Nedarim 49a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

One who vows

to forbid to himself all foods that are

of the cooked [

prepared for eating by cooking], such as when he said, “Konam, cooked food is forbidden to me.”

The law is that

the one who vows is permitted

foods prepared for eating

roasted and scalded [

partially cooked], since people do not call roasted and scalded “cooked,” and they are not included in the vow.

2.

If

the one who vows said,

“Konam”

all food called

“a cooked dish,” which I shall not taste,

the law is that

the one who vows is forbidden

from

soft maaseh kedera [

a dish containing gravy].

But he is permitted

maaseh kedera

thick,

such as porridge and the like.

And it is explained in the Gemara that the reason is that it is the way of people to call only soft maaseh kedera “a cooked dish,” since it is customary to eat it with bread. But thick maaseh kedera is customarily eaten without bread.

And

likewise

the one who vows is permitted

who vows regarding a cooked dish,

in beitza turm ve-ta.

And it was explained in the Gemara that this is an egg that they boiled one thousand times in hot water and one thousand times in cold water alternately, until it contracts so much that one can swallow it whole, and it also emerges whole from his intestines [and they eat it for medicinal purposes, for if there is inflammation in the intestines, the egg emerges together with the discharge, and by its appearance the physician knows which medicine to give].

And the reason that one who vows regarding a cooked dish is permitted this is that it is not customary to eat it with bread,

but if the egg was not cooked so much, it is forbidden to one who vows, for it is eaten with bread.

And

likewise the one who vows regarding a cooked dish is permitted

in delet ha-remutza,

a type of squash that is never cooked well, and therefore even after it has been cooked, it is not called a cooked dish; therefore, one who vows regarding a cooked dish is permitted to eat it.

The following Mishna was presented here as a continuation of the Mishna, but it was brought again below, on 51a, and its principal place is there, as is evident from the Ran, who explained the Mishna there and not here; therefore, we have brought it only below.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who vows regarding cooked food is permitted roasted food, since it is not included in cooked food.

It was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Yoshiah forbids

one who vows regarding cooked food, roasted food.

For Rabbi Yoshiah holds that roasted food too is included in cooked food.

And although there is no proof for the matter

that roasted food is included in cooked food, there is

a remembrance for the matter,

as it is stated (II Chronicles 35)

(II Chronicles 35)

“And they cooked

the Passover-offering with fire according to the ordinance.”

Thus, we find the language of cooking used regarding the Passover-offering, even though it is eaten only roasted.

And the reason that this is not a complete proof that roasted food is included in cooked food is that, with regard to vows, one follows the language of people, as will be explained later in the sugya.

It follows that there is a dispute between our Mishna and Rabbi Yoshiah as to whether roasted food is included in the language of “cooked,” or not.

Shall we say that they disagree about this [

perhaps we should say that our Mishna and Rabbi Yoshiah disagree about this]?

That Rabbi Yoshiah holds that one follows

in vows stringently, also

the language of Torah,

so that if something additional is included in the language of the vow that he forbade, according to the language of Torah, it is forbidden as well. Therefore, one who vows regarding cooked food, since according to the language of Torah roasted food is also included in this, is forbidden roasted food as well.

And our tanna holds that, with regard to vows, one follows

only

the language of people

and not the language of Torah; and in the language of people, roasted food is not included in the language of “cooked dish.”

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

they do not disagree about this.

Rather,

everyone

holds that

with regard to vows one follows

only

the language of people.

And the dispute between Rabbi Yoshiah and our Mishna is:

One — our Mishna speaks according to the language of the people of their place,

according to the language of the people of their place

as is the case in his locale [

according to their place].

And the other — Rabbi Yoshiah spoke according to the language of the people of his place

according to the language of the people of his place

as is the case in his locale.

In the locale

of

our tanna

[of the tanna of the Mishna],

for roasted food they call it “roasted,” and for cooked food they call it “cooked.”

In contrast,

in the locale of Rabbi Yoshiah,

they

even

for

roasted food they call “cooked.”

