How do we view the new growth of something prohibited? Part three TB Nedarim 59

This is the third day that we been discussing agricultural laws pertaining to the Sabbatical Year (the shemita year in Hebrew), orla (the first three years of a fruit tree’s life), and mixed seeds (kelayim) amongst others. The Gemara wants to know how we view the new growth of something prohibited. Is this new growth just a continuation of the original growth and prohibited or is it considered a new entity and permitted? If the new growth is considered like the original growth and prohibited, can it be annulled when is mixed with permitted other growth?

We are in the middle of massekhet Nedarim whose topic is vows. We have to ask ourselves what triggered this agriculture tangent. Finally today’s daf TB Nedarim 59 connects this discussion back to the Mishna on daf TB Nedarim 57a. We need to remember that Rabbi Yannai holds the position that the new growth is considered a completely new entity while Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yonatan both hold that the new growth is just considered the continuation of the original growth.

“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 (The reason that growths of growths are still prohibited is because the person who made the vow is treating the forbidden food like hekdesh, something sanctified as a donation to the Temple. Once something has this sanctification, it cannot be replaced and its growths are also considered hekdesh-gg). Apparently, permitted growths do not neutralize the prohibition.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara defends Rabbi Yannai’s position by saying that vows are different than that much discussed onion planted during the shemita year. “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.” (Sefaria.org translation) Rabbi Yannai can hold the position that new growth is considered a new entity after the Sabbatical Year and new growth is considered a continuation the original growth involves a person making a vow. The new growth of the vow is not nullified because it is an item that can be permitted (דָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, וְאֵין בָּטֵיל בָּרוֹב).

The classic example of something that can be permitted that is never nullified (דָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, וְאֵין בָּטֵיל בָּרוֹב) is the egg that is laid on the holiday. One may not eat this egg.  If this unfortunate a gets mixed up with other eggs, all these eggs are forbidden to be eaten on the holiday because the unfortunate egg is not nullified by a majority. This unfortunate egg will be permitted to be eaten once the holiday is over. It is better to wait to eat these eggs when they are permitted than eat a potentially forbidden egg on the holiday.

A vow is something that can be permitted. The person who made the vow can go to a Sage and have the vow annulled. That’s how Rabbi Yannai can hold both positions that new growth is just a continuation of the old growth and forbidden as in our Mishna and new growth is a new entity when discussing that shemita onion planted during the first year of a brand-new seven-year cycle.

The Gemara tries to compare the vow found on the Mishna we’ve been discussing and a person making a declaration that this portion of his harvest is terumah, the tithe given to the priests. Before the produce is given to the priest, the person can change his mind and go to a Sage and have his declaration annulled. The original produce goes back to the state of untithed produce, tevel, and he has to designate something else as terumah.

Ultimately the Gemara rejects this comparison. “Rather, say that there is another distinction between konamot and other cases where one may request dissolution by a halakhic authority. Granted, in the case of konamot, there is a mitzva to request that a halakhic authority dissolve them, due to the statement of Rabbi Natan, as Rabbi Natan said: Anyone who vows, it is as if he built a personal altar outside the Temple, and one who fulfills that vow, it is as though he burns an offering upon it. However, in the case of teruma, what mitzva is there to request that a halakhic authority dissolve its designation? Therefore, items forbidden by konamot are considered items that can become permitted, and teruma is not.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Tomorrow we begin the eighth chapter of our massekhet.