Nedarim 59

Here is a chevruta-level analysis of Nedarim 59a:

Sugya Map

• Issue: The principle of neutralization (bitul) of prohibitions by permitted items, specifically concerning produce and vows.
• Nafka Mina:
  • Determining when a prohibition is nullified by a majority of permitted items (e.g., in mixtures).
  • Distinguishing between inherently permissible growth and prohibited growth.
  • The legal status of produce subject to vows (nedarim) versus other forms of prohibition like terumah.
  • The concept of "things that can become permitted" (דבר שיש לו מתירין).
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Nedarim 59a (regarding vows and their growths).
  • Mishnah Terumot 5:1 (regarding terumah mixtures).
  • Baraita in Shevi'it 6:3 (regarding Sabbatical Year produce).
  • Baraita regarding sowing untithed tithe.
  • Sayings of Rabbi Yannai, Rabbi Natan, Rabbi Yoḥanan, Rabba, Rav Ḥisda, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Text Snapshot

The Sugya opens by establishing a foundational principle regarding the obligation of ma'aser (tithe):

The Sages of the Gemara say: With regard to tithe, the ground does not engender the obligation; placement of the produce in a pile engenders the obligation, as it is only at that point that one is obligated to tithe his produce. Therefore neutralization of the prohibition is not effected by planting it in the ground.¹

• Nuance: The phrase "מעשר דיגון הוא דקא גרים ליה" (Rashi: תריץ מעשר - תרומת מעשר דיגון הוא [דקא גרים]. ליה דלא מחייב בתרומת מעשר עד דמידגן והאי מאשתקד נידגנה הלכך מעשר עליה משל אשתקד ולא הוי איסורו על ידי קרקע הלכך לא הוי בטילתו ע"י קרקע) highlights that the obligation to tithe arises not from the ground itself (kara), but from the digun – the gathering of produce into a pile, signifying its readiness for use and tithing. This is crucial for the subsequent discussion on neutralization by planting.

The Gemara then introduces a challenge to Rabbi Yannai’s presumed view, drawing from the Mishnah about konamot (vows):

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai based on the mishna (57a): For one who says: This produce is konam upon me, or it is konam upon my mouth, or it is konam to my mouth, it is prohibited to partake of the produce, or of its replacements, or of anything that grows from it. If he says: This produce is konam for me, and for that reason I will not eat it, or for that reason I will not taste it, it is permitted for him to partake of its replacements or of anything that grows from it. This applies only with regard to an item whose seeds cease after it is sown. However, with regard to an item whose seeds do not cease after it is sown, it is prohibited for him to partake even of the growths of its growths. Apparently, permitted growths do not neutralize the prohibition.²

• Nuance: The distinction between items "whose seeds cease" (שזרעו כלה) and those "whose seeds do not cease" (שאין זרעו כלה) is critical. For the former, permitted growths (like new shoots from an onion bulb) don't neutralize the prohibition on the original produce. For the latter, even permitted growths are forbidden, and further growth from those growths is also forbidden. This suggests a strong form of prohibition where neutralization is difficult. The phrase "אלמא גידולי היתר אינם מעלים את האיסור" (Tosafot: אלמא גידולי היתר אינם מעלים את האיסור דאי מעלים גידולין אמאי אסורין הרי לא אסר עצמו אלא בגוף הפירות ולא אסר בגידולין וליתו גידולי היתר וליבטלו לעיקר) captures this difficulty – permitted growths should potentially neutralize the prohibition if they are permitted, but here they don't.

Rabbi Abba offers a rationale for this distinction:

Rabbi Abba said: Konamot are different; since if he wishes to do so he can request that a halakhic authority dissolve the vows and render the objects of the vows permitted, their legal status is like that of an item that can become permitted, and its prohibition is not nullified by a majority of permitted items.³

• Nuance: The key concept here is "דבר שיש לו מתירין" (a thing that has permissibility). Because vows can be dissolved (hatarot nedarim), they are considered inherently capable of becoming permitted. This capability, paradoxically, prevents them from being neutralized by a majority of permitted items in a mixture. The Gemara then challenges this rationale by comparing it to terumah.

Readings

1. Rabbi Abba's distinction: Konamot vs. Terumah and the concept of Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin

Rabbi Abba’s assertion that konamot are akin to "things that have permissibility" (davar sheyesh lo matirin) and thus are not nullified by a majority is a crucial turning point. He argues that because one can actively seek to dissolve a vow, the prohibition is not absolute or permanent in the same way as some other prohibitions. This inherent potential for permissibility makes it resistant to bitul (neutralization) by a majority. The Gemara immediately probes this by comparing konamot to terumah:

The Gemara asks: And isn’t there the case of ** terumah,** in which if he wishes he can request that a halakhic authority dissolve the designation of the produce as terumah and yet it is nullified by a majority of permitted items?⁴

The Gemara then cites the Terumot mishnah (5:1) regarding a se'a of impure terumah mixed with 100 se'a of non-sacred produce, which becomes neutralized. This directly contradicts Rabbi Abba’s principle; terumah, which can potentially be dissolved (e.g., if designated in error), is nullified by a majority.

The Gemara attempts to resolve this by positing that the terumah in the Terumot mishnah is in the possession of a priest, where dissolution is no longer possible. However, this is refuted by the latter part of the same mishnah, which discusses selling the mixture to a priest, implying the terumah was still in the owner's possession.

A further attempt suggests the terumah is owned by an Israelite heir from a priestly lineage. This heir cannot dissolve the vow because they did not make the original designation. However, this too is problematic because the mishnah implies the heir can sell the mixture but must deduct the value of the se'a of terumah, indicating ownership.

The ultimate resolution offered is that konamot are different because there is a mitzvah to seek their dissolution, citing Rabbi Natan: "Anyone who vows, it is as if he built a personal altar... and one who fulfills that vow, it is as though he burns an offering upon it."⁵ This mitzvah imbues konamot with a unique status of being actively "correctable," thus rendering them davar sheyesh lo matirin in a way that terumah is not, even if terumah can also be dissolved in certain circumstances. Therefore, konamot resist bitul by majority, while terumah (under normal circumstances) does not.

2. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabba on Sowing Ma'aser and the Status of Growths

The second part of the Sugya shifts focus to the status of produce that has been sown, specifically ma'aser (tithe) and terumah (heave-offering). Rabbi Yoḥanan posits:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a litra of onions that one tithed, and then sowed, it is tithed according to the entire crop.⁶

This implies that sowing the tithing produce does not negate the initial tithing obligation. Rabba's teacher, Rav Ḥisda, questions this: "The permitted part of the litra, to where did it go? The original litra that he sowed was permitted by virtue of the fact that he tithed it, but why is he obligated to tithe the entire crop? The original litra should be subtracted from the crop that must be tither."⁷ In essence, Rav Ḥisda asks why the already-tithed portion doesn't exempt itself from further tithing.

Rabba defends Rabbi Yoḥanan by drawing an analogy to a Mishnah in Shevi'it (6:3) concerning sixth-year onions that sprouted in the Sabbatical Year. If the leaves are black, the onions are forbidden; if green, permitted. Rav Ḥisda explains that the Shevi'it Mishnah refers to the additional growth, not the original onion. The critical point of contention is whether the prohibition on the original produce extends to its new growth, and how bitul operates in such cases.

The Gemara then introduces Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who states: "That which grew during a period of liability is liable... and that which grew during a period of exemption is exempt."⁸ Rav Ḥisda suggests the first tanna of the Shevi'it Mishnah agrees with this. However, the Gemara clarifies that the Mishnah and Baraita are compatible with Rabba's position, noting that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s principle only applies when "he did not exert himself" (lo shaḥa). If one did exert himself (e.g., by sowing), the prohibition of the original produce is neutralized by the majority.

This leads to a further question: does exertion always lead to neutralization? The Gemara brings the example of sowing a litra of untithed terumah (or ma'aser). Even though one exerts himself, the original litra is not neutralized and requires proportional tithing from elsewhere. The Gemara resolves this by citing Deuteronomy 14:22 ("You shall tithe all the produce of your seed...") and the Sages' decree (gezerah) that prohibited untithed seeds are penalized by not being nullified by a majority.

Friction

The most significant friction point lies in the seemingly contradictory behavior of prohibitions concerning neutralization (bitul) by permitted items, particularly when growth or mixtures are involved. Specifically, the tension is between the principle that davar sheyesh lo matirin (things that can become permitted) are not nullified by a majority, and how this applies to cases of konamot, terumah, and even ma'aser when sown.

• The Kushya: Rabbi Abba states that konamot are davar sheyesh lo matirin and therefore not nullified by a majority. The Gemara counters by showing that terumah, which also can be dissolved (even if not always easily or with a mitzvah attached), is nullified by a majority (as per Terumot 5:1). This creates a direct contradiction: if terumah can be dissolved, it should also be resistant to bitul by majority, yet the Terumot mishnah clearly states it is nullified in a 1:100 ratio.

