Nedarim 49a (מט.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

One who vows

to prohibit to himself all foods that are

cooked

[prepared for eating through cooking], for example, if he said: “Cooked food is konam to me.”

The ruling is that

the one who vowed is permitted

to eat foods prepared for consumption

roasted or boiled

[partially cooked ], because people do not call roasted or boiled food “cooked,” and therefore they are not included in the vow.

2.

If

the one who vowed said:

“Konam

to me is every food called

‘a dish,’ which I shall not taste,”

the ruling is that

the one who vowed is prohibited

from

a soft pot dish

[a dish containing gravy].

But he is permitted to eat

a pot dish that is

thick,

such as porridge and the like.

The Gemara explains that the reason is that people customarily call only a soft pot dish “a dish,” because it is customary to eat it with bread. However, it is customary to eat a thick pot dish without bread.

And

likewise,

one who vows is permitted

regarding a dish,

with regard to a turmit egg.

The Gemara explains that this is an egg boiled a thousand times in hot water and a thousand times in cold water, alternately, until it shrinks so much that it can be swallowed whole, and it also emerges whole from his intestines [and it is eaten as a remedy: if there is inflammation in the intestines, the egg emerges with the excrement, and from its appearance the physician knows which medicine to administer].

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

but if the egg was not cooked to this extent, it is prohibited to one who vowed, since it is eaten with bread.

And

likewise, one who vows regarding a dish is permitted to eat

the ramutza squash,

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

[The following Mishna was presented here as a continuation of the Mishna, but it is repeated below, on 51a, and its primary place is there, as is evident from the Ran, who explains 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 to eat roasted food, since it is not included in cooked food.

It was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Oshaya prohibits

one who vows regarding cooked food from eating roasted food.

For Rabbi Oshaya holds that roasted food is also included within cooked food.

And although there is no proof for the matter

that roasted food is included within cooked food, there is

a supporting indication for the matter,

as it is stated

(II Chronicles 35):

“And they cooked

the Paschal offering with fire, according to the ordinance.”

Thus, we find the language of cooking used with regard to the Paschal offering, even though it is eaten only roasted.

The reason that this is not a complete proof that roasted food is included within cooked food is that with regard to vows, we follow ordinary usage, as will be explained later in the sugya.

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

Shall we say that they disagree about this

[perhaps we should say that our Mishna and Rabbi Oshaya disagree about this]:

Rabbi Oshaya holds that,

with regard to vows, one is stringent and follows

the language of the Torah

as well: if, according to the language of the Torah, an additional item is included in the expression used in the vow that he imposed, he is prohibited from that item as well. Therefore, one who vows regarding cooked food is prohibited from roasted food too, since according to the language of the Torah roasted food is also included in this expression.

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

only

the language of ordinary people

and not the language of the Torah; and in ordinary speech, roasted food is not included in the expression “cooked.”

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

this is not the matter over which they disagree.

Rather,

everyone

holds that

with regard to vows, one follows

only

the language of ordinary people.

The dispute between Rabbi Oshaya and our Mishna is as follows:

One

—our Mishna speaks according to the language of the people of its locality,

according to its place

[according to the usage of their locality].

And the other

—Rabbi Oshaya spoke according to the language of the people of his locality,

according to its place.

In the place

[the locality]

of our tanna

[the tanna of the Mishna],

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

However,

in the place of Rabbi Oshaya,

even

roasted food

is

called cooked.

And we raise an objection:

But

Rabbi Oshaya

cited a verse

[he brought a verse] that shows that roasted food is included in the expression “cooked”; why did he bring a verse if he holds that a vow depends on ordinary usage?

And we answer: The verse that Rabbi Oshaya brought was cited merely

as an asmachta,

to indicate that even in the language of the Torah we find the language of “cooking” used with regard to roasted food. But what actually determines the meaning of vows is ordinary usage.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Konam, a dish,”

and he is prohibited from a soft pot dish but permitted to eat a thick pot dish.

And we raise an objection:

But he vowed regarding a dish,

and if so, why is there a difference between a soft pot dish and a thick pot dish?

And we answer:

Abaye said: This tanna

explained the matter according to the language of the people of his locality, who call

everything with which bread is eaten

[every pot dish that is eaten with bread]

a dish,

and therefore there is a distinction between a soft pot dish and a thick pot dish. A soft pot dish is eaten with bread and is therefore called a dish, whereas a thick pot dish is not customarily eaten with bread and is therefore not called a dish .

And proof that a pot dish eaten with bread is called a dish, as we learned in a beraita:

And was it not taught: One who vows regarding a dish is prohibited from all types of dishes, and is prohibited from roasted, boiled, and cooked food, and is prohibited from soft squashes

[small gourds]

with which ordinary people eat their bread.

It is evident from this that the beraita gave as the reason for prohibiting small squashes to one who vows regarding a dish that they are eaten with bread. This indicates that every food eaten with bread is called a dish.

And we consider the matter: How can we understand the words of the beraita, which says that squashes are beneficial for a sick person?

That cannot be!

[This is not understandable.]

For

Rabbi Yirmeya was ill,

and

a certain

physician

came to him to heal him,

saw squash placed in his house,

[the physician saw that squashes were lying there in the house],

left him and went out

[the physician immediately abandoned the sick man and left his house].

The physician said:

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

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

It is evident that squashes are not merely of no benefit to a sick person; they are harmful to him as well. If so, how could the beraita say that squashes are beneficial for a sick person?

And we answer:

It is not difficult,

1.

This

—the statement in the beraita that squashes are beneficial for a sick person—refers to

soft

squashes.

This

—the physician’s statement that squashes are harmful to a sick person—refers to

hard

squashes.

2.

Rava bar Ulla said

to explain it differently:

This

—the physician’s statement that squashes are harmful to a sick person—refers to

the squash itself

[the flesh of the squash itself].

But this

—the statement in the beraita that squashes are beneficial to a sick person—refers to

the inside of the squash

[the soft part inside the squashes].

And we find similarly that the inside of a fruit differs from the fruit itself,

as Rav Yehuda said: The heart of a squash

[the inside of the squash] is considered very beneficial to eat as a remedy

after it has been cooked

with spinach

[together with spinach].

And we find similarly that the inside of a fruit differs from the fruit itself,

And

the heart of flaxseed [what is inside the flax seeds] is good to eat as a remedy

with kutah

[with kutah].

And this matter — it is prohibited to say in the presence of an ignoramus.

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

[what is inside the flaxseeds] is good to eat as a remedy

3.

Rava said

to resolve the beraita that says that squashes are beneficial to a sick person:

Indeed, squashes are harmful to a sick person, both the soft and the hard varieties.

And when the beraita says that the sick eat their bread with them, it is not referring to genuinely ill people.

Rather, who are the sick?

The Sages!

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

Squashes are beneficial only to them. But for genuinely ill people, squashes are harmful.

And

Rava follows his own reasoning,

as he holds that the Sages are called sick.

the Sages!

Even when they are healthy, they are weak, because Torah weakens their strength.

Squashes are beneficial only for them. But for genuinely sick people, squashes are harmful.

And

Rava follows his own reasoning,

as he holds that the Sages are called sick.