Nedarim 58

Sugya Map

The sugya on Nedarim 58a grapples with the fundamental principle of bitul b'rov (nullification in a majority) as it applies to various forbidden items, particularly distinguishing between those whose prohibition can be removed (davar שיש לו מתירין) and those which cannot (davar שאין לו מתירין).

• Core Issue: Does a forbidden item nullify in a mixture if its prohibition is intrinsically temporary or remediable?
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The quantitative measure required for nullification (kol shehu vs. specific ratios like 1:100, 1:200, or noten ta'am).
  • The unique status of shevi'it produce, which appears to defy the initial rule.
  • The concept of "permitted growth" (giddulim) neutralizing a forbidden root.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Nedarim 58a (implicitly, via Gemara's discussion)
  • Mishnah Shevi'it 7:7 (regarding shevi'it produce nullification)
  • Mishnah Shevi'it 6:3 (regarding shevi'it onions and giddulim)
  • Baraita regarding ḥasayot and bitul giddulim (Nedarim 58a)

Text Snapshot

The sugya opens with a foundational principle:

"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, וערלה וכלאי הכרם – נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור." "For any item that can become permitted, e.g., untithed produce, second tithe, consecrated items, and new crop – the Sages did not determine a measure for their neutralization. And for any item that cannot become permitted, e.g., teruma, teruma of the tithe, ḥalla, orla, and forbidden food crops in a vineyard – the Sages determined a measure for their neutralization." (Nedarim 58a)

The Gemara immediately challenges this with shevi'it:

"אמרו לו לרבי שמעון: והרי שביעית דבר שאין לו מתירין, ולא נתנו בה חכמים שיעור, דתנן: השביעית אוסרת בכל שהוא." "They said to Rabbi Shimon: But isn't Sabbatical-Year produce an item that cannot become permitted, and nevertheless, 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." (Nedarim 58a, citing Shevi'it 7:7)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

The phrase "לא נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור" (the Sages did not determine a measure for their neutralization) implies that such items are never nullified, remaining forbidden even in kol shehu (any amount). This is in contrast to "נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור" (the Sages determined a measure), meaning they do nullify at a specific ratio. The kushya on shevi'it highlights this tension: it seems to be אין לו מתירין (as its prohibition is permanent after bi'ur time), yet it is אסור בכל שהוא (not nullified), which places it in the category of יש לו מתירין despite its seemingly permanent prohibition. This is the crux of the initial sugya.

Readings

The sugya begins with a foundational distinction concerning bitul b'rov. The Rishonim unpack the definitions and implications.

Rashi's Gloss: The Remedial Nature of Matirin

Rashi, in his characteristic concise style, clarifies the initial distinction:

"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." "For example, untithed produce – it has permitting factors, as one rectifies it and it becomes permitted. And tithes and consecrated items have permitting factors through redemption. And new crop, the Omer offering permits it. Therefore, they are not nullified even in a thousand [parts], because they can be rectified." (Rashi, Nedarim 58a s.v. כגון טבל)

Rashi's chiddush is in emphasizing the possibility of rectification (אפשר להו בתקנתא) as the defining characteristic of davar שיש לו מתירין. This means the prohibition is not inherent and absolute, but rather a temporary state awaiting a specific action. Thus, it makes sense that such items are never nullified, as one could always perform the tikkun (rectification). For teruma, orla, etc., which are inherently forbidden and cannot be "fixed" to become permitted for general consumption (only nullified in a mixture), the Rabbis did provide a shiur for nullification.

Ran's Nuance: Matirin for Teruma and Bitul in Different Contexts

The Ran delves deeper, particularly regarding teruma and the broader implications of davar שיש לו מתירין.

