Gemara: Ma'aser, Digun (Miru'ach, i.e. final processing) causes [the obligation]

Explanation: Through Digun it becomes obligated in Ma'aser, and not via land.

Explanation: He challenges R. Yanai, who said above (58b) that a Terumah onion whose growth became the majority over its source is permitted;

Inference: He holds that all Gidulim, even though their Isur is not through land, are Mevatel the source. Therefore, Rami asked from Konamos, which are not Mevatel.

Implied question: Why didn't he ask from the Beraisa of a Litra of Ma'aser Tevel that was taught just above?

Answer #1: Our Mishnah is stronger (more authoritative) to ask from it.

Answer #2: It was obvious to him that Ma'aser is Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim.

Explanation: He can permit it through a Pesach (reason to consider his separation a mistake) or regret, like other Nedarim.

Implied question: Why didn't he ask "if so, also a Terumah onion, why did R. Yanai say that its Gidulim are Mevatel it?"

If he wants, he can ask about it (nullify its designation to be Terumah). It is Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim!

Answer: We could reject that it discusses a Yisrael who inherited Terumah from his mother's father, a Kohen. (He did not make it Terumah, so he cannot permit it.)

Support: This is why he asked from this Mishnah (about Tamei Terumah), which we cannot establish like this [due to the Seifa, like we say below]. So it seems to me.

Gemara: A Se'ah of Tamei Terumah.

Explanation: It mentioned Tamei Terumah to teach a Chidush, for the inference, that if it fell into 100, even though it is Tamei, it is Batel.

Gemara: It is left to rot.

Explanation: Since it is Tamei, it is not proper for a Kohen to eat it.

Implied question: It should be permitted to burn it [and benefit from the fire]!

Answer: Also this is not permitted. We are concerned for stumbling (if he saves it to burn, he might come to eat it), like it says in Pesachim (20b).

Gemara: Terumah in the Kohen's hand.

Explanation: Since the Kohen acquired it, one can no longer ask [to permit it].

Gemara - Rejection: The Seifa teaches that one sells it to a Kohen, except for the value of that Se'ah [of Terumah].

Explanation: If he inherited from his mother's father, a Kohen, why can't he sell even that Se'ah?!

Gemara: Rather, Konamos [are different, for] it is a Mitzvah to ask [to permit them].

Explanation: Therefore, it is as if he asked about (permitted) them.

Gemara: Anyone who vows is like one who builds a Bamah.

Reference: I explained this above (22a).

Explanation: Therefore, since the Heter does not come automatically, and there is no Mitzvah to do so, it is not called Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin.

Implied question: Above (58a), Hekdesh was listed as a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin (even though it is not permitted automatically, and there is no Mitzvah to ask about it!

Answer: It discusses Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis. We are forced to say that it is destined to be redeemed.

Gemara: It was taught above - if a Litra of onions were fixed and planted...

Explanation: [Fixed means that] he separated all its Ma'aseros.

Gemara: It is tithed based on all of it.

Explanation: And not only according to the Gidulim, for the Gidulim totally nullify the Ikar.

Explanation: It seems to me that he asks as follows. Even if you will say that Gidulim of Heter are Mevatel an Ikar of Isur, there, it is because since the Gidulim became the majority over the Ikar, one who eats it does not taste the Isur at all;

Therefore, even though the Isur is mixed with it, and did not go away, it is permitted.

However, regarding Ma'aser, since the Torah obligated to tithe it according to the amount of Tevel, why do we tithe it according to the entire amount? Where did the Heter (Chulin, that was already tithed) go?!

Explanation: Since it taught Stam "they are forbidden", this connotes that the entire amount is forbidden like Peros Shevi'is themselves;

If we say "where did the Heter go?!", it should not have taught uniformly "forbidden", for they are not Tofes Demeihem (forbid what is exchanged for them) like [produce of] Shevi'is itself;

This is because if he traded in exchange for the Heter in them, it is not Tofes Damav!

Rather, surely Gidulim totally nullify the Ikar, as if it did not exist, since even the Ikar itself changes through growing.

Explanation: Even though we cannot bring a support from here, in any case it is not difficult for me;

Granted, here we say that Gidulim are not totally Mevatel the Ikar. This is only when he did not toil to nullify it;

However, when he toiled to nullify it, e.g. a Litra of onions that he planted in the ground, the Gidulim totally nullify the Ikar.

Implied question: This is unlike I wrote at the beginning of our Sugya (57b DH v'Rabu), that we hold that if Gidulim are not like the Ikar, obviously they nullify it;

Here we say that what grew in a state of Chiyuv is obligated. This shows that Gidulim are not like the Ikar, and even so, it says that what grew in a state of Petur is Patur.

Inference: Even though the Gidulim are not like the Ikar, they are not Mevatel it!

Answer #1: Here, the reason is because Heter is not Batel. It is the way of Isur to be Batel, but not the way of Heter.

Answer #2: Also, he did not toil to nullify the Ikar. The Gidulim came automatically.

Implied question: Above, we wanted to resolve our question of an onion uprooted in Shevi'is from an onion planted in a vineyard and the vineyard was uprooted [even though in the latter case, he did not toil to nullify it]!

