## Nedarim Daf 59a

###### Nedarim 59a:1
[Nedarim 59a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/59a:1)

אָמְרִי: מַעֲשֵׂר, דִּיגּוּן הוּא דְּקָא גָרֵים לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 59a:2
[Nedarim 59a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/59a:2)

מֵתִיב רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: ״קֻוֽנָּם פֵּירוֹת הָאֵלּוּ עָלַי״, ״קֻוֽנָּם הֵן עַל פִּי״, ״קֻוֽנָּם הֵן לְפִי״ — אָסוּר בְּחִילּוּפֵיהֶן וּבְגִידּוּלֵיהֶן. ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל״, וְ״שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם״ — מוּתָּר בְּחִילּוּפֵיהֶן וּבְגִידּוּלֵיהֶן בְּדָבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָּלֶה, אֲבָל בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָּלֶה — אֲפִילּוּ גִּידּוּלֵי גִידּוּלִין אֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 59a:3
[Nedarim 59a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/59a:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: שָׁאנֵי קוֹנָמוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְאִי בָּעֵי מִתְּשִׁיל עֲלַיְיהוּ — הָווּ לְהוּ כְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, וְאֵין בָּטֵיל בָּרוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 59a:4
[Nedarim 59a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/59a:4)

וַהֲרֵי תְּרוּמָה, דְּאִי בָּעֵי מִיתְּשִׁיל עֲלַהּ, וּבָטְלִי בְּרוֹב. דִּתְנַן: סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה חוּלִּין — תֵּרָקֵב. הָא לְמֵאָה — תַּעֲלֶה! אָמְרִי: בִּתְרוּמָה בְּיַד כֹּהֵן עָסְקִינַן, דְּלָא מָצֵי מִיתְּשִׁיל עֲלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** isn’t there the case of ***teruma*,** in **which if** he **wishes** he can **request** that a halakhic authority dissolve the designation of the produce as *teruma* **and** yet it is **nullified by a majority** of permitted items? **As we learned** in a mishna (*Terumot* 5:1): **A *se’a* of ritually impure *teruma* that fell into less than one hundred** *se’a* of **non-sacred produce** must be left **to decay.** The impure *teruma*, which is forbidden to all, renders the entire mixture forbidden. The Gemara infers: If it fell **into one hundred** *se’a* of non-sacred produce, its prohibition **is neutralized.** The Sages of the Gemara **say** in response: **We are dealing with *teruma*** that is **in the possession of a priest,** for **which** the owner **can no** longer **request** that a halakhic authority dissolve the designation. However, as long as the *teruma* is in the owner’s possession he can request that its designation be dissolved, and therefore its prohibition cannot be neutralized.


###### Nedarim 59a:5
[Nedarim 59a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/59a:5)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אִם הָיְתָה טְהוֹרָה תִּמָּכֵר לְכֹהֵן! אֶלָּא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן עָסְקִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, say the latter clause** of that mishna: **If** the *teruma* mixed with the non-sacred produce **was ritually pure,** it may **be sold to a priest,** who treats all the produce as though it were *teruma*. This indicates that the mishna is dealing with *teruma* in its owner’s possession that was not yet given to a priest. **Rather, we are dealing with** the case of **an Israelite who inherited** the produce **from** a member of **the house of his mother’s father,** who is **a priest.** The heir owns the *teruma*; however, since he was not the one who designated it as *teruma*, he may not request that the designation be dissolved.


###### Nedarim 59a:6
[Nedarim 59a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/59a:6)

[וְהָא] קָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: תִּימָּכֵר לְכֹהֵן חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אוֹתָהּ סְאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught in** that **latter clause** of that mishna: It must **be sold to a priest;** however, the price must reflect the value of the entire mixture **except for the value of that *se’a*** of *teruma* that fell into the non-sacred produce, as the *teruma* belongs to the priest. If the mishna is referring to the case of an heir who owns the *teruma*, why can he not collect the value of that *se’a* as well, as it is his property?


###### Nedarim 59a:7
[Nedarim 59a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/59a:7)

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא קוּנָּמוֹת — מִצְוָה לְאִיתְּשׁוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהֶן, מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן: כׇּל הַנּוֹדֵר — כְּאִילּוּ בָּנָה בָּמָה, וְהַמְקַיְּימוֹ — כְּאִילּוּ מַקְטִיר עָלֶיהָ. תְּרוּמָה מַאי מִצְוָה לְאִיתְּשׁוֹלֵי עֲלַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 59a:8
[Nedarim 59a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/59a:8)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לִיטְרָא בְּצָלִים שֶׁתִּיקְּנָהּ וּזְרָעָהּ — מִתְעַשֶּׂרֶת לְפִי כוּלָּהּ. יָתֵיב רַבָּה וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאן צָאֵית לָךְ וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רַבָּךְ! הֶיתֵּר שֶׁבָּהֶן לְהֵיכָן הָלַךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי לָא תְּנַן דִּכְווֹתַהּ: בְּצָלִים שֶׁיָּרְדוּ עֲלֵיהֶם גְּשָׁמִים וְצִימְּחוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to **the** matter **itself, Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** With regard to **a *litra* of onions that one tithed, and** then **sowed, it is tithed according to the entire** crop. **Rabba sat and stated this *halakha*. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who listens to you and Rabbi Yoḥanan, your teacher? 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 tithed. Rabba **said to** Rav Ḥisda: **Didn’t we learn a corresponding** *halakha* in a mishna (*Shevi’it* 6:3): With regard to sixth-year **onions upon which rain fell** during the Sabbatical Year, **and they sprouted,**