And we object:

But

Rabbi Yoshiah

brought a verse for it

[brought a verse] that roasted food is included in the language of a cooked dish; and why did he bring a verse if he holds that a vow depends on the language of people?

And we answer: The fact that Rabbi Yoshiah brought this verse was

merely an asmachta,

to say that even in the language of Torah we find the language of a cooked dish used regarding roasted food; but what actually determines the matter with regard to vows is the language of people.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Konam, a cooked dish,”

he is forbidden soft maaseh kedera, and permitted thick maaseh kedera.

And we object:

But he vowed regarding a cooked dish,

and if so, why is there a difference between soft maaseh kedera and thick maaseh kedera?

And we answer:

Abaye said: This tanna

explained according to the language of the people of his place, that

for everything with which bread is eaten [

for every maaseh kedera that is eaten with bread]

they call it a cooked dish,

and therefore soft maaseh kedera differs from thick maaseh kedera. For soft maaseh kedera is eaten with bread, and therefore it is called a cooked dish. In contrast, thick maaseh kedera is not customarily eaten with bread, and therefore it is not called a cooked dish.

And proof of this, that a maaseh kedera eaten with bread is called a cooked dish, is that we learned thus in a beraita:

But was it not taught: One who vows regarding a cooked dish is forbidden all types of cooked dishes, and is forbidden roasted, scalded, and cooked food, and is forbidden soft hitrayot

[small squashes]

with which ordinary people eat their bread.

And it is proven from this that the beraita gave as the reason for forbidding small squashes to one who vows regarding a cooked dish that they are eaten with bread. It follows that every food eaten with bread is called a cooked dish.

And we inquire about it: How can one understand the words of the beraita, which says that squashes are beneficial for a sick person?

I do not understand!

[This is not understandable.]

For

Rabbi Yirmeya was ill

[was sick],

there came to him

[came to him]

a certain physician to heal him

[a renowned physician to heal him],

he saw squash lying in his house

[the physician saw that squash was lying there in the house],

he left him and went out

[the physician immediately left the sick man and went out of his house].

He said

the physician:

“The Angel of Death has this man in his house, and I should come in to heal him?!”

[The sick man keeps the Angel of Death in his house, and if so, how can I come and heal him?!]

And it is proven that squash not only does not benefit a sick person, but even harms him. If so, how did they say in the beraita that squash is beneficial for a sick person?

And we answer:

It is not difficult,

1.

This —

what they said in the beraita that squash is beneficial for a sick person refers

to

squash that is

soft

[soft].

This —

what the physician said about squash, that it is harmful for a sick person, refers

to

squash that is

hard

[hard].

2.

Rava bar Ulla said

to answer in another manner:

This —

what the physician said about squash, that it is harmful for a sick person, refers

to the squash itself

[to the flesh of the squash itself].

And this —

what is written in the beraita, that squash is beneficial for a sick person, refers

to what is inside the squash

[to the soft part inside the squash].

And just as we find that the inside of a fruit differs from the fruit,

for Rav Yehuda said: The inner shoot of squash

[the inside of the squash] is very beneficial to eat for medicinal purposes after it has been cooked

in silka

[with spinach].

And

the inner shoot of flaxseed

[what is inside the flax seeds] is good to eat for medicinal purposes

with kutah

[with kutah].

And this matter —

it is forbidden to say in the presence of an am ha-aretz.

So that they will not go to other fields and destroy the flax and the squash for this purpose.

3.

Rava said

to reconcile the beraita that says that squash is beneficial for a sick person:

Indeed, squash is harmful for a sick person, both the soft and the hard varieties among them.

And what they said in the beraita, that sick people eat their bread with them, does not refer to genuinely sick people.

Rather,

who are the sick?

The Sages!

For even when they are healthy, they are weak in strength, because Torah weakens their strength.

And only for them is squash beneficial. But for genuinely sick people, squash is harmful.

And

Rava follows his own reasoning,

for he holds that the Sages are called sick people.