kil'ay HaKerem: The Unyielding Issur

The Gemara explicitly mentions Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yonatan's opinion that orla and kil'ay ha'kerem are not nullified by permitted growth, making them the counter-examples to Shevi'it's unique bittul b'tzemicha min ha'karka. This connection is central to the sugya's dialectic: "לימא הני תיובתא דרבי יוחנן ורבי יונתן דאמרי: ערלה וכלאי הכרם אין ביטולו בארץ!" (Nedarim 58a)

• Orlah (Leviticus 19:23-25): The fruit of a tree for its first three years is forbidden. This issur is permanent and applies to the fruit itself. Mishna Orla 3:9 (which discusses an orla sapling growing in a pot) reinforces the idea that orla does not nullify even with new growth. The issur is so intrinsic that new growth from the forbidden root stock does not dilute or remove the original issur from the resultant fruit. The sevara often given is that the tree is kulo chad (all one entity), and the issur permeates it.
• Kil'ay HaKerem (Deuteronomy 22:9): The prohibition of planting certain crops (like grains or vegetables) in a vineyard. If one does so, the forbidden produce is assur b'hana'ah (forbidden for any benefit). Similar to orla, the issur is so severe and intrinsic to the forbidden produce that it is not nullified by new growth or by being integrated into the vineyard. The Rashba (Chiddushei HaRashba Nedarim 58a s.v. שביעית שאני) explicitly connects orla and kil'ay hakerem as issurei guf (prohibitions on the body/essence of the item), which are not nullified by growth, contrasting them with Shevi'it which he sees as kedushat karka.

The friction between Shevi'it and these issurim highlights a crucial chakira: What is the source and nature of the prohibition? Is it tied to the land, the time, or the specific cheftza (object) itself?

2. Terumah and its Bittul: The Paradigm of "Ein Lo Matirin"

The Mishna itself juxtaposes terumah as a prime example of davar שאין לו מתירין that does nullify in a mixture. "וכל דבר שאין לו מתירין, כגון תרומה ותרומת מעשר וחלה... נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור." (Nedarim 58a)

• Mishna Terumot 4:7-8: This Mishna provides the specific ratios for bittul for terumah. A revi'it (a small measure) of terumah mixed into 100 revi'it of chullin becomes nullified, making the entire mixture permitted for non-Kohanim. This is the classic case of bittul b'mei'ah (nullification by 100).
• Thematic Connection: The issur of terumah for a non-Kohen is permanent; it can never be eaten by him. While it can be given to a Kohen, the Ran (Nedarim 58a:1:4 s.v. וכל דבר שאין לו מתירין) clarifies that this doesn't make it davar שיש לו מתירין for the non-Kohen, as there's no mitzva for the non-Kohen to give it to a Kohen in a mixed state. This reinforces the subjective nature of "יש לו מתירין" – it depends on the owner's ability and obligation to fix the item. Thus, terumah serves as the archetype for an issur that cannot be fixed by its current owner and therefore can be nullified.

3. Kiddushin 13b and the Broader Concept of "Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin"

The principle of davar שיש לו מתירין extends beyond kashrut and agricultural laws, appearing in other areas of Halacha.

• Kiddushin 13b (regarding kiddushin with money): The Gemara discusses the validity of kiddushin where the money used for kiddushin is stolen or borrowed. One opinion states that kiddushin with stolen money is invalid because "כסף גזל יש לו מתירין" (stolen money has permitters) – it can be returned to its owner. The idea is that kiddushin must be with money that is definitively owned by the man at the time of kiddushin. If the money is stolen, its status is not settled, and it can be rectified. This parallels the Nedarim sugya by demonstrating that if an item's problematic status can be resolved, it is not treated as permanently flawed for legal purposes.

The connection here highlights the general halachic sevara that where a problem can be rectified, one should not allow a legal mechanism (like bittul or kiddushin invalidation) to bypass that rectification.

4. Hefker and Shevi'it: The Paradox of Kedusha and Ownerlessness

The kedusha (sanctity) of Shevi'it produce is complex, simultaneously being hefker (ownerless) and possessing inherent sanctity.

• Mishna Pe'ah 6:1-2 and Rambam, Hilchot Shevi'it 4:24: Shevi'it produce is hefker for all, meaning anyone can come and take it from the field. However, it also has kedusha, imposing restrictions on its handling, consumption, and bi'ur. This dual nature contributes to the difficulty in classifying Shevi'it for bittul.
• Thematic Connection: If Shevi'it is hefker, it lacks an owner, which might suggest a diminished chashivut that would facilitate bittul. Yet, its kedusha (e.g., kedushat Shevi'it, issur sefichim) indicates a very high chashivut. This tension is part of why the Gemara struggles to fit Shevi'it neatly into the davar שיש לו מתירין or davar שאין לו מתירין categories. R' Yitzchak's issuro ba'karka sevara implicitly addresses this by focusing on the source of the kedusha (the land) rather than just the ownership status of the produce.

5. Responsa on Hydroponics and Orla: Modern Applications of Ancient Gedarim

The gedarim of issuro ba'karka and bittul b'tzemicha min ha'karka gain new relevance in contemporary halachic discussions, especially concerning modern agricultural techniques.

