Nedarim 115

For everything [forbidden] which can become permitted, e.g., <i>tebel</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. This is forbidden for use, 'but becomes permitted oil payment of the priestly dues. ');">¹</span> second tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tithe which had to be eaten in Jerusalem, but forbidden elsewhere. It could, however, be redeemed, by allocating its value, plus a fifth, to he expended in Jerusalem, after which it might be enjoyed anywhere. ');">²</span> hekdesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Anything dedicated to the Temple which cannot be offered as sacrifice may be put to secular use after it is redeemed. ');">³</span>

and hadash,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'new'. The new crops which are forbidden until the offering of the 'Omer, v. Lev. XXIII, 10-14. ');">⁴</span> the Sages declared no limit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If these are mixed up with permitted food, the Sages do not rule that if the latter exceeds the former by a certain ratio the whole is permitted, as in the next clause. The reason is, since it is possible to cancel the prohibition in itself, there is no need to have recourse to nullification through excess. ');">⁵</span> But for everything which cannot become permitted. e.g., <i>terumah</i>, the <i>terumah</i> of the tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the tithe which the Levite received from the Israelite, he had to give one tenth to the priest. ');">⁶</span>

<i>hallah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The last three are forbidden to a lay Israelite, and the prohibition itself cannot be cancelled. ');">⁷</span> <i>'orlah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁸</span> and kil'ayim of the vineyard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁹</span>

the Sages declared a limit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If these became mixed with other permitted substances, the latter nullifies them, providing they exceed them by certain fixed amounts. ');">¹⁰</span> Said they to him, But seventh year produce cannot become permitted, yet the Sages set no limit to it. For we learnt: Seventh year produce of no matter what quality renders its own kind forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If mixed with other produce of the same kind, not of the seventh year, the latter is forbidden. ');">¹¹</span> He replied, my<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So cur. edd., also Rashi and Asheri. Ran.: their ruling, which is more suitable to the context. ');">¹²</span>

ruling too is only in respect of removal; but as for eating, [it renders it forbidden] only if sufficient to impart its taste thereto.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seventh year produce might he kept by its owner for his personal use only as long as like produce is still growing in the fields, and available to wild beasts. Once the produce has ceased from the fields the gathered species of the same produce must be 'removed'. That time, the exact limits of which are given in Sheb. IX. 2 et seqq. is called the time of removal. Now R. Simeon answers the difficulty thus: If seventh year produce, of no matter what quality, is mixed with other produce before the time of removal, it all becomes as the former, and must be eaten before the time of removal. For, since it is permitted until then, there is no need to have recourse to nullification by excess. But if after the time of removal (and this has not been removed, so that it may not be eaten). He permitted produce is forbidden only if there is sufficient of the prohibited to impart its taste to the whole mixture. Of course, where they are both of the same kind, this is strictly speaking impossible, but it is calculated on the basis of two different kinds. Now what has been said with respect of a mixture of two lots of produce, seventh year and non-seventh year, also applies to a single plant which is partly seventh and partly non-seventh year produce. E.g., if a sixth year onion is planted and grows no matter how slightly in the seventh, the addition, even if but the smallest fraction of the original, renders the whole as seventh year produce, which is subject to the law of removal. This we see that the increase, though grown out of that which is permitted, is reckoned as distinct from the original, and can render it forbidden. Hence, contrariwise, if the increase is permitted and of sufficient quantity, it can nullify the prohibition attaching to the original. ');">¹³</span> But perhaps this too is different, since [the nullification] is in the direction of greater stringency. But solve it from the following: We learnt: Onions [of the sixth year] upon which rain fell, and which grew [in the seventh], — if the leaves are blackish, they are forbidden; if greenish, they are permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst the onion is growing naturally from the soil, its leaves have a blackish tint. But sometimes, after its natural growth has ceased, the rain inflates it, giving it a sort of over-ripeness. Then its leaves bear a greenish and faded appearance. Hence in this case, if the leaves are blackish, it is a sign that the onion has naturally grown in the seventh year, and therefore the addition renders it all forbidden, i.e. 'imposes upon the whole the law of seventh year produce. But if they are greenish, it has grown of itself, and hence permitted. ');">¹⁴</span> R. Hanina b. Antigonus said: If they can be pulled up by their leaves, they are forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the leaves are not blackish, yet if they are strong enough for the whole onion to be pulled up by them without their breaking off, it is a sign if normal growth, and so forbidden. ');">¹⁵</span>

Conversely, on the termination of the seventh year they are permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If seventh year onions were left in the soil and grew in the eighth, if the leaves go blackish, it is a sign of natural growth in the eighth, and therefore the whole onion is permitted. — Asheri observes that the two cases are not exactly similar. For the sixth year onion is ');">¹⁶</span> This proves that the increase, which is permitted, nullifies that which is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this solves the problem. ');">¹⁷</span> But perhaps it refers to crushed [onions]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the onions were crushed and grated, so that the forbidden part no longer preserves its separate identity; in that case it is nullified by excess. But the problem arises only if the onion is intact. ');">¹⁸</span> — But [it may be solved] from the following. For it was taught: