ח גופא אמר רבי יוחנן ליטרא בצלים שתיקנה וזרעה מתעשרת לפי כולה יתיב רבה וקאמר להא שמעתא אמר ליה רב חסדא מאן צאית לך ולר' יוחנן רבך היתר שבהן להיכן הלך אמר ליה מי לא תנן דכוותה בצלים שירדו עליהם גשמים וצימחו
8 of unclean <i>terumah</i> falls into less than a hundred of hullin it must [all] rot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unclean terumah may not he eaten by anyone, and therefore nothing can be done with the mixture. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> [This implies. but if it falls] into a hundred [se'ahs of hullin], it is nullified? — I will tell you: This refers to <i>terumah</i> in the priest's hands, in regard to which he can demand no absolution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Israelite who declares it terumah can have his declaration nullified only before it reaches the hands of the priest but not after. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> If so, consider the second clause: If it was undefiled, it should [all] be sold to a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously then it was still in the hands of an Israelite. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> But this refers to [<i>terumah</i> in the hands of] an Israelite, who inherited it from his maternal grandfathers a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it had already belonged to a priest, and cannot be revoked. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> But the second clause teaches, It must be sold to a priests save for the value of that <i>se'ah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which belongs to the priest as terumah. But under the circumstances here posited, even that se'ah too belongs to the Israelite. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> — But answer thus: As for vows, it is well, since it is meritorious to seek absolution from them on account of R. Nathan's dictum, Viz., He who vows, is as though he built a high place; and he who fulfils it, is as though he burned incense thereon. But what merit is there in seeking absolution from <i>terumah</i>.?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore something prohibited by a vow is treated as that which can become permitted, since it ought to be revoked; but this does not apply to terumah. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> The text [above] states: 'R. Johanan said: If a <i>litra</i> of onions was tithed and then planted, the whole of it must be retithed'. Now Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: Raba. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> was sitting and stating this law, whereupon R. Hisda said to him: Who will obey you and R. Johanan your teacher: whither has the permitted portion in them departed? He replied: But did we not learn something similar? Viz., 'Onions [of the sixth year] upon which rain fell, and which grew [in the seventh], —