Nedarim 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

a.

One who vows that meat is forbidden to him,

behold,

he is permitted to eat the sauce

of the meat,

and the kifa—

the thin layer of meat that congeals along the sides of the pot.

b. Because these things are not called meat in ordinary speech.

But Rabbi Yehuda prohibits

the sauce and the kifa to one who vows that meat is forbidden to him, because they contain flavor that has emerged from the meat that was made the subject of the vow, and therefore they are included in the category of meat.

Rabbi Yehuda said: An incident

once occurred in which we vowed to abstain from meat,

and Rabbi Tarfon prohibited for us eggs that had been cooked with it

with the meat in a single pot.

And it is thereby demonstrated that one who vows that meat is forbidden to him is prohibited even from something that is cooked with the meat and absorbs its flavor into itself. If so, he should likewise be prohibited from the sauce and the kifa, since they contain the flavor of meat.

The Sages said to him,

to Rabbi Yehuda:

That is indeed the case,

as the ruling is in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon,

but his words do not contradict our position, because Rabbi Tarfon did not prohibit the flavor that emerges from the meat.

Rather,

when

did Rabbi Tarfon prohibit the flavor that emerges from the meat? Only

when one says, “This meat is forbidden to me,”

thereby prohibiting the meat that is placed before him. In this manner he rendered the meat equivalent to a piece of forbidden substance, and everything that emerges from it is also prohibited,

as this is the law:

When one vows that a specific thing

is forbidden to him,

and

the thing from which he vowed to abstain

becomes mixed with

another

thing,

from which he is permitted to benefit—

if there is

in the substance that was the subject of the vow and fell into the mixture

enough

to

impart flavor—

that is, enough to impart flavor to the permitted substance with which it became mixed, the required measure being one-sixtieth of the mixture—

it is prohibited

for the one who took the vow to partake of the entire mixture, since the mixture contains flavor that emerged from the substance that was the subject of the vow.

But if the substance that was the subject of the vow and fell into the mixture is not present in a quantity of one-sixtieth, which is the measure required to impart flavor, the ruling is that the mixture is permitted.

All of this applies when one vows not to benefit from a particular specified thing. But one who vows not to benefit from meat in general is prohibited only from actual meat. He is permitted to benefit from anything cooked together with it, including the gravy and the meat sediment.

b.

One who vows that wine is forbidden to him is permitted to eat a dish into which wine

has become mixed and

which contains the flavor of wine,

since he vowed to abstain from wine, and this dish is not wine. This is in accordance with the view of the Sages above concerning meat, that what emerges from the substance that was the subject of the vow is permitted when he did not vow concerning a specific thing.

c. But if he

said: “This wine is forbidden to me by a konam vow, and I shall not taste it,”

thereby prohibiting a specific wine that had been placed before him,

and it fell

into

a dish,

since he prohibited a specific wine, what emerges from it is also prohibited. Therefore, the ruling is that

if there is

in the wine that fell into the dish a quantity sufficient to

impart flavor [

in order to impart flavor to the dish],

this

dish

is prohibited

to the one who took the vow, since it contains flavor that emerged from the wine prohibited to him.