Explanation: He challenges R. Yanai, who said above 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 or regret.

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 permit it (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. (Therefore, 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.

Explanation: It seems to me that he asks as follows. Even if you will say that Gidulim of Heter are Mevatel a source of Isur, there, it is because since the Gidulim became the majority over the source, 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 really 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 exchanged corresponding to the Heter in them, it is not Tofes Damav!

Rather, surely Gidulim are totally Mevatel the source, as if it did not exist, since even the source 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 source. This is only when he did not toil to be Mevatel it;

However, when he toiled to be Mevatel it, e.g. a Litra of onions that he planted in the ground, the Gidulim are totally Mevatel the source.

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

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

Inference: Even though the Gidulim are not like the source, 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 be Mevatel the source. 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 be Mevatel it]!

Answer: Indeed, we could have rejected that an onion planted in a vineyard is different, because he did not toil [to be Mevatel 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 in the way. So it seems to me.

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

Since it says Zar'echa, which connotes specifically Heter, for this is the way of people [to plant Heter], and regarding Heter it says that Gidulim are Mevatel the source.

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 are not Mevatel the source.

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 are not Mevatel the source? 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 are Mevatel 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].

Explanation: When we say regarding Tevel that Gidulei Gidulim are forbidden, this is when Gidulei Gidulim did not become the majority over its source, 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 is a matter in which the seed does not decompose. A Mishnah teaches that for a matter in which the seed does not decompose, Gidulei Giduleihem are forbidden!

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

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

For a matter in which the seed does not decompose, Gidulei Giduleihem are forbidden!

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