• Igros Moshe, Yoreh De'ah Vol. 3, Siman 15: Rabbi Moshe Feinstein discusses the halachic status of orla for produce grown hydroponically (without soil). He grapples with whether orla applies if the plant never directly connects to the ground. The chakira is whether the issur of orla is primarily tied to the physical karka (land) or to the cheftza (tree/fruit) itself, regardless of its growing medium.
• Thematic Connection: This modern psak directly engages with the principles debated in Nedarim 58a regarding issuro ba'karka. If orla is like Shevi'it in that its issur is "באמצעות הארץ" (by means of the land), then hydroponics might exempt it. However, if orla is an issur guf that is merely expressed through growth in the ground, then hydroponics might not provide an exemption. The debate over Shevi'it and ma'aser rishon (whose issur is also "באמצעות הארץ" but without bittul ba'karka) provides crucial conceptual tools for poskim to analyze such novel situations. The depth of the Nedarim sugya provides the framework for discerning the precise nature of issurim and their interaction with the karka.

These intertextual connections demonstrate the enduring relevance and profound analytical depth of Nedarim 58a, illustrating how its core distinctions are fundamental to understanding diverse halachic domains.

Psak/Practice

The sugya in Nedarim 58a lays down fundamental principles that are central to kashrut and agricultural halacha. The distinction between davar שיש לו מתירין and davar שאין לו מתירין, along with the intricate analysis of bittul b'tzemicha min ha'karka, directly informs practical halachic rulings and shapes the meta-psak heuristics employed by poskim.

Halachic Implications

1. Fundamental Rule of Mixtures:

   • Davar שיש לו מתירין (e.g., Tevel, Ma'aser Sheni, Hekdesh, Chadash): These items are assur b'chol shehu (prohibited in any amount) when mixed with permitted items of their own species (min b'mino). The halacha follows the Mishna's premise: since a path to rectification exists, one cannot rely on nullification. One must separate tithes, redeem the item, or wait for the Omer to resolve the prohibition. For mixtures of different species (min b'sh'eino mino), the Ran's chiddush (Nedarim 58a:1:3 s.v. לא נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור) holds: they are nullified b'noten ta'am (if they do not impart flavor), typically requiring 60 parts permitted to one part forbidden (bittul b'shishim).
   • Davar שאין לו מתירין (e.g., Terumah, Terumat Ma'aser, Challah, Orlah, Kil'ay HaKerem): These items are subject to bittul in mixtures. The specific ratio varies:
     • Terumah, Terumat Ma'aser, Challah: Nullified b'mei'ah (in 100 parts permitted).
     • Orlah, Kil'ay HaKerem: Nullified b'matayim (in 200 parts permitted).
     • For min b'sh'eino mino, they generally nullify b'shishim. These rules are codified in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 99, which details the various ratios for different issurim.

2. The Special Case of Shevi'it:

   • The Gemara's conclusion, particularly R' Yitzchak's terutz of "שביעית שאני, הואיל ואיסורו בארץ, ביטולו בארץ נמי" (Nedarim 58a), establishes Shevi'it as a unique category.
   • Bittul b'Tzemicha min ha'Karka: For Shevi'it produce, new growth from the ground in the eighth year can nullify the kedusha (sanctity) or issur of the original Shevi'it produce, particularly if the original item becomes secondary or significantly diluted by the new, permitted growth. This is a practical leniency applied, for example, to perennial plants that sprout anew in motzaei Shevi'it.
   • Bi'ur vs. Achilah: While the issur of bi'ur for Shevi'it produce is assur b'chol shehu, for achilah after bi'ur, it is nullified b'noten ta'am (R' Shimon's opinion, though initially rejected as a general proof, its application to achilah is often considered in psak). This distinction highlights the multi-faceted nature of Shevi'it restrictions.

Meta-Psak Heuristics

1. The Principle of "Lo Plug": The Gemara's initial struggle to reconcile Shevi'it's assur b'chol shehu with its classification as davar שאין לו מתירין showcases the tension between applying a general rule (lo plug) and seeking specific svarot to differentiate cases. The eventual acceptance of R' Yitzchak's sevara for Shevi'it (issuro ba'karka) demonstrates that profound conceptual distinctions can override an apparent lo plug. Poskim constantly navigate this balance: when to apply a broad halachic principle universally, and when to identify unique gedarim for specific issurim.

2. Nature of the Issur (Issur Cheftza vs. Issur Karka/Zman): The debate over Shevi'it vs. Ma'aser Rishon (and implicitly Orla and Kil'ay HaKerem) reveals a critical heuristic: the source and type of the issur.

   • Issur Cheftza (e.g., Ma'aser Rishon, Orla): The prohibition is intrinsic to the object itself. Such issurim are often more robust and less susceptible to nullification by external factors like new growth.
   • Issur Karka/Zman (e.g., Shevi'it): The prohibition stems from the land or a specific time period. These issurim might be more amenable to nullification if the land or time changes, or if new growth effectively "overcomes" the previous year's status. This heuristic guides poskim in evaluating complex agricultural halachot and emerging technologies (e.g., hydroponics, where the karka element is modified).

3. Weight of Rectification: The very existence of the davar שיש לו מתירין category underscores the strong preference in Halacha for rectifying a prohibition over nullifying it. If a tikkun is available, one is generally obligated to perform it. This instills a sense of responsibility and proactive engagement with halachic challenges.

The sugya thus provides not only concrete rules for mixtures but also a sophisticated analytical framework for understanding the essence of issurim, their origins, and their potential for resolution.

Takeaway

Nedarim 58a offers a foundational chakira into the nature of bittul, distinguishing between rectifiable and unrectifiable prohibitions, and meticulously dissects the unique kedusha of Shevi'it to reveal how an issur's connection to the land can fundamentally alter its fate in a mixture.