1) THE PROOF THAT "GIDULIN" ANNUL THE "IKAR"

QUESTIONS: The Gemara attempts to prove that Gidulin annul the Ikar from a Beraisa. The Beraisa quotes Rebbi Shimon who says that Shevi'is is considered a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" with regard to the obligation of Bi'ur. Rebbi Shimon implies that if a fruit of the sixth year is replanted and grows even a miniscule amount during the seventh year (Shevi'is), the entire fruit becomes prohibited. With regard to eating it after the time of Bi'ur, however, it is not a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" and the Isur (the growth of Shevi'is) is Batel b'Nosen Ta'am (if the taste of the Isur is not discernible, the Isur is annulled).

The Gemara's attempt to prove that the Gidulin annul the Ikar from the Halachah that Shevi'is is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" is difficult to understand. When a fruit of the sixth year grows during the Shevi'is year and increases in size, it becomes forbidden because of the little bit of Shevi'is mixed with the entire fruit, and not because the growth of Shevi'is annuls the Ikar! What is the Gemara's proof?

Moreover, the Gemara later states that even according to the opinion that Gidulin do not annul the Ikar, if the pieces of the fruit are "Meduchanin," ground or chopped up, the Gidulin do annul the Ikar. Why should mincing the fruit make a difference?

ANSWERS: The answer to these two questions depends on the three explanations of the Rishonim (the Ran, Rosh, and Tosfos) for the question of Yishmael Ish Kefar Yama (56b; see previous Insight).

(a) According to the RAN, the question of Yishmael Ish Kefar Yama is whether the Gidulin have the same status as the Ikar or whether they have a different status. Since the Mishnah says that any amount of Gidulin that grew during Shevi'is prohibits the entire fruit, it is obvious that the Gidulin do not have the same status as the Ikar (because the Gidulin are Asur and the Ikar is Mutar). Since the Gidulin are Asur, they can annul the Ikar.

When the Gemara says that the Gidulin annul the Ikar when the fruit is minced, it means that if an onion is minced and then replanted, the Ikar has less input into the production of the Gidulin. Consequently, the Gidulin will not be like the Ikar. In that case, although the Ikar is Asur, the Gidulin may remain Mutar.

(b) According to the ROSH, the question of Yishmael Ish Kefar Yama is whether the Gidulin are considered thoroughly and homogeneously mixed with the Ikar such that the Gidulin can annul the Ikar. (Although the Ikar itself increased in size as a result of being replanted, nevertheless Bitul cannot occur unless the two objects are visibly mixed together. See Insights to 57b.) The Gemara's proof from Shevi'is is that if the Gidulin which grow during Shevi'is can cause the entire fruit to become Asur because of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin," it must be that the Gidulin and the Ikar are considered mixed; the Chachamim would institute the Chumra of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" only when the Isur is clearly mixed with the Heter and it does not look appear to stand apart from the Heter.

When the Gemara says that the Gidulin annul the Ikar when the fruit is minced, it means that the fruit is minced after the Gidulin grew and now all parts are mixed. It is treated like any other mixture, and thus the Gidulin annul the Ikar.

(c) TOSFOS writes that the reason why the Gidulin do not annul the Ikar is that the Ikar is a "Davar Chashuv." The Gemara's proof from Shevi'is is that if the Ikar is a Davar Chashuv, the Gidulin should not prohibit the Ikar even when the Gidulin are a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin."

When the Gemara says that when the fruit is minced it is Batel, it means that since the Ikar is chopped up it is no longer a Davar Chashuv. Consequently, it can become Batel to the Gidulin.

2) A MIXTURE OF PERMITTED FRUIT WITH FRUIT OF "SHEVI'IS"

QUESTION: The Gemara explains that with regard to the obligation of Bi'ur, fruit of Shevi'is is considered a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" and is not Batel: if a fruit of Shevi'is becomes mixed with other fruit before the time of Bi'ur arrives, the mixture must be eaten before the time of Bi'ur even if the amount of Shevi'is fruit in the mixture is very small. The Mishnah says that although fruit of Shevi'is is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin," even the smallest amount of fruit of Shevi'is will prohibit the entire mixture only when it is mixed with the same type of fruit ("Min b'Mino"). This Halachah is consistent with what the Ran proves earlier (52a), that the rule that a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" is not Batel and prohibits the mixture in any amount applies only when it is a mixture of "Min b'Mino."

