Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 59b

progress. >> Okay. Good evening everyone. We're continuing in we're continuing in the of according to the Shila is are a separate entity and therefore they're mut and therefore they're or are they continuation of the and therefore they're and then obviously they're not and we had various opinions. We had the opinion of Rabana and then we had two opinions that it's user it's not it's Phil Arla and we had the of Sha Verm. So even though what grew after was mut it's not matar. So we have a question about gdulin. Yeah that that's the suga that we are in. And we also have the opinion of raba. What was raba's opinion? [snorts] Let's see. Um Raban said if you have a measurement of bits that you took off micer and then you planted it, you have to take off messer off the whole thing. So Rabba was analyzing this and he said who um rabbi was sitting in front of and he taught this that you have to take offer and said no one's going to pay attention to that no one's going to pay attention to your rebi because I understand that you could beer fine but the if let's say you have new produce that requires micer. It's it will reckon it like you never gave me micer off the micer you give the way the ran explained it something which is asser doesn't disappear in it just it doesn't give taste anymore it's there but you're allowed to eat it because it doesn't give taste but it's there we don't ignore its reality so if we don't ignore its reality then why would you be able to give you should only be able to give micer you should only have to and what grew. So said no, didn't we learn something similar to this? Namely, that rain fell on it and it grew. This is talking about onions of the sixth year. If the leaves are black, which indicates that they're y from the ground, the they're asseryu, but if they're if they're uh white or salow or green, they're permitted. But if the leaves are black, why are they user? If the leaves are black, why are they user? Let let's think about that for a moment. They are it grew in the sixth year. These are leaves from the sixth year and then it was planted in the seventh year and the leaves are black which indicates that it nourished from the ground. So now it it grew in the year. But why is it user? Why don't we say the same thing? Where did the heter go? So meaning of course whatever grew now in the seventh year is assurer. But whatever grew before is mut. Now how you gonna slice that. Okay. I guess you sell it and you should be able to benefit from the value of what was there before? Let's see the It's entirely like the fruit of itself. And if there is a that we cannot disregard if it is correct, if your argument is correct that um where did it go? meaning that the reality of something which is cannot disappear. So what happened to the reality of the fact that the is from the sixth year the listening it's not like it's the money like itself whatever grew in the sixth year is not is not user the the the original part should be mut now it's not think you could eat it. There's no way you could eat it because we can't isolate what grew in the sixth year from what grew in the seventh year. It's one plant. So, but the isurmita could be um here let's see looking um It's not like the will be onto money like itself. If you're going to exchange the the onto money, it's not going to it's not going to hold on like itself. Rather the gulan are definitely mat the completely it must be if it's if the is that if it's black it's all asser that means it makes the original as if it's not there at all. It it cancel culture. It makes it like it doesn't exist. Now why would that be? Because when when gdulin grow out of the icker, it's not just wo the gdulin remains the same and whatever growth there is that comes out of it is just something new coming out of the itself is transformed. The logic is the reason now now we're saying you know why if you take off my off something and then you replant it and it grows it's because even the is transformed it's a new theor becomes a complete right that's now this seems like that that from here we see no it's not a matter of being the taste it's theor becomes like it's it's it's completely revolutionized it's transformed into a new entity entirely that's what we're saying meaning when we asked um we're so rais what do you mean we've seen this before this is what happens to the when the leaves turn black where the the is now the is the itself is transformed when it grows. Okay. So gives an answer says no this is not analogous. Do you think when it says it's means is asser means whatever grows after is asser whatever grows after is asser but the is not assurer the is asser says then if that's the case of saying the ina says as follows that which whatever grows in what's obligated in Bor is whatever grows in the seventh year and is subject to the Bor is and whatever grows in the sixth year and is not in is in other words says that if it's then what grows in the seventh year is a what grows in the sixth year is mut. So you can't say that's what the tanakama means cuz then how is gam any different? Basically um Rabbi says no I could prove that Tanakama holds the whole thing is user because if it's not entirely user then the are saying the exact same thing which says no maybe you're right is just explaining what he said in the in other words it's all the of Okay. So right now Rabba does not have a proof that um to his den that the is completely transformed. You can't bring a riot from this Mishna because it could be only the only the isser I'm sorry it could be only the isser the taka mut because it grew in the sixth year. We don't have any raya to rabas that that the is completely removed and transformed into something entirely new. Okay. So, let's see the run. No run. So what are we saying? Now the garra makes a very interesting point. Now this means as follows. Rabba was hoping that you could bring a raya from the Mishna to his den. How? Because rabbi holds the icker is completely transformed and it seems like the tanakama holds that if the leaves are black then even the ikar is assur and is completely transformed. But we said no maybe the whole of who holds that only the gulim are assur. So now Rabba is going to say back even so it could be even if you hold in general the icker is completely transformed there's a reason why in this case the ikar is not transformed you know why you know why in this case the ikar is not transformed cuz it happened ma what happened you had a batel from the sixth year and then rain fell fell on it and then it was planted in the seventh year. So basically there is onions planted in the sixth year and you left it in the ground and rain fell. So maybe only then we say that the whole thing becomes maybe I'm sorry maybe only then we say only the gdulan are user. You know why? You didn't do anything to be the it just