Answer: Indeed, we could have rejected that an onion planted in a vineyard is different, because he did not toil [to nullify it];

However, since this rejection would not suffice for a young branch grafted onto an old tree, also regarding an onion planted in a vineyard, we did not reject it so. So it seems to me.

Gemara: [In this case of] a Litra of Ma'aser, he toiled!

Explanation: He toiled to nullify the Ikar via planting, and even so, it taught that that he tithes that Litra from other produce, according to the calculation;

Inference: Even though he toiled, the Heter in it is not Batel. If it were Batel, why does it teach that he tithes it? That Litra should be Batel to Gidulim of Shemitah [which are exempt]!

Explanation: The Torah said that even your seed that you planted, which was already fixed (tithed), Ma'aser it again, for the Ikar is Batel to the Gidulim;

Since it says Zar'echa, which connotes specifically Heter, for this is the way of people [to seed Heter], and regarding Heter it says that Gidulim nullify the Ikar.

However, Isur is not called Zar'echa, for it is not the way of people [to plant Isur]. Therefore, from Zar'echa it connotes that regarding Isur, Gidulim do not nullify the Ikar.

Question: This entire Sugya is about a matter in which the seed does not decompose. Mid'Oraisa, there is nothing whose seed does not decompose that is obligated in Ma'aser!

Therefore, how can we infer from Zar'echa that Gidulim [of a matter in which] the seed does not decompose do not nullify the Ikar? Mid'Oraisa, we do not find this regarding Ma'aser!

Answer: It seems to me that the verse is a mere Asmachta. [The Tana] gives a reason for his law;

It is proper that Heter, which people plant, be Batel in Isur, for it is a mixture of Heter in Isur, and things that are unlike each other nullify each other;

However, Isur in Isur, e.g. a Litra of Ma'aser Tevel (i.e. Terumas Ma'aser was not separated from it) in Gidulim, which (i.e. the Gidulim) are forbidden...

If it is Shevi'is, [the Gidulim] are forbidden due to the Isur of Shevi'is (one must eat them normally, and only before Bi'ur, they are Tofes Demeihem...) In other years, they are forbidden due to Tevel.

It is not proper that it [Isur in Isur] be Batel. Even though the Isurim are not the same, in any case it is Isur in Isur;

Things that are totally the same, one of them is not Mevatel the other, like I wrote above (52a DH v'Kashya).

Conclusion: So it seems to me. I am still uneasy about this. I must find a Rebbi for this [to explain it to me to my satisfaction].

Gemara: It was taught above, R. Chanina Tirsa'ah said in the name of R. Yanai, if a Terumah onion was planted [if Gidulim exceed the Ikar, it is permitted]. However, a Mishnah teaches that Gidulim of Terumah are Terumah!

Inference: Gidulim are drawn after the Ikar, and they are like it. How can they nullify it?

Gemara: We discuss Gidulim of Gidulim.

Explanation: When R. Yanai said 'a Terumah onion', it itself was not [Terumah]. Rather, it was Gidulim of a Terumah onion. This is why its Gidulim, which are Gidulim of Gidulim, are permitted and nullify.

Gemara: Also this was taught. Gidulim of Gidulim are Chulin.

Explanation: I.e. they are not Terumah. However, they are Tevel.

Gemara: Tevel, its Gidulim are permitted, for a matter in which the seed decomposes.

Explanation: Tevel that was fixed for Ma'aser, e.g. it was smoothed in the stack, one may not eat from it [even] Arai;

If one seeded it, one may eat its Gidulim Arai, as long as they were not fixed for Ma'aser.

Gemara: But something whose seed does not decompose, Gidulim of its Gidulim are forbidden.

Explanation: One may not eat from it [even] Arai even before Miru'ach, due to the Tevel that already had Miru'ach, which is mixed with it;

And all the more so Gidulei Gidulim of Terumah, in a matter in which the seed does not decompose, are forbidden.

Explanation: When we say about Tevel that Gidulei Gidulim are forbidden, this is when Gidulei Gidulim did not become the majority over its Ikar, i.e. Gidulim;

However, here regarding a Terumah onion, we discuss when Gidulei Gidulim became the majority over the Gidulim.

Question (Rashba): Initially, when he challenged him "a Mishnah teaches this! Gidulei Giduleihem are Chulin", he should have challenged oppositely, "why is it permitted?"!

An onion's seed does not decompose. A Mishnah teaches that a matter whose seed does not decompose, Gidulei Giduleihem are forbidden!

Answer (Rashba): He means as follows. If you will say that R. Yanai did not really discuss an onion, and he mentioned it for a mere comparison, and when he permitted, it was for a matter whose seed decomposes - we already learn this from a Mishnah!

Therefore, when he said that [R. Yanai] truly discussed an onion, to teach [that Gidulei Giduleihem are permitted] even for a matter whose seed does not decompose, he asked that this is not true;

For a matter whose seed does not decompose, Gidulei Giduleihem are forbidden!

He answered him that when Gidulei Gidulim became the majority over the Gidulim, [the Mishnah] says that they are permitted.