Gemara: Every Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin (there is a time, place or way in which the Isur is permitted), such as Tevel.

Explanation: [Tevel] became mixed with Chulin. It has Matirin, for he can separate on them from elsewhere. Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh have a Heter via redemption.

Gemara: And Chadash.

Explanation: The Omer permits it.

Gemara: Chachamim did not give a Shi'ur for them.

Explanation: They forbid any amount [when mixed] b'Minan (their own species).

Distinction: However, b'Eino Mino, [they forbid] if they give taste, since now they are forbidden, like I wrote above (52a DH v'Kashya).

Remark: In Avodah Zarah (73b), the Gemara gives another reason why Tevel is not Batel, for like its Heter (mid'Oraisa, one wheat kernel exempt the entire stack), so is its Isur.

Gemara: And every Davar she'Ein Lo Matirin, such as Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser and Chalah.

Implied question: Why are these Devarim she'Ein Lahem Matirin? One can ask about them (retract his designation)!

Answer: Since there is no Mitzvah to do so, they are not called Devarim she'Yesh Lo Matirin, like we say below (59a).

Gemara: Chachamim gave a Shi'ur for them.

Explanation: Even if they became mixed with Minan, they are Batel. For Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser and Chalah, [they are Batel] in 100 [parts of Heter]. Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem [are Batel] in 200, and b'Eino Mino, all of them [are Batel] in 60.

Gemara: Shevi'is forbids any amount, b'Minah.

Explanation: This is whether Peros Heter became mixed with Peros Shemitah, or [a mixture via] Gidulim, e.g. a sixth year onion that was planted in Shevi'is.

Gemara: He told them, even they said so only for Bi'ur.

Explanation: Even they said that Shevi'is forbids any amount b'Minah only to obligate eating the mixture before the Bi'ur. Since it is possible to eat it, it is like Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin.

Explanation: If they became mixed after Bi'ur [they can be Batel], for if they would forbid their mixture, it would be [permanently] forbidden to eat them [so it is Davar she'Ein Lo Matirim. Therefore,] whether b'Mino or b'Eino Mino, [they forbid] b'Nosen Ta'am.

Inference: Gidulim are not drawn after the source to be like them, for if it were, how could Shevi'is forbid through its Gidulim?!

Note: Above (DH ha'Shevi'is), the Ran explained that the Mishnah forbids also an onion of Shishis that was planted and increased in Shevi'is.

Rather, surely Gidulim are not like the source. Therefore, they are Mevatel [it, also regarding an onion of Shevi'is that was planted and increased in Sheminis].

Observation: You see that we hold that if they are not Mevatel, you are forced to say that Gidulim are like the Ikar.

Proof: If not, how did we resolve from the fact that Gidulim are forbidden, that they are Mevatel? Rather, surely it is like we said above (57b DH v'Rabu).

Explanation: However, based on letter of the law, I can say that Gidulim are like the Ikar, therefore [when the Ikar is Asur,] they are not Mevatel it to permit it.

Assertion: It seems to me that even though above, we rejected "perhaps this is to be stringent", we wanted to resolve from here. We thought that [here] we cannot reject like this (like above);

This is because granted, above there is only one stringency. We are stringent that the Gidulim are as if they came from elsewhere;

However, here, if we say that a stringency is different, we have two stringencies. Firstly, regarding [when it became mixed before] Bi'ur, since it is like Yesh Lo Matirim, any amount forbids. This is a mere stringency;

Also, regarding Gidulim, which based on letter of the law even a large amount of them should not forbid (for they are like the Ikar, we say that), any amount of them forbids.

Explanation: Even so, we reject 'perhaps also here, a stringency is different.' We make two stringencies about this.

Alternative text: Some texts say "even I said only regarding Bi'ur." This is (means) just the same [as the Ran's text, even they said only regarding Bi'ur", like he cited in the previous Dibur].

Explanation: [Also according to my text,] R. Shimon said to them (Chachamim) "do not refute me from our Mishnah of Shevi'is" [that it forbids any amount, for this is only regarding Bi'ur].

Observation: It is as if [the Beraisa] says explicitly [in the name of R. Shimon] "also I said only regarding Bi'ur." (If not, still the Mishnah refutes him!)

