Talmud zu Nedarim 6:11

At less than three years and one day of age¹⁴⁷This explains the statement of the Mishnah that girls violated less than three years of age are still virgins., Rebbi Yose in the name of [Rav] Ḥiyya bar Ashi, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: What is this like? One makes a dimple in the flesh which straightens out by itself. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Like one who muddies a source which becomes clear again. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so¹⁴⁸Niddah 5:4: Younger than that, it is as if one puts a finger on an eye. ¹⁴⁹From Nedarim 6:13, Notes 138-141. Variant readings: ונמלכין ׀ נמלכו, אין הבתולין ׀ אינן, הבתולין ׀ בתולין. Rebbi Abun said: “I am calling to Almighty God, to the God who decides with me.” If a girl is three years and one day old, if the Court decided to lengthen, her hymen repairs itself, otherwise her hymen does not repair itself.

²⁰⁵Babli 11a, Tosephta 2:8. The Tosephta here follows the Yerushalmi text, which allows for a “month”, i. e., either 29 or 30 days. The Babli prescribes 30 days; it notes 29 as permissible only for Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (II). The computed calendar in this matter follows the Babli.“One intercalates a year neither less than a month, nor more than a month; if it was intercalated²⁰⁶For a different number of days., it is not intercalated.”

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted¹¹⁴If a plant was forbidden as aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, if it grew after the Sabbatical by more than 100% everything will be permitted.; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden¹¹⁵In the Babli (Nedarim 57b), Rebbi Immi (Ammi) is quoted as having no answer.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated¹¹⁶Parallels in Babli Nedarim 58a, Yerushalmi Nedarim 6:8 (fol. 39d). The principle stated by R. Simeon is generally accepted.: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel¹¹⁷Cf. Peah Chapter 1, Note 303. Ṭevel is forbidden but taking heave and tithes turns ṭevel into profane food., Second Tithe¹¹⁸Second tithe can be redeemed; the sanctity is transferred from the vegetables to the coins used for redemption (cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay, p. 348)., donations to the Temple¹¹⁹Not sacrifices but donations of valuables to the Temple. As long as these are the property of the Temple, any private use is larceny. Upon sale of the property by the Temple officials, the sold object is totally profane., and new grain¹²⁰The grain crop of a year becomes permitted only upon presentation of the ‘Omer sacrifice on the 16th of Nisan (or, in the absence of a Temple, after the 16th of Nisan automatically). Therefore, early grain becomes permitted simply by waiting. [Summer grain that develops roots only after the 16th of Nisan is forbidden until the 16th of Nisan the following year. The climatic conditions in Israel do not permit the planting of summer wheat. Cf. Orlah 3:8, Philo The Special Laws II.125.], the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted¹²¹In most cases, Babylonian authorities fixed the limit of something that can be tasted in foreign food at 1.667%.. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave¹²²Heave (and Ḥallah which is a kind of heave) must be eaten in purity by a Cohen or burned if impure. It can never become profane food; cf. Berakhot Chapter 1, note 3., ḥallah, and orlah¹²³Tree fruits during the first three years after planting are forbidden for all use (Lev. 19:23)., the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected¹²⁴Even though התיבון is Galilean Aramaic, it takes the place of אמרו לו in the Babylonian version and is part of the baraita.: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed¹²⁵Cf. Mishnah 7:10 and Note 2. Since it is written (Lev. 25:7) “For your domestic animals and the wild animals on your Land shall be all its produce for food.” One concludes from this that produce taken during the Sabbatical may be eaten by humans only as long as there is similar produce for the wild animals in the fields. If there is nothing left for the wild animals, produce taken for humans must be destroyed., but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan¹²⁶In the Rome ms., this statement is in the name of a long and garbled list of tradents ending with R. Joḥanan. This name seems more likely since R. Zeïra often quotes R. Joḥanan and a similar statement in the Babli (Nedarim 57b) is also attributed to R. Joḥanan. The case discussed there is one of ‘orlah, but both ‘orlah and kilaim in a vineyard are forbidden for all usufruct and follow the same principles. “Enormously” is quantified in the Babli as “200 fold.”: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden¹²⁷Neither Yerushalmi nor Babli (Nedarim 60a) give an example of a new plant growing from seeds that remain recognizable..” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

¹⁰⁵The entire Halakhah is reproduced in the Babli, 23a. Women were kidnapped and brought there¹⁰⁶To Nahardea in Babylonia.. The case came before Abba bar Abba¹⁰⁷Samuel’s father., and Samuel. They ordered and gave them over to chaperones who were to return them to the Land of Israel. He¹⁰⁸Samuel. said to him¹⁰⁷Samuel’s father.: What did we do for the earlier times when they were alone with them? Abba bar Abba said to him, would you say so if they were your daughters? Samuel’s daughters were kidnapped, “like an error which comes from the ruler”¹⁰⁹Eccl. 10:5. From the story of another daughter of Samuel, Rachel, who was kidnapped and raped during the destruction of Nahardea by a soldier of Odenathus who later converted and married her, it seems that one has to date this at 259 C.E., after Samuel’s death.. When they were brought here, their kidnappers came with them. They came before Rebbi Ḥanina and left their kidnappers outside. They said to him, we were kidnapped but we are pure¹¹⁰Speaking Hebrew, they made it clear that they were educated.. He permitted them. After they left, their kidnappers sent after them¹¹¹To collect the redemption money from the Jewish community of Sepphoris.. He said, it is obvious that these are the daughters of a Sage. When they came to know who they were, they said to Simeon bar Abba¹¹²A relative of Samuel and a Cohen., take care of your relatives. He married the first one, but she died. The second one and she died. Why? Because they lied? God forbid, they did not lie. But because of the sin of Ḥanania, Rebbi Joshua’s nephew, who intercalated the year outside the Land¹¹³He was the founder of the Academy of Nahardea and the ancestor of its leaders, Abba bar Abba and Samuel. He validly intercalated years during the war of Bar Kokhba but tried to hold on to his prerogative after the patriarchate was re-established; cf. Nedarim 6:13, Notes 118–129, Babli Berakhot 63a.
The last sentences of this paragraph have no parallel in the Babli..

It was stated¹⁸⁴Tosephta 3:5.: “Why did they say that he who divorces his wife because of a vow cannot take her back? For if he divorced his wife because of a vow, when she went, married another, and bore him children, after some time it turned out that the vow was void and he said, if I had known that the vow was void, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated and her child a bastard. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage¹⁸⁵The only invalid vows are those which do not need an Elder to be nullified. Therefore, the husband could have annulled the vow (Nedarim Chapters 10–11).! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which was not public knowledge¹⁸⁶Also for a public vow, the situation described in the Tosephta cannot arise.! ¹⁸⁷This is quoted in Ketubot 7:9, explained there in Notes 117,118.“Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade one because of the other.” The law should be that he can take her back even if it was a vow which needs investigation by a Sage, for the Elder uproots the vow. Why did they forbid a vow which needs investigation by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage¹⁸⁸In which case the situation described in the Tosephta could arise..