Commentary for Nedarim 114:8

אלא מן הדא דתניא רבי שמעון אומר

[ii] R. Samuel son of R. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: If an onion is planted in a vineyard and the vineyard is [subsequently] removed, it [the onion] is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when growing there together, they were 'forbidden mixture', (Deut. XXII, 9) and hence the onion was forbidden. Though the vines were removed, and the further growth of the onion permitted, yet the original remains forbidden. (Ran.: yet it is all, including the increase, forbidden). Both these statements are opposed to the first in R. Jannai's name. ');">¹⁴</span> Then he [Ishmael] again went before R. Ammi, who solved it from the following: For R. Isaac said in R. Johanan's name: If a <i>litra</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [G], the Roman Libra, a pound. ');">¹⁵</span> of onions was tithed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all the priestly dues were separated from it. ');">¹⁶</span> and then planted, the whole of it must be re-tithed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., both the stock and the increase. ');">¹⁷</span> This proves that the yield nullifies the stock.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the stock had been tithed once, the whole must he re-tithed, the original being assimilated to the increase. ');">¹⁸</span> Perhaps, however, this is different, being in the direction of greater stringency!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whereby assimilating the original to the increase the law is more stringent, it is so assimilated. But the problem is whether the original is regarded as nullified though thereby a prohibition is raised. ');">¹⁹</span> — But [it can be solved] from the following: For it was taught: R. Simeon said:

Explore commentary for Nedarim 114:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.