Gemara: Rather, he resolved from the Mishnah 'onions, that rain fell on them.'

Explanation: In Shevi'is, and they sprouted.

Gemara: If the leaves are black, they are forbidden.

Explanation: This is not truly black, rather, they lean to blackness. This proves that they grew well, and from land of Shevi'is they grew. Therefore, they are forbidden.

Gemara: If they turned green, they are permitted.

Explanation: Since they are green, they did not grow due to nurturing of the ground, rather, due to the onion itself.

Gemara: If they can be uprooted via their leaves, they are forbidden.

Explanation: In such a case, it is proven that they nurtured well.

Gemara: And correspondingly in Motza'ei Shevi'is, they are permitted.

Explanation: Because in these leaves, surely Gidulim exceeded the Ikar onion mixed with them. So it seems to me.

Inference: Gidulim are not drawn after the Ikar. Just the contrary, they nullify it!

Gemara: Perhaps they were crushed.

Explanation: He crushed and minced the onions. Since they were crushed, they are inferior, and they do not draw Gidulim after themselves.

Gemara: One who weeds.

Explanation: He gathers excess leaves.

Gemara: B'Chasiyos (species in which the seed does not decompose).

Explanation: The Gemara explains that Chasiyos are species in which the seed does not decompose, such as Luf (a kind of beet or onion), garlic and onions.

Implied question: We should be concerned lest before he seeded them, they became Tevel to Ma'aser!

Answer #1: Since their Ma'aser is only mid'Rabanan, we are not concerned for this.

Answer #2: Since we know that this Kusi did not tithe, like it taught 'one separates Ma'aser on them Vadai', presumably, [before 3. Ha'Emek Davar: planted them] there was no granary of them (which would make them Tevel), for it is normal to make a granary of Chasiyos only for the sake of [separating] Ma'aser! So it seems to me.

Gemara: He tithes them Vadai.

Explanation: We are sure that [the Kusi] did not tithe them.

Gemara: In Motza'ei Shevi'is it is permitted.

Explanation #1: He may eat from those leaves that grew in Sheminis, for surely Gidulim exceeded the Ikar Isur mixed with them.

Explanation #2: Others explained that [it is permitted only] when we are sure [that Gidulim exceeded the Ikar].

Rebuttal: There is no need [to limit the case like this].

Gemara: Perhaps it is in a mixture.

Explanation: I.e. they became mixed by themselves with other Chasiyos.

Gemara: It taught 'one who weeds.'

Explanation: It implies that while weeding, he detaches and eats, even though there is no mixture.

Gemara: Perhaps they were crushed.

Explanation: He grinded these Chasiyos before he planted them.

Gemara: It taught that he is suspected.

Explanation: He would not toil to do so [in order to permit them].

Conclusion: We resolved our question; Gidulim of Sheminis nullify the Ikar of Shevi'is.

Gemara - Suggestion: This refutes R. Yochanan and R. Yonasan!

Explanation: R. Yochanan said above (57b) that if a young tree was grafted onto an old tree , [the fruits are] forbidden. And R. Yonasan said (ibid.) that if an onion was planted in a vineyard, even if the vineyard was uprooted, it is forbidden. (Both forbid even if the added growth was 200 times the initial fruits or onion.)

Inference: They hold that Gidulim do not nullify the Ikar.

Gemara: Shemitah is different, because its Isur comes via land.

Explanation: It is written "v'Shavsah ha'Aretz." Therefore, [the Isur] can be Batel via (even while attached to) the land.

Distinction: This is unlike Orlah, for which a lack of time (three years) causes its Isur. Also Kil'ayim, a mixture caused [the Isur, and not the land].

Gemara: It is obligated in Ma'aser.

Explanation: I.e. Terumas Ma'aser, which it was obligated before he seeded it.

It is not Batel to the other Litrin (the Gidulim) which are exempt [from Ma'aser] in Shevi'is, for they are Hefker.

Gemara: And in Shevi'is.

Explanation: He must eradicate it all before the time of Bi'ur.

Gemara: That Litra, he tithes it from elsewhere (other produce).

Explanation: [He separates] Terumas Ma'aser [from elsewhere], but not from it itself, for since the added Litrin are exempt, this would be from exempt on Chayav.