happened. There was no that was done. When does say that? That's if you didn't do any to but if you were mriak namely in which case were your matrium you took of and then you planted it. So if you plant it maybe in that case then we say it's you know why cuz you did a and when you do an act it's maybe you need to do a to be that's what a rabb is arguing it arguing now let's The the run. Where is the run? Oh, this is on the fourth narrow line. even though you can't bring a support to the Mishna because you could technically learn that only the it's not going to be a question on me if in fact that's how you do learn the Mishna it's true here we'll say the are not That's if you were never but where your like in this case that a measurement of onions plant in the ground meaning even if you can say the whole and it's maybe it's because you didn't do any to be but if you do a and you're Maybe you would. So says, "Whoa, wait a second. Wait up. Every time you're it's going to be what about the earlier case you have a measurement of micer te that you didn't take micer on it and you were matri to plant it. So what do we say? So what was the case over there? You had a measurement. You had a measurement of uh micer that you did not of tel basically let's say you have something you did not take micser on and from the sixth year and then you planted in the seventh year and it grew a lot. So then the is you only take micser off of I'm sorry you don't have to take messer off of what grew in shmita because schmita is potter from messer but you do you do take off micser from what was uh grown in the sixth year but wait a second in that case you went ahead and planted it in schmita so you did a misa so why doesn't your messa exempt even what grew in the sixth year, right? You got the case. You basically you have something that grew in the sixth year that you took micer off and then you planted it in the seventh year and it grew a lot and whatever grew in the seventh year is from messer. So the is you take offer you only you only have to take off messer off the amount that grew in the sixth year. But why? Since you did a miser, we should say your mato that that original amount that you did not take off. You ready for this answer? Let's see the first. Duran says second wide line. You were by planting even though you're I don't know why it says the word is the says the isert in is not if it became why does it say you take of it that litter should become but so now the says a whopper another whopper shiaber messer is different take off micer you should take off my is what does that mean? It almost sounds like sometimes you have to take a micer even on something that miser has been taken off of. Okay, so what does that mean? Now when somebody plants something they plant is loar people don't plant is so if the is saying you should take off mser of something that miser is already taken it has to be avo that is mut But which is asser you would not take off myer. So in other words really the gdum is mat but the pik is saying even though technically you should not have to take off myer we do you do take off myer. Let's see the run. There's a special hak here that you would take off messer. How do we explain this? Let's see if we can figure this out. Says people don't plant. We're trying to explain why don't we say that that which you took off micer originally I'm sorry originally you did not take off micer it's produce of the sixth year but the question is so why don't we say that it's so it's saying that even your seed that you planted which you already took off messer you should take a micer again. Why? Even though you already took offer you should do it again. Why? Now in this case it's the opposite. We're not taking offer again. In this case on the new it's from the shil is why are you not why why is it not so just because the Torah is saying that even something that you took meer off do it again because it's to the which is it says which implies something of the is the people only by we say that but is not called your seed people don't plant Only is meaning only comes and says if I have a if it's permitted to take off myer then I'm going to take off myer of something that I did already. But if I have produce that I'm not miser it will not be matal. What is kaiser h again? So let's try to get this clear. The Gmorra's question is that if it's true that whenever you do a it's so then why if I have the sixth year produce which was in micer and then I plant in the seventh year so why is that I have to take off my off that litter. Why don't I say it's after all I was mach? Why don't I say that this litter that was planted in the sixth year which is in micer why don't we say it's and the answer is you know when I take off micer you know when the Torah says that you take off micer even though maybe you did already or even though it's putter that's only talking about something which is mut but not something which is asser. What does that mean? Only something that you replant that is mut and is not do you take off micer. But if let's say for let's say you replanted something that's asser that's micer you don't take off micer again that's not a typical case let's give it one more shot [snorts] again the is saying the merciful one is saying even something that You took off. You're going to do it again. The is to what grew. Now in this case, we're trying to say that we're going to say the is not and since it was it remains only something that was permitted. That's a normal case to plant. If something is then the Torah says that but something which is something which is that's not called. So therefore something which is not it's something which is user is not the Okay. Goofa. So we had this before. We had this quoted on that said from an onion of chuma that you planted it and the are more than the then the the is says the malin is you're going to say the gdulin is uh chuma but we learned that the gdulan of chuma is chuma itself not only is it not the makes the gdulan chuma let's see the run on Yeah. And the rest we're going to see on Dam. But this answer of the garra of Truma is different. In other words, the is that when you do a it's definitely so why is it that something which was and then the majority of it the gdulan grew in which is from why isn't it why don't we say that why don't we say that we're matel the tel and therefore you don't have to take off micer. So the answer is it's a special that by iser we don't say that we're it says you only take off myer rabbi >> you only take off micer on a doeter on a do is you don't take off my why because we don't say byer. So here which is a dra asser we don't say >> rabbi >> yes >> is it it isn't only the case of myer which is an exception because there is a cause of of and not just a general rule of any time disaster More What's the question? Is it is it gerine to messer or is it or is it is recording stopped. Sorry.