THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) WHEN THE "CHILUFIN" OF A NEDER ARE NOT PROHIBITED
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that when one makes a Neder saying that "these fruits
are prohibited to me," he is prohibited not only from eating the fruits, but also
from eating the "exchange" ("Chilufeihen") of the fruits (if they are traded for
other fruits) and from that which grows ("Giduleihen") from the fruits (if they are
replanted). When one makes a Neder by saying, "the fruits are prohibited to me, that
I will not eat them" or "that I will not taste them," he is permitted to eat the
Chilufin and the Gidulin of the fruits.
In the Gemara earlier (47a), Rami bar Chama asks what is the Halachah when a person
makes a Neder prohibiting his fruits from someone else. Is the Mudar prohibited from
eating the fruits that are received in exchange for the prohibited fruits? The Ran
explains that the question of Rami bar Chama is not related to the ruling of the
Mishnah here regarding a person who prohibits fruits to himself by saying "Konem
Peros Elu Alai," because when a person says "Elu" ("*these* fruits") and makes the
fruit Asur to himself, he certainly intends to prohibit the Chilufin and Gidulin as
well. Rami bar Chama is asking about a case in which one makes his fruits prohibited
to someone else, with or without saying the word "Elu" ("these"). Even if the Madir
intended to prohibit the Chilufin of his fruits to the Mudar, he does not have the
power to prohibit the Chilufin because the Chilufin is a "Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam" (an
item which does not yet exist in his possession) and it is like prohibiting someone
else's fruits on someone else, which one cannot do. Rather, the only reason the
Chilufin could be prohibited is if the Chachamim instituted a penalty prohibiting the
Chilufin of an item which is Asur b'Hana'ah. The grounds for such a penalty is
because the person exchanged the fruit of Isur Hana'ah for other fruit. Rami bar
Chama is asking if the Chachamim made such a penalty in such a case.
Why does Rami bar Chama not answer his question from the second case of the Mishnah,
in which a person makes a Neder prohibiting fruit to himself by saying "she'Ani (or
she'Eini) Ochel" or "she'Ani (or she'Eini) To'em?" If the Chachamim instituted a
penalty and prohibited one from benefiting from the items received in exchange for an
Isur Hana'ah, then even if a person prohibits fruits by saying "she'Ani Ochel" or
"she'Ani To'em," the penalty should apply to prohibit the Chilufin received in
exchange for the fruits even though the person did not say "Elu!" It must be that
there is no such penalty!
ANSWER: If the Chachamim instituted a penalty prohibiting the Chilufin received in
exchange for an Isur Hana'ah, it was only because it is prohibited to exchange an
Isur Hana'ah in the first place, since one gets Hana'ah from the item by receiving
something in return for it. In contrast, when a person prohibits fruits to himself by
saying "she'Ani Ochel" or "she'Ani To'em," he is only prohibiting himself from
*eating* the fruits (Achilah) and he has no intention to prohibit deriving benefit
from the fruits (Hana'ah). Since he is not prohibited to derive benefit from them, he
is permitted to exchange them. Hence, if he exchanges them, Rami bar Chama agrees
that there is no reason for the Chilufin to be prohibited.
On the other hand, in a case where the person prohibits fruits to himself by saying,
"I will not derive benefit from figs," and he does not say "Elu" ("*these* figs"),
then Rami bar Chama's question will apply (see Chart).
2) "IKAR" AND "GIDULIN"
QUESTION: The Gemara cites the question of Yishmael Ish K'far Yama who asks if a
fruit that is prohibited (for example, a fruit that grew during Shevi'is) grows in
size (after Shevi'is) such that the new growth ("Gidulin") is enough to be Mevatel
the old growth ("Ikar"), does the fruit become permitted through Bitul?
Most Rishonim explain that Yishmael Ish K'far Yama is taking for granted that the
Gidulin are not like the Ikar and therefore they themselves are Mutar, but the
question is whether or not they have the power to be Mevatel the Ikar so that it is
Mutar as well. The RAN, however, explains that the question is not whether the new
growth has the power to be Mevatel the old growth, but rather the question is whether
the new growth is actually permitted and does not have the same status as the old
growth, or whether the new growth has the same status as the old growth and is
prohibited since it grew from the old growth.