However, according to the Ran's view (52a), why is a fruit of Shevi'is not considered a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" which is not Batel even when it is in a mixture with different types of fruit ("Min b'she'Eino Mino")? The Ran there suggests that an object of Isur which is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" which not only will become Mutar later but which is Mutar now to be eaten (or used) in a particular way is treated more stringently than a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" which is Asur now but which will become Mutar later. Such an object prohibits a mixture even "Min b'she'Eino Mino." According to the Ran, a fruit of Shevi'is -- which is permitted to be eaten but it must be eaten before the time of Bi'ur -- should prohibit a mixture (in any amount) even when the mixture is "Min b'she'Eino Mino"! (SHA'AR HA'MELECH and others, cited by SHALMEI NEDARIM)

ANSWER: The SHA'AR HA'MELECH answers that the Ran's assertion applies only to an object which is permitted to be eaten or used in some form at present and which will always be permitted to be eaten or used in that particular way. Such an object does not become Batel at all in a mixture, whether it is "Min b'Mino" or "Min b'she'Eino Mino." In contrast, a fruit of Shevi'is is permitted at present but will become forbidden at a later time (after the time of Bi'ur). Therefore, its presence in a mixture cannot be defined as "Heter b'Heter," according to the Ran, just as a mixture which contains an object which is presently Asur but which will become Mutar later is not considered "Heter b'Heter." In both cases, the status of this object is divided into two periods: one period of Heter, and one period of Isur. Therefore, a fruit of Shevi'is is treated like every other "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" which prohibits a mixture in any amount when it is "Min b'Mino," since it has an element of Isur (either now or later).

58b----------------------------------------58b

3) "GIDULIN" OF "MA'ASER"

QUESTIONS: The Gemara proves from a Beraisa ("ha'Menachesh b'Chasayos") that Gidulei Sheminis (the growth which occurs during the year after the Shevi'is year to a fruit which grew during Shevi'is) can annul the Ikar (the original fruit) which grew during Shevi'is. This Beraisa contradicts the view of Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yonasan who maintain that Gidulin cannot annul the Ikar. The Gemara defends the view of Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yonasan by saying that the ruling of the Beraisa applies only to Gidulin of fruits of Shevi'is (and not other types of Isur) since "the Isur comes about through the ground, and therefore the Bitul comes about through the ground." This means that the status of the Gidulin with regard to the Isur of Shevi'is does not depend on the status of the Ikar, but rather on the year during which the Gidulin grew. This does not apply to other Isurim, such as Orlah and Kil'ayim, because those Isurim are not caused by the ground in which the fruits grew, but by the unique circumstances surrounding the growth of the fruit (such as fruit from a tree less than three years old, or grain grown in a vineyard).

The Gemara challenges this concept. In the case of Ma'aser, although the prohibition (to eat the fruit before Ma'aser is separated from Tevel) is due to the fruit's growth in the ground, the status of the Gidulin with regard to Ma'aser does not depend on the year in which it grew (and it is not exempt due to having grown in the Shevi'is year). (In contrast, the status of the Gidulin with regard to the Isur of Shevi'is does depend on when it grew.)

To demonstrate this, the Gemara cites a Beraisa ("Ma'aser Tevel") which discusses a measure of produce (such as onions) that was separated as Ma'aser and then replanted before Terumas Ma'aser was separated. The produce then grew tenfold. The Beraisa says that the entire produce is considered produce of Shevi'is (and is obligated in Bi'ur and exempt from Ma'aser), and the original fruit that was planted remains obligated in Terumas Ma'aser (but the additional growth, the Gidulin, is not obligated in Terumas Ma'aser).