"כל דבר שיש לו מתירין כגון טבל - שנתערב בחולין ויש לו מתירין שיכול להפריש ממקום אחר ומעשר שני והקדש יש להם היתר בפדייה" "Any item that has permitting factors, like tevel – that was mixed with chullin and has permitting factors, as one can separate from a different place. And ma'aser sheni and hekdesh have permission through redemption." (Ran, Nedarim 58a s.v. כל דבר שיש לו מתירין)

The Ran elaborates that tevel can be rectified even if the specific tevel is mixed, by tithing from other produce. He then addresses the non-nullification of davar שיש לו מתירין:

"לא נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור - שאוסרים בכל שהוא במינן מיהו שלא במינן בנותן טעם כיון דהשתא אסירי כמו שכתבתי למעלה. ובפרק בתרא דמס' ע"ז יהיב טעמא אחרינא לטבל דלא בטיל משום דכהתירו כך איסורו" "The Sages did not determine a measure for them – meaning they prohibit in any amount of their own species. However, when not of their own species, it is by noten ta'am (imparting flavor), since they are currently forbidden as I wrote above. And in the last chapter of Avodah Zarah, a different reason is given for tevel not nullifying, because its prohibition is like its permission." (Ran, Nedarim 58a s.v. לא נתנו בהם חכמים שיעור)

The Ran here makes a crucial distinction: bitul for davar שיש לו מתירין is b'mino (within its own species) b'kol shehu. But she'lo b'mino (not of its own species) it's noten ta'am. This is a significant chiddush, explaining that the "no measure" rule applies primarily to mixtures of the same kind. He also hints at a deeper svara from Avodah Zarah (64b) for tevel: the very nature of its prohibition is tied to its potential for permission, making it unique.

Perhaps the Ran's most striking chiddush comes when he considers teruma:

"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" "And any item that cannot become permitted, e.g., teruma and teruma of the tithe and ḥalla – for even though one can ask a Sage to permit them [in certain cases, through hatarat nedarim type mechanisms], since there is no mitzva to do so, they are not called 'an item that has permitting factors' as we will say later." (Ran, Nedarim 58a s.v. וכל דבר שאין לו מתירין)

This clarifies that "permitting factors" refers to a halachically prescribed process (like tithing or redemption), not merely a theoretical way to remove the prohibition (like hatarat nedarim on a neder). Teruma for a kohen is permitted, but for a non-kohen, it's intrinsically forbidden, making it אין לו מתירין for general consumption. The Ran defines matirin as a tikkun that changes the status of the item, not just removing a personal prohibition.

Tosafot's Elaboration: The Scope of "Permitting Factors"

Tosafot, like Rashi and Ran, clarify the opening statement, but add a practical dimension to tevel:

"כל דבר שיש לו מתירין כגון טבל - שנתערב בחולין דמצי מעשר עליו מדמאי או מעציץ שאינו נקוב" "Any item that has permitting factors, e.g., tevel – that was mixed with chullin, one can tithe for it from demai or from a non-perforated pot." (Tosafot, Nedarim 58a s.v. כל דבר שיש לו מתירין)

This chiddush illustrates how tevel remains rectifiable even when mixed. It's not just that one could tithe the original tevel itself, but even if it's indistinguishably mixed, one can still fulfill the mitzva of tithing for it from other sources. This reinforces the idea that the prohibition is not an irreversible state, thus precluding nullification.

In sum, these Rishonim solidify the distinction: davar שיש לו מתירין are items whose prohibition is conditional or reversible through a halachic process, thus they are not nullified in a mixture of their own kind. Davar שאין לו מתירין are items whose prohibition is intrinsic and permanent (for general consumption), and thus they can be nullified at specific ratios.

Friction

The primary friction point in this sugya is the status of shevi'it produce, which appears to be an outlier to the opening rule.