The Gemara tries to prove that the Gidulin are not like the Ikar and are permitted,
and that they *can* be Mevatel the Ikar. The Gemara quotes the statement of Rebbi
Yitzchak in the name of Rebbi Yochanan who says that if a person separated Terumos
u'Ma'aseros from onions and then replanted the onions in the ground and they
increased in size, such that there is more new growth of onion than the original
growth of onion, he is obligated to separate Ma'aser not only from the new part that
grew but from the entire onion, including the original growth, as well. We see from
this ruling that any new growth that sprouts forth from an item that is exempt from
Terumos u'Ma'aseros is itself obligated in Terumos u'Ma'aseros (that is, the Gidulin
are *not* like the Ikar), and that they can be Mevatel the Ikar and cause the Ikar to
become obligated in Ma'aser as well.
The Gemara concludes that even if the Gidulin cannot be Mevatel the Ikar, the
Chachamim were Machmir to treat Gidulin *not* like the Ikar when doing so will cause
a Chumra. Hence, the Gidulin have a Chiyuv Ma'aser, and since the Gidulin are the
Rov, the Ikar becomes Batel to the Gidulin and has a Chiyuv Ma'aser as well.
The Ran asks from here on those Rishonim who explain that the Gidulin are certainly
not like the Ikar and that Yishmael Ish K'far Yama's question was only with regard to
whether the Gidulin can be Mevatel the Ikar. According to their opinion, the Gidulin
of the onion that was planted are certainly Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Oraisa, while the
original onion is Patur from Ma'aser mid'Oraisa. The Chachamim instituted that the
original onion, the Ikar, is also Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Rabanan. The Ran asks how
could the Chachamim institute that Ma'aser be separated from the entire onion as one?
If one separates Ma'aser from part of the onion itself, one might separate Ma'aser
from the Ikar (which is Patur mid'Oraisa) on behalf of the Gidulin (which is Chayav
mid'Oraisa), which would be separating "Min ha'Petur Al ha'Chiyuv," or vice versa,
which is invalid! On the other hand, if one separates Ma'aser from another onion
which is Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Oraisa on behalf of this onion, then he is separating
too much Ma'aser, since mid'Oraisa he only should have separated Ma'aser for the
Gidulin and not for the Ikar. The Ma'aser that he separated on behalf of the Ikar is
not considered Ma'aser and remains Tevel, and it prevents the Levi from eating that
bundle of Ma'aseros.
The Ran proves from here that if the Gidulin cannot be Mevatel the Ikar, it is
because the Gidulin themselves have the same status, mid'Oraisa, as the Ikar.
Therefore, if the Gidulin cannot be Mevatel the Ikar and make it Chayav in Ma'aser
mid'Oraisa, then the Gidulin themselves are not Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Oraisa either,
and the entire onion is only Chayav in Ma'aser *mid'Rabanan*! On the other hand, if
the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, then the entire onion is Chayav mid'Oraisa. Thus,
either way, one may separate Ma'aser from the onion on behalf of the entire onion,
without any problem of separating "Min ha'Petur Al ha'Chiyuv."
The ROSH, TOSFOS, and other Rishonim disagree with the Ran and explain the question
of Yishmael Ish K'far Yama in the first manner described above; the Gidulin are
certainly permitted, and the question is whether or not they can be Mevatel the Ikar.
How will these Rishonim answer the question of the Ran? Also, according to these
Rishonim, why did Yishmael Ish K'far Yama entertain the possibility that the Gidulin
should *not* be Mevatel the Ikar? For what reason should they not be able to be
Mevatel the Ikar?
(a) The ROSH explains that the reason the Gidulin might not be Mevatel the Ikar is
because they are not really mixed together. Rather, the Gidulin *surround* the Ikar,
growing out from it and standing differentiated from it. On the other hand, the
Gidulin might be Mevatel the Ikar (because the Gidulin entirely surround the Ikar and
the differentiating-line between them is not clear).
Regarding the Ran's question about separating Ma'aser from the onion, the Rosh writes
that all parts of the entire onion nurture from the soil equally. Consequently, every
part of the onion grows to some extent after it was planted, and if he separates from
any part of the onion for the rest of the onion, the proportions of Chiyuv and Petur
are equal and the Ma'aser will be valid. (Even according to those who say "Ein Bilah"
with regard to dry objects, here -- since the Chiyuv Ma'aser depends on the
absorption of nutrients and moisture from the soil -- it is considered like a Davar
Lach, a liquid item, and there are equal portions of Chiyuv and Petur in every part
The Rosh seems to be contradicting what he writes earlier. Earlier, he writes that
the reason the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar is because the Gidulin are visibly
separate from the Ikar and the parts of the onion are not unidentifiably mixed. Next,
the Rosh writes the opposite, saying that even though the Gidulin are not Mevatel the
Ikar, there is an equal proportion of Chiyuv and Petur in every part of the onion!