The Gemara answers that the obligation of Ma'aser does not depend on the ground, but on "Digun" (smoothing down the pile of produce), and that is why it is not similar to Shevi'is.

The Gemara's proof from the Beraisa is very difficult to understand.

(a) How does the Gemara prove from the Beraisa (of "Ma'aser Tevel") that the status of the Gidulin in the case of Ma'aser does not depend on the year in which they grew? On the contrary, the Beraisa states clearly that only the Ikar is considered Ma'aser and is obligated in Terumas Ma'aser, but the Gidulin are not considered Ma'aser -- because they follow the status of the year in which they grew! This Beraisa proves the Gemara's point that Ma'aser is like Shevi'is and that its Isur comes about from being planted in the ground (that is, that which grows during that year has the status of that year and not the status of the Ikar)!

(b) The RAN earlier (57b) writes that the question of Yishmael Ish Kefar Yama cannot be whether the Gidulin, which are Mutar, annul the Ikar, which is Asur, because it is obvious that if the Gidulin are not like the Ikar they are able to annul the Ikar. The question is only whether the Gidulin are like the Ikar or are not like the Ikar. However, the Beraisa here seems to contradict this assertion. The Beraisa states that the Ikar is obligated in Terumas Ma'aser even though the Gidulin are exempt from Terumas Ma'aser, and yet the Gidulin do not annul the Ikar! (RASHASH)

(c) Why does the Beraisa (of "Ma'aser Tevel") discuss a person who planted Ma'aser Tevel -- fruits of Ma'aser from which Terumas Ma'aser has not yet been separated? If the Beraisa wants to discuss a case in which the Ikar is Tevel, it should discuss the ordinary, classic case of Tevel -- fruit from which Terumah and Ma'aser Rishon have not yet been separated at all!

ANSWERS: It appears that, according to the Ran, the Gemara's proposal that an Isur caused by the ground can be annulled by the ground does not refer exclusively to the Gidulin. Rather, it refers to the Ikar as well. For example, if an onion of Shevi'is is planted during Shevi'is, not only are the Gidulin considered fruits of Shevi'is but even the Ikar becomes Shevi'is. This is evident from the Ran's statement (end of 58b, DH uv'Shevi'is) that when Ma'aser Tevel is replanted during Shevi'is even the Ma'aser Tevel itself acquires the status of fruits of Shevi'is. (It is possible, however, that the Ran there means that it must be eaten before the time of Bi'ur because of the Ta'aroves of Isur -- because of the Gidulin of Shevi'is that are mixed with it, and not because the Ikar itself becomes Shevi'is.) Accordingly, the Gemara's proof from the Beraisa is clear: since the Beraisa says that the original Ma'aser Tevel remains Ma'aser Tevel, it is evident that the concept of annulment of the Isur by the ground does not apply to Ma'aser.

However, why are the Gidulin which grow from the original measure of Ma'aser Tevel also not obligated in Terumas Ma'aser, like the Ikar itself, according to Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yonasan? As the Ran explains earlier, they maintain that the Gidulin always have the status of the Ikar!

It is possible that the Gidulin cannot be obligated in Terumas Ma'aser because they grew as produce of Shevi'is which is Hefker, and Hefker cannot have an obligation of Terumos or Ma'aseros (KEREN ORAH). The Ikar, however, which was obligated in Terumas Ma'aser before it was replanted and became produce of Shevi'is, retains its obligation.

How does this approach answer the second question, why do the Gidulin, which grew during Shevi'is and are not obligated in Terumas Ma'aser, not annul the Ma'aser Tevel?

The RASHASH answers that the Tevel is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" and therefore it cannot become Batel. (See, however, the Mishnah on 60a which implies that the rule of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" does not apply to Gidulin. See Insights to 60:1.)