The Kushya: Shevi'it – A Paradox of Prohibition

The Gemara immediately presents a challenge to the opening principle:

"אמרו לו לרבי שמעון: והרי שביעית דבר שאין לו מתירין, ולא נתנו בה חכמים שיעור, דתנן: השביעית אוסרת בכל שהוא." "They said to Rabbi Shimon: But isn't Sabbatical-Year produce an item that cannot become permitted, and nevertheless, 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." (Nedarim 58a, citing Shevi'it 7:7)

The difficulty is clear: shevi'it produce, after the time of bi'ur (removal from one's home), is forbidden for consumption. This prohibition is not "permitted" by any ritual or action; it simply becomes forbidden. Thus, it fits the definition of davar שאין לו מתירין. Yet, the Mishnah in Shevi'it states it "prohibits in any amount" (אוסרת בכל שהוא), meaning it does not nullify. This places it squarely in the category of davar שיש לו מתירין regarding bitul, despite its apparent lack of matirin. This is a direct contradiction to the fundamental rule laid out at the beginning of the sugya.

The Terutz: Rabbi Yitzchak's Svara – Prohibition by Means of the Ground

The Gemara explores several potential terutzim, including Rabbi Shimon's distinction between bi'ur (when it's permitted) and achila (when it's forbidden, but only b'noten ta'am). However, these are ultimately rejected or re-contextualized. The most compelling and ultimately accepted terutz (or at least, the last one presented that is not immediately rejected on its own terms) comes from Rabbi Yitzchak, who introduces a novel svara about the nature of shevi'it's prohibition:

"רבי יצחק אמר: שביעית שאני, הואיל ואיסורה בא לו מכח קרקע, ביטולה בא לו מכח קרקע." "Rabbi Yitzchak said: Sabbatical-Year produce is different. Since its prohibition is engendered by means of the ground, its nullification is effected by means of the ground as well." (Nedarim 58a)

Rabbi Yitzchak's chiddush is a profound re-categorization of shevi'it. He argues that the unique sanctity of shevi'it produce, which originates from the land itself, allows for a unique form of "nullification" through giddulim (new growth) when replanted. While the Gemara immediately challenges this with ma'aser rishon (first tithe) which is also "by means of the ground" but does not nullify through giddulim, the svara still stands as a powerful explanation for shevi'it's unique bitul characteristics.

The idea is that shevi'it produce, even after its initial harvest, retains a connection to the ground. If it's replanted and new growth emerges, that growth (from the eighth year, for instance) can effectively "nullify" the sanctity of the original shevi'it material. This is not bitul b'rov in the conventional sense of mixing, but a transformation through natural growth, which Rabbi Yitzchak links to the source of its sanctity. The giddulim from the ground, being permitted, can overcome the prohibition that also originated from the ground. This provides a deep conceptual framework for why shevi'it behave differently than other davar שאין לו מתירין, allowing for bitul giddulim even if not bitul b'rov in a mixture. This terutz allows the sugya to reconcile the Shevi'it Mishnah with the general principle by identifying shevi'it as a special case due to its unique bond with the karka.

Intertext

The concepts explored in Nedarim 58a resonate across various domains of halacha, particularly those dealing with forbidden mixtures and the nature of prohibitions.

1. Orla and Kil'ei Hakerem: The Paradigm of Davar She'ein Lo Matirin

The sugya explicitly lists orla (fruit of the first three years of a tree) and kil'ei hakerem (forbidden intercrops in a vineyard) as examples of davar שאין לו מתירין (Nedarim 58a). These prohibitions are intrinsic to the fruit or plant and cannot be removed by any action.

• Mishnah Orla 3:9 states that orla is nullified in 200 parts (1:200) for a mixture of its own species, and b'noten ta'am for other species. This directly aligns with the rule given for davar שאין לו מתירין in our sugya.
• Mishnah Kil'ayim 5:3 similarly discusses the nullification of kil'ei hakerem in a mixture, often requiring a 1:200 ratio. These cases serve as the classic examples of permanently forbidden items that do nullify in a majority, contrasting sharply with tevel or hekdesh. The discussion in Nedarim 58a regarding whether giddulim nullify orla (the machloket R' Yochanan and R' Yonatan cited) further highlights this, as they hold that orla is so intrinsically forbidden that even permitted growth from the same plant does not remove its original prohibition. This reinforces the idea that orla is the epitome of davar שאין לו מתירין in its most stringent sense, where even Rabbi Yitzchak's svara of karka wouldn't apply as orla's prohibition is inherent to the plant's age, not its connection to the karka in the same way shevi'it is.