The way to resolve this contradiction might be to say that visibly, the new portion
(the Gidulin) is distinct from the old portion (for it is on the outside, and it is
fresher). However, internally, the new portion is actually distributed throughout the
entire onion. (This is why the Rosh writes that the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar,
because the Gidulin and Ikar "are not *entirely* mixed together.") Therefore,
although there are equal portions of Chiyuv and Petur in every part of the onion,
Bitul does not occur because Bitul depends on what we see, and we do not see the
Gidulin and the Ikar mixed together. (See the question of the SHITAH MEKUBETZES on
this approach, end of 58b.)
(b) The RASHBA answers that the Chiyuv of Ma'aser of onions is only mid'Rabanan (see
Ran 58b, DH Ochel me'Hem), and thus even the Gidulin are only Chayav in Ma'aser
mid'Rabanan. Therefore, the Chachamim could institute that one separate Ma'aser
either from the Ikar or from the Gidulin on behalf of the entire onion.
(c) TOSFOS explains that the reasoning for the opinion that the Gidulin are not
Mevatel the Ikar is that the Ikar is considered a Davar Chashuv (a significant
entity) in comparison to the Gidulin, and a Davar Chashuv does not become Batel (see
Chulin 100a). However, the Halachah that a Davar Chashuv is not Batel is only
mid'Rabanan; mid'Oraisa a Davar Chashuv *is* Batel. According to Tosfos, therefore,
everyone agrees that mid'Oraisa the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar. Consequently,
according to Tosfos it is obvious why there is no problem with separating Ma'aser
from the Ikar on behalf of the Gidulin -- both the Ikar and the Gidulin are Chayav in
The RASHBA, too, explains like Tosfos that mid'Oraisa the Gidulin are Mevatel the
Ikar. Nevertheless, the Rashba asks the question of the Ran, how can one separate
Ma'aser from the Ikar for the Gidulin? If, however, the Rashba learns that mid'Oraisa
the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, then why should one *not* be able to separate
Ma'aser from the Ikar on behalf of the Gidulin?
The Rashba might not have accepted this answer to the Ran's question, because if this
answer is true, then it is so obvious that the Gemara's Havah Amina would be
difficult to understand. If it is true that mid'Oraisa the Gidulin are Mevatel the
Ikar, then what was the Gemara's question in the first place when it thought that we
could prove from the case of Ma'aser that the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar? It is
clear that one must separate Ma'aser for the entire onion in this case because
*mid'Oraisa* the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, is me'aser l'fi kulah here because
*mid'Oraisa* the Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, even according to the opinion that
holds that Gidulin of Heter are not Mevatel an Ikar of Isur. It seems, perhaps, that
the Rashba therefore understands the Gemara's question differently. The Gemara is
asking that mid'Oraisa, items of Heter can be Mevatel items of Isur, but items of
Isur cannot be Mevatel items of Heter (like the Gemara points out on 59a, and as
explained in the Ran 59b, DH v'Ad Kan). However, the Gemara thinks that when Rebbi
Yitzchak says that the Gidulin of Isur are Mevatel the Ikar and the entire onion is
Chayav in Ma'aser, he must mean that it is Chayav *mid'Rabanan* because the Chachamim
enacted a Chumra that the Isur *can* be Mevatel the Heter. The Gemara asks that if
this Bitul is only mid'Rabanan (because it is a case of Isur being Mevatel a Heter),
and we know, also, that the Chachamim said that the Gidulin are not Mevatel the Ikar
because the Ikar is a Davar Chashuv, then there should not be Bitul here at all --
The Gemara answers that the Chachamim considered the Ikar to be a Davar Chashuv (and
hence not Batel) only as a *Chumra* and not where it would lead to a leniency, a
Kula. Therefore, in this case, the Gidulin are Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Oraisa, and the
Ikar is Chayav in Ma'aser mid'Rabanan. That is why the Rashba asks that one should
not be able to separate Ma'aser from the Ikar on behalf of the Gidulin -- because it
will be separating "Min ha'Petur Al ha'Chiyuv."