אמרי מעשר דיגון הוא דקא גרים ליה

The Sages of the Gemara say: With regard to tithe, the ground does not engender the obligation; placement of the produce in a pile engenders the obligation, as it is only at that point that one is obligated to tithe his produce. Therefore neutralization of the prohibition is not effected by planting it in the ground.

מתיב רמי בר חמא קונם פירות האלו עלי קונם הן על פי קונם הן לפי אסור בחילופיהן ובגידוליהן שאני אוכל ושאני טועם מותר בחילופיהן ובגידוליהן בדבר שזרעו כלה אבל בדבר שאין זרעו כלה אפילו גידולי גידולין אסורין

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai based on the mishna (57a): For one who says: This produce is konam upon me, or it is konam upon my mouth, or it is konam to my mouth, it is prohibited to partake of the produce, or of its replacements, or of anything that grows from it. If he says: This produce is konam for me, and for that reason I will not eat it, or for that reason I will not taste it, it is permitted for him to partake of its replacements or of anything that grows from it. This applies only with regard to an item whose seeds cease after it is sown. However, with regard to an item whose seeds do not cease after it is sown, it is prohibited for him to partake even of the growths of its growths. Apparently, permitted growths do not neutralize the prohibition.

אמר רבי אבא שאני קונמות הואיל ואי בעי מתשיל עלייהו הוו להו כדבר שיש לו מתירין ואין בטיל ברוב

Rabbi Abba said: Konamot are different; since if he wishes to do so he can request that a halakhic authority dissolve the vows and render the objects of the vows permitted, their legal status is like that of an item that can become permitted, and its prohibition is not nullified by a majority of permitted items.

והרי תרומה דאי בעי מיתשיל עלה ובטלי ברוב דתנן סאה תרומה טמאה שנפלה לפחות ממאה חולין תרקב הא למאה תעלה אמרי בתרומה ביד כהן עסקינן דלא מצי מיתשיל עלה

The Gemara asks: And isn’t there the case of teruma, in which if he wishes he can request that a halakhic authority dissolve the designation of the produce as teruma and yet it is nullified by a majority of permitted items? As we learned in a mishna ( Terumot 5: 1): A se’a of ritually impure teruma that fell into less than one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce must be left to decay. The impure teruma, which is forbidden to all, renders the entire mixture forbidden. The Gemara infers: If it fell into one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce, its prohibition is neutralized. The Sages of the Gemara say in response: We are dealing with teruma that is in the possession of a priest, for which the owner can no longer request that a halakhic authority dissolve the designation. However, as long as the teruma is in the owner’s possession he can request that its designation be dissolved, and therefore its prohibition cannot be neutralized.

אי הכי אימא סיפא אם היתה טהורה תמכר לכהן אלא בישראל שנפלו לו מבית אבי אמו כהן עסקינן

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of that mishna: If the teruma mixed with the non-sacred produce was ritually pure, it may be sold to a priest, who treats all the produce as though it were teruma. This indicates that the mishna is dealing with teruma in its owner’s possession that was not yet given to a priest. Rather, we are dealing with the case of an Israelite who inherited the produce from a member of the house of his mother’s father, who is a priest. The heir owns the teruma; however, since he was not the one who designated it as teruma, he may not request that the designation be dissolved.

[והא] קתני סיפא תימכר לכהן חוץ מדמי אותה סאה

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in that latter clause of that mishna: It must be sold to a priest; however, the price must reflect the value of the entire mixture except for the value of that se’a of teruma that fell into the non-sacred produce, as the teruma belongs to the priest. If the mishna is referring to the case of an heir who owns the teruma, why can he not collect the value of that se’a as well, as it is his property?

אלא אימא בשלמא קונמות מצוה לאיתשולי עליהן משום דרבי נתן דאמר רבי נתן כל הנודר כאילו בנה במה והמקיימו כאילו מקטיר עליה תרומה מאי מצוה לאיתשולי עלה

Rather, say that there is another distinction between konamot and other cases where one may request dissolution by a halakhic authority. Granted, in the case of konamot, there is a mitzva to request that a halakhic authority dissolve them, due to the statement of Rabbi Natan, as Rabbi Natan said: Anyone who vows, it is as if he built a personal altar outside the Temple, and one who fulfills that vow, it is as though he burns an offering upon it. However, in the case of teruma, what mitzva is there to request that a halakhic authority dissolve its designation? Therefore, items forbidden by konamot are considered items that can become permitted, and teruma is not.

גופא אמר רבי יוחנן ליטרא בצלים שתיקנה וזרעה מתעשרת לפי כולה יתיב רבה וקאמר להא שמעתא אמר ליה רב חסדא מאן צאית לך ולרבי יוחנן רבך היתר שבהן להיכן הלך אמר ליה מי לא תנן דכוותה בצלים שירדו עליהם גשמים וצימחו

§ With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a litra of onions that one tithed, and then sowed, it is tithed according to the entire crop. Rabba sat and stated this halakha. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who listens to you and Rabbi Yoḥanan, your teacher? The permitted part of the litra, to where did it go? The original litra that he sowed was permitted by virtue of the fact that he tithed it, but why is he obligated to tithe the entire crop? The original litra should be subtracted from the crop that must be tithed. Rabba said to Rav Ḥisda: Didn’t we learn a corresponding halakha in a mishna ( Shevi’it 6: 3): With regard to sixth-year onions upon which rain fell during the Sabbatical Year, and they sprouted,