• The Terutz: The Gemara’s ultimate resolution is nuanced. It first tries to differentiate the terumah in the Terumot mishnah (e.g., priest's possession, heir who didn't designate), but these are refuted. The final terutz hinges on Rabbi Natan's statement regarding the mitzvah to dissolve vows. The Gemara implies that the mitzvah to actively seek dissolution of a konam vow makes it a stronger instance of davar sheyesh lo matirin than terumah, where the dissolution is more procedural or error-based. Therefore, konamot are uniquely resistant to bitul, while terumah, even if potentially dissolvable, succumbs to bitul by majority.

An additional layer of friction arises concerning sown produce. The principle that digun (piling) creates the obligation for ma'aser, not the ground itself, seems to imply that planting should not create new prohibitions or alter existing ones. Yet, the case of sowing untithed ma'aser shows the prohibition persists and isn't nullified by growth, due to a specific gezerah. This creates friction with the idea that planting, as an act of "exertion," should lead to bitul (as suggested by the Shevi'it discussion). The resolution is that while exertion can lead to bitul, specific gezerot (like that for untithed seed) override this general rule.

Intertext

1. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Nedarim 11:1-2

Maimonides codifies Rabbi Abba's principle regarding davar sheyesh lo matirin and its effect on bitul:

"All prohibitions that one takes upon himself through vows, even if they are mixed with a thousand permitted things, are not nullified by them, because they are things that have permissibility. For one can go to a sage and have them nullified. And this is not the case with other prohibitions, like terumah and ma'aser, which are not nullified by a majority, but rather by the rule of one hundred [parts]."⁹

This directly reflects the sugya's core debate. Maimonides clearly distinguishes nedarim from terumah and ma'aser based on their inherent potential for dissolution, making them resistant to bitul. The implicit understanding is that terumah and ma'aser, while sometimes dissolvable (e.g., terumah of error), do not possess the same active, mitzvah-driven dissolvability that characterizes nedarim in Rabbi Abba's and Rabbi Natan's view.

2. Shulḥan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 448:1 (Ma'aser Sheni)

The principles discussed regarding the obligation of ma'aser and its relation to the ground and sowing have implications for other mitzvot. While not directly about nedarim, the underlying concepts resonate in laws of ma'aser and particularly ma'aser sheni. The prohibition of consuming untithed produce (tevel) or ma'aser sheni outside Jerusalem is absolute. If one were to sow tevel, the subsequent produce would likely fall under similar decrees as discussed, preventing simple bitul. The Shulḥan Arukh discusses the status of produce that grows from seeds that were subject to certain liabilities. For instance, regarding ma'aser sheni, if one sows ma'aser sheni produce, the offspring are not automatically subject to the same laws as ma'aser sheni, indicating a distinction between the principal and its growths in some contexts, though the sugya here emphasizes the opposite for konamot and terumah in certain scenarios. The fundamental idea of what creates an obligation (gerama) and how it is transmitted or neutralized is a recurring theme.

Psak/Practice

The practical implications of this sugya revolve around the concept of bitul.

1. Vows (Nedarim): The primary takeaway is that vows are treated as having a strong inherent potential for dissolution (davar sheyesh lo matirin). This means that even if produce under a vow is mixed with a large quantity of permitted produce, the vow's prohibition is generally not nullified by the majority. One must still seek a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow. This is why, for example, if one vows not to eat a specific fruit, and that fruit grows into a tree, the fruit from the tree remains forbidden, and even if the original fruit is lost and new fruits grow, they are not nullified by the majority of other fruits.
2. Terumah and Ma'aser: In contrast, terumah and ma'aser, while sometimes dissolvable in error, are generally susceptible to neutralization by a majority of permitted produce, according to established ratios (e.g., 1:100 for impure terumah).
3. Sowing Prohibited Produce: The decree concerning the sowing of untithed produce (ma'aser tevel) that it is not nullified by the resulting crop, even with exertion, highlights the power of specific rabbinic decrees (gezerot) to override general principles like bitul by majority or even exertion.

Essentially, the sugya helps delineate the hierarchy of prohibitions and their susceptibility to bitul, emphasizing that the underlying nature of the prohibition and the ease or mitzvah associated with its dissolution are key factors.

Takeaway

The legal status of a prohibition is not solely determined by its initial source but by its inherent potential for becoming permissible and the active role one can take in achieving that permissibility. Distinct mechanisms of bitul apply, differentiating vows from other sacred or forbidden produce based on their unique halakhic characteristics.