Nedarim 51b (נא:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

After the mishnayot at the beginning of the chapter dealt with one who vows against cooked food, this Mishna discusses one who vows against foods prepared for eating in other ways.

There is food that is customarily eaten when pickled, food that is eaten when boiled, food that is eaten roasted, and food that is eaten salted.

Our Mishna teaches that there is a difference in the meaning of the vow between one who vows against the boiled, the pickled, and the like, with the definite article, and one who vows without the definite article.

a. One who vows

against the pickled,

for example, he said: “The pickled is Konam to me”—the law is that he

is prohibited only from the pickled

known

of vegetables—

as people were accustomed to pickle vegetables in vinegar, and this is the pickled food known by that name.

b. But if he said: “The

pickled that I taste”

without the definite article, the law is that he

is prohibited from all

foods

that are pickled.

c. One who vows

against the boiled

with the definite article

is prohibited only from the boiled

known as boiled

meat.

d. But if he said: “The

boiled 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

“

dekhavish”

with the addition of the letter dalet,

what

is the meaning? Does it mean the known pickled food, as does the definite article, or not?

And likewise, if he said “

deshalik, what? ‘detzלי, what? ‘demalיח, what?”

How is it understood

[what is the meaning of the expression]?

And we conclude:

Let it remain a question

[this matter remains unresolved]:

Mishna:

e. One who vows

against the roast

with the definite article

is prohibited only from the roast of meat

which is the roast known by that name,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

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

f. But one who says: “The

roast that I taste”

without the definite article

is prohibited from all

foods

that are roasted.

g. One who vows

against the salted is prohibited only from salted fish

which is the salted food known by that name.

h. But one who says: “The

salted that I taste”

without the definite article, the law is that he

is prohibited from all

foods

that are salted.

One who vows against types of fish:

a. One who says: “The

fish and fishes that I taste”—

is prohibited from them

[from fish],

both large and small,

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

And he is prohibited

both

from fish

that are salted and 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 crushed tarit

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

And

all the more so he is permitted

fish brine,

which is the fat that emerges from the fish, with fish innards mixed into it.

And

all the more so he is permitted

morais,

which is the fat of the fish without any addition.

b.

One who vows against

small pickled fish

that are

called

tzeḥana , is prohibited from crushed tarit, because its brine also has a strong odor, and it is included in tzeḥana.

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 morais

because they contain none of the flesh of the fish, and the expression tzeḥana denotes only the flesh of the fish.

c.

One who vows against crushed tarit is prohibited from fish brine and morais ,

because once he mentioned “crushed,” he included everything in which some of the type of fish is mixed ; therefore, even the fish brine and the morais are included in the language of his vow.

because since he mentioned "torn-up," he includes anything in which some of the fish-kind is mixed, .therefore even broth and morays are included in his phrasing of the vow. .The RAN rules: it is permitted in broth and in morays. .Rosh.

Gemara:

It was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

a. One who says: “The

fish that I taste is prohibited”

only

from

fish

that are large, but he is permitted to eat

fish

that are small,

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

b. And if he said: “The

fish that I taste is prohibited from small fish, but he is permitted to eat large fish.”

c. And if he said: “The

fish and female fish that I taste are prohibited both from large fish and from small fish.”

The novelty is that we do not say that initially, when he said “fish,” he intended to prohibit only large fish, and when he said “female fish,” he retracted and regretted his initial statement, intending 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 specifically the expression

“the 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 written

also:

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

(Jonah 2).

If so, it is demonstrated that even “female fish” means a large fish, for Scripture says that a great fish swallowed Jonah and subsequently calls it “female fish.” Yet the beraita states that “female fish” means a small fish.

Abaye said to him:

This is not difficult

[this verse poses no difficulty], because

perhaps

the verse is referring to another fish, which was small.

It expelled

the

large fish

Jonah the prophet,

and a small fish swallowed him,

and therefore the expression “female fish” is used with regard to it.

Rather,

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

“And the female fish that were in the river died.”

Can it be explained there that only

small fish died,

but

large fish did not die?

Since the river was transformed into blood, surely all the fish died, both large and small. (

And although with regard to vows one follows the language of people and not the language of Scripture, nevertheless it cannot be that the language of people is the opposite of the language of Scripture.)

Rather,

it must be explained that

“female fish” can mean both large fish and small fish,

as is indicated by the verse “And the female fish that were in the river died,” for both the large and the small fish died there,

but

with regard to vows, one follows the language of people.

And in the language of people, “female fish” means only small fish.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who vows against tzeḥana and so on is permitted fish brine and morais,”

because they contain none of the flesh of the fish, and the expression tzeḥana denotes only the flesh of the fish:

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

If the one who vows

said

“

I hereby prohibit tzeḥin to myself,”

which is the plural form of tzeḥana,

what

is the ruling? Does the expression tzeḥin also include fish brine and morais, or not?

And we conclude:

Let it remain a question

[this matter remains unresolved]:

Mishna:

a.

One who vows against milk

the law is that he

is permitted whey,

i.e., the liquid that remains from the milk after it has soured and become cheese . Whey is not included in milk.

And Rabbi Yose prohibits it.

He holds that whey is included in milk.

b. One who vows

against whey

the law is that he

is permitted milk

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

c.

Abba Shaul says: One who vows against cheese,

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

is prohibited from it

in every type of cheese,

whether

it is

salted or

whether it is

unsalted,

and although most cheeses are salted, so that “cheese” without further specification denotes salted cheese, Abba Shaul nevertheless holds that this expression also includes cheese that is not salted.

The continuation of the Mishna discusses a vowed item: Is what emerges from it also prohibited?