Nedarim 51b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

.

.

.

a. One who vows to prohibit

the pickled food,

for example, if he says: “The pickled food is konam—prohibited to me,” the law is that he

is prohibited only from the pickled food

that is known

of vegetables—

.

b. But if he said: “Konam, pickled food

that I taste,

without the definite article, the law is that he

is prohibited from all

foods

that are pickled.

c. One who vows to prohibit

the boiled food,

using the definite article,

is prohibited only from the boiled food

known by that name, namely boiled food

made of meat.

d. But if he said: “Konam, boiled food

that I taste,”

without the definite article,

he is prohibited from all

foods

that are boiled.

Gemara:

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If the one who vows

said

the word

“pickled”

with the addition of the letter dalet,

what is the law?

?

And likewise, if he said

“boiled,” what is the law? “roasted,” what is the law? “salted,” what is the law?

What is its meaning

[how is this expression understood]?

:

the matter remains unresolved

[this matter remains uncertain].

Mishna:

e. One who vows to prohibit

the roasted food

using the definite article,

is prohibited only from the roasted food made of meat,

which is the roasted food known by that name,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yehuda holds that the known roasted food is only roasted meat.

f. But one who says: “Konam, roasted food

that I taste,”

without the definite article,

is prohibited from all

foods

that are roasted.

g. One who vows to prohibit

the salted food is prohibited only from salted fish,

.

h. But one who says: “Konam, salted food

that I taste,”

without the definite article, the law is that he

is prohibited from all

foods

that are salted.

One who vows to prohibit types of fish:

a. One who says: “Konam,

fish and fishes that I taste”—

is prohibited from them

[from fish],

whether large or small,

because he made his vow using two expressions, “fish” and “fishes.” “Fish” implies a large fish, because it is sold individually, while “fishes” implies small fish, because they are sold only together.

And he is prohibited

both

from fish

that are salted and fish that are unsalted,

without salt.

Both live and cooked,

as all of these are included in the meaning of the expression “fish and fishes.”

But he is permitted to eat chopped fish

[a type of large fish cut into small pieces], because “fish and fishes” implies whole fish, not chopped fish.

And

all the more so, he is permitted

fish brine,

which is the fat that comes out of the fish, with fish entrails mixed into it.

And

all the more so, he is permitted

fish sauce,

which is the fat of the fish without any addition.

b.

One who vows to prohibit

small pickled fish

that

are called

“stinking fish,”

is prohibited from chopped fish, since its brine also has a strong odor, and it is included in the category of “stinking fish.”

But he is permitted fish brine and fish sauce,

because they do not contain any of the flesh of the fish, and the expression “stinking fish” refers only to the flesh of the fish.

c.

One who vows to prohibit chopped fish is prohibited from fish brine and fish sauce ,

because once he mentioned “chopped,” he included anything in which some of the species of fish is mixed ; therefore, even the fish brine and fish sauce are included in the wording of his vow.

Gemara:

It was taught

in a beraita, a Tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

a. One who says: “Konam,

fish that I taste,” is prohibited

only

from

fish

that are large, and is permitted from

fish

that are small,

because “fish” in the singular implies a large fish, which is sold individually.

b. And if he said: “Konam,

fish that I taste,” using the feminine form, he is prohibited from small fish and permitted from large fish.

c. And if he said: “Konam,

fish and fish that I taste,” he is prohibited both from large fish and from small fish.

The novel point is that we do not say that when he first said “fish,” he intended to prohibit only large fish, and that when he said the feminine form of “fish,” he changed his mind and intended to prohibit only small fish. Rather, we say that he intended to prohibit both large fish and small fish.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where do you know that

only the expression

“fish that I taste”

means

a large fish,

because

it is written: “And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah”

(Jonah 1)?

But it is also written

also:

“And Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the stomach of the fish”

(Jonah 2).

If so, it is demonstrated that the feminine form of “fish” also means a large fish, since Scripture says that a great fish swallowed Jonah and later calls it by the feminine form. Yet the beraita states that the feminine form means a small fish.

Abaye said to him:

This is not difficult

[this verse presents no difficulty], because

perhaps

the verse refers there to another fish, which was small. The large fish

expelled

the

large fish

the prophet Jonah,

and a small fish swallowed him,

and that is why the feminine form is used with regard to it.

Rather,

[but] from the verse cited with regard to the plague of blood, one can raise a difficulty. It is written there (Exodus 7):

“And the fish that were in the Nile died.”

Can it be explained there that only

small fish died,

but

large fish did not die?

Since the Nile was turned into blood, surely all the fish died, both large and small.

(Although in the laws of vows one follows ordinary human usage rather than the language of Scripture, nevertheless, ordinary human usage cannot be the opposite of the language of Scripture.)

Rather,

it must be explained that

the feminine form of “fish” can mean both large fish and small fish,

as is evident from the verse, “And the fish that were in the Nile died,” since both the large and the small fish died there.

But

with regard to vows, one follows ordinary human usage.

And in ordinary human usage, the feminine form of “fish” means only small fish.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who vows to prohibit stinking fish and the like is permitted fish brine and fish sauce,”

because they do not contain any of the flesh of the fish, and the expression “stinking fish” refers only to the flesh of the fish:

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

If

the one who vows said,

“It is prohibited to me,”

stinking fish,”

which is the plural form of “stinking fish,”

what is the law?

Does the expression “stinking fish” also include fish brine and fish sauce, or not?

And we conclude:

the matter remains unresolved

[this matter remains uncertain].

Mishna:

a.

One who vows to prohibit milk

the law is that he

is permitted whey,

that is, the liquid remaining from the milk after it has soured and become cheese . Whey is not included in the category of milk.

But Rabbi Yosei prohibits it.

Because in his view, whey is included in the category of milk.

b. One who vows to prohibit

whey,

the law is that he

is permitted milk,

according to everyone, because milk is not included in the category of whey.

c.

Abba Shaul says: One who vows to prohibit cheese,

even though he said “the cheese” using the definite article, the law is that he

is prohibited from it

—from all cheese—

whether

it is

salted or

whether it is

unsalted,

and even though most cheese is salted, so that the ordinary meaning of “cheese” is salted cheese, Abba Shaul nevertheless holds that this expression also includes cheese that is not salted.

The continuation of the Mishna discusses an object prohibited by a vow, and whether something derived from it is also prohibited.