2. Chametz on Pesach: The Ultimate Davar שיש לו מתירין

The prohibition of chametz (leavened bread) on Pesach provides a powerful intertextual parallel to the concept of davar שיש לו מתירין.

• Pesachim 30a discusses the nullification of chametz before Pesach, noting that it nullifies even in a minute quantity (kol shehu) because it is a davar שיש לו מתירין – it will become permitted after Pesach.
• Pesachim 45a further clarifies that chametz on Pesach itself, however, becomes assur b'hana'ah (forbidden for any benefit) and assur b'mashehu (forbidden in any amount), regardless of bitul. The Rishonim (e.g., Rosh, Pesachim 2:27) explicitly apply the Nedarim 58a principle to chametz. Before Pesach, it is davar שיש לו מתירין (as it will be permitted after Pesach), hence it does not nullify b'kol shehu. On Pesach, its prohibition is absolute and permanent for the duration of the holiday, making it more akin to davar שאין לו מתירין but with the added stringency of chametz being assur b'mashehu by Torah law. This parallel helps solidify the conceptual framework: the temporary nature of a prohibition, or the ability to rectify it, fundamentally impacts its nullification status. If a prohibition is temporary, Chazal are stringent and do not allow bitul (for b'mino mixtures), because one can simply wait or rectify it.

Psak/Practice

The principles elucidated in Nedarim 58a form the bedrock of halachic decision-making regarding mixtures of forbidden and permitted items.

1. Categorization and Nullification Ratios

The fundamental distinction between davar שיש לו מתירין and davar שאין לו מתירין is codified in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah (YD).

• YD 99:1 states that davar שיש לו מתירין does not nullify even in a thousand (b'elef), reflecting the Gemara's opening. This includes tevel, ma'aser sheni, hekdesh, and chadash. The Rama adds chametz before Pesach to this list.
• YD 99:2, 6, 7 outlines the nullification ratios for davar שאין לו מתירין: teruma in 100, orla and kil'ei hakerem in 200, etc. This is directly derived from the Mishnayot and Baraitot cited in our sugya.

2. Bitul Giddulim and the Svara of Karka

Rabbi Yitzchak's svara regarding shevi'it and bitul giddulim (nullification through new growth from the ground) finds practical application, albeit with nuances.

• The concept that giddulim from permitted sources can nullify a forbidden root is generally accepted for shevi'it produce where the prohibition stems from the ground (as per R' Yitzchak). This is seen in laws allowing the consumption of eighth-year growth from shevi'it roots.
• However, for other prohibitions like orla or kil'ei hakerem, the machloket cited in the sugya (R' Yochanan and R' Yonatan vs. the anonymous Baraita) leads to stringency. The psak generally follows the view that giddulim do not nullify the original orla or kil'ei hakerem root, maintaining the prohibition. This reflects the inherent nature of these prohibitions as not being "by means of the ground" in the same way shevi'it is, thus R' Yitzchak's svara does not extend to them.

3. Meta-Psak Heuristics

The sugya offers a crucial heuristic for psak: when evaluating a forbidden mixture, the first step is always to determine the nature of the prohibition: is it remediable or intrinsic? This categorization dictates the stringency of the bitul rule. The Chachamim's wisdom in tailoring bitul rules to the specific nature of each prohibition, rather than applying a blanket rule, is a testament to the depth of halachic reasoning.

Takeaway

Nedarim 58a provides the fundamental framework for bitul b'rov, demonstrating that the nature of a prohibition – specifically, its remediability (יש לו מתירין) – dictates its nullification status. The sugya's rigorous analysis of shevi'it produce, culminating in Rabbi Yitzchak's svara of karka, highlights the intricate interplay between the source of a prohibition and its potential for neutralization, even through natural processes like growth.