However, another approach to explain why the Gidulin are exempt from Terumas Ma'aser may be suggested based on the words of the Ran later (59b, DH Sha'ani Gabei Ma'aser). The Ran explains that when the Torah commands that Terumah be separated from newly-grown produce, the Torah clearly means that even if what was planted had already had Terumos and Ma'aseros separated from it, what grows is obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros and annuls the Ikar. (This is true even in the case of a fruit "she'Ein Zar'o Kalah," which remains in existence even after it produces additional growth. The Ran explains that although such fruit is obligated in Ma'aser only mid'Rabanan, the verse is an Asmachta.) The Ran writes that the same verse implies that if what was planted is forbidden to eat because it was Ma'aser Tevel (fruits of Ma'aser from which Terumas Ma'aser was not yet separated), what grows from that Ma'aser Tevel does not become forbidden (i.e. obligated in Terumas Ma'aser) because of the Ikar. Rather, it is like ordinary Tevel. However, it does not annul the Ikar, and the Ikar remains obligated in Terumas Ma'aser.

The Ran writes that this explains why, in the case of produce of Ma'aser Tevel that was replanted, what grows from the Ma'aser Tevel becomes ordinary Tevel (and not Ma'aser Tevel): with regard to the obligations of Terumos and Ma'aseros, Gidulin are never like the Ikar. However, the Gidulin do not annul the Ikar, because the verse teaches that if the Ikar is Ma'aser Tevel, the Gidulin cannot annul it.

The Ran's approach answers why the Gidulin do not acquire the status of the Ikar in this case and become obligated in Terumas Ma'aser; this is derived from the verse. The Ran also answers the second question, why the Gidulin do not annul the Ikar; this is because the case of Ma'aser is an exception to the rule that Gidulin annul the Ikar, as is also derived from the verse.

However, why does the Ran write that with regard to Ma'aser the Gidulin always become fresh, ordinary Tevel, and they do not follow the status of the Ikar? The Gemara later (60a) cites a Mishnah which explicitly states that Gidulin which grow from an Ikar which is Tevel are forbidden like Tevel. The Ran explains that this means that if the Ikar became obligated in Terumas and Ma'aseros and thus cannot be eaten even as "Achilas Arai," the Gidulin have the same status and also cannot be eaten as "Achilas Arai"! According to the Ran's explanation, the status of the Gidulin should be "reset," so to speak, and become fresh Tevel and be permitted to eat with "Achilas Arai" (which is the status that newly-grown fruits have before they are smoothed in the pile).

The answer is that the Mishnah's ruling there (60a) that Gidulin grown from Tevel are forbidden is a special enactment which the Chachamim made in order to prevent people from planting Tevel as a way of circumventing the obligation to separate Terumos and Ma'aseros (and thereby cheat the Kohen from his due). Without that enactment, however, the Gidulin of Tevel indeed would be permitted, as the Gemara here teaches.

This approach answers the third question, why the Beraisa discusses Ma'aser Tevel and not a case of ordinary Tevel. In a case of ordinary Tevel, the Gidulin would be forbidden because of the Takanah d'Rabanan against replanting produce of Tevel. That Takanah, however, does not apply to Ma'aser Tevel because it is not common that a Levi replants produce of Ma'aser Tevel, and thus the Gidulin which grow from such produce when replanted do not become Ma'aser Tevel.

One problem remains. Rebbi Yitzchak rules (57b) that when onions, from which Terumos and Ma'aseros have been separated, are replanted and they increase in size such that there is more new growth of onion than the original growth of onion, the owner is obligated to separate Ma'aser not only from the new part that grows but from the entire onion, including the original growth. The Ran writes that mid'Oraisa both the onions and the Gidulin are exempt from Ma'aser because they grew from onions from which Ma'aser was already taken. The Ran's words seems to contradict the principle that the status of the Gidulin with regard to Ma'aser does not depend on the status of the Ikar.

The answer is that the Ran's explanation there refers to Rebbi Yitzchak's ruling before the Gemara introduces the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv. When the Gemara (59b) mentions the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, it means that the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv applies to Rebbi Yitzchak's ruling as well. The Gemara means that the new produce which grows is obligated in Ma'aser mid'Oraisa, and the new growth annuls the Ikar so that the Ikar is also obligated in Ma'aser.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF