Nedarim 52b (נב:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who vows to derive no benefit from milk, according to the Rabbis is permitted to consume kum, and Rabbi Yosei prohibits it.

And it raises a contradiction

to this from the Mishna below (53b), where it is written:

One who vows to derive no benefit

from lentils is prohibited from consuming ashishim—

the waste product of lentils,

but Rabbi Yosei permits it.

If so, the statement of the Rabbis in our Mishna presents a difficulty against the statement of the Rabbis in the Mishna below. In our Mishna they said that the term “milk” does not include the kum that comes from milk, whereas in the Mishna below they said that the term “lentils” includes even ashishim, which is the waste product that comes from lentils.

Similarly, there is a difficulty from Rabbi Yosei against Rabbi Yosei: In our Mishna he said that “milk” includes kum, whereas in the Mishna below he said that the term “lentils” does not include ashishim.

And we answer:

This is not difficult;

there is no contradiction between the Mishnayot.

This is because the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis does not concern whether something that emerges from the object subject to the vow is included in the prohibition. Rather, their dispute is due to the fact that the common usage in their respective places differed.

One master

of the disputants spoke in accordance with the usage

of his locale

of the people of his place.

And

likewise,

the other master

spoke in accordance with the usage

of his locale

.

In the locale

of the people of the place

of the Rabbis, they called milk “milk,” and kum “kum,”

and since, according to the usage of the people of their place, the name “milk” was not applied to kum, they said that kum is not prohibited to one who vows to derive no benefit from milk.

Whereas

in the locale of Rabbi Yosei, they also called kum “the kum of milk.”

And since, according to the usage of the people of his place, the name “milk” was applied to it, Rabbi Yosei said that kum is also prohibited to one who vows to derive no benefit from milk.

The same applies with regard to lentils: the usage in the places of Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis differed. In the place of the Rabbis, they called ashishim “ashishim of lentils,” and therefore one who vows to derive no benefit from lentils is prohibited from consuming ashishim. In Rabbi Yosei’s place, by contrast, they called lentils “lentils” and ashishim “ashishim,” and therefore he said that one who vows to derive no benefit from lentils is permitted to consume ashishim.

It was taught:

a.

One who vows to derive no benefit from milk is permitted to consume kum.

And conversely, one who vows

to derive no benefit from kum is permitted to consume milk.

This is because they are two distinct substances.

One who vows

to derive no benefit from milk is permitted to consume cheese.

And conversely, one who vows

to derive no benefit from cheese is permitted to consume milk.

One who vows

to derive no benefit from gravy is permitted to consume kippa.

And conversely, one who vows

to derive no benefit from kippa is permitted to consume gravy.

b.

If he said,

“Konam,”

this meat is prohibited to me,

meaning that he prohibited specific meat, the law is that

he is prohibited from eating it, its gravy, and its kippa.

This is because one who vows concerning a specific substance prohibits it as though it were a forbidden piece of food, from which anything that emerges is also prohibited. Therefore, even if they are not called meat, since they contain the flavor that emerges from the meat, they are prohibited.

c.

One who vows to derive no benefit from wine is permitted to consume a dish containing the flavor of wine,

since the name “wine” does not apply to the dish.

But if he

said, “Konam, this wine that I will not taste,”

meaning that he prohibited specific wine,

and it fell into a dish,

in this case he is also prohibited from anything that emerges from the wine. Therefore, the law is that

if it contains

in the dish

the flavor of wine, it is prohibited:

Mishna:

a.

One who vows to derive no benefit from grapes is permitted to consume wine

because he prohibited only grapes to himself, and did not prohibit what emerges from them.

Similarly, one who vows

to derive no benefit from olives is permitted to consume olive oil,

since he prohibited only olives, and not what emerges from the olives.

b. But if he

said, “Konam, these olives and grapes that I will not taste,”

the law is that

he is prohibited from them and

also

from what emerges from them.

Gemara:

Rami bar Hama raised a question:

What is the reason that one who says, “Konam, these olives and grapes that I will taste,” is prohibited also from what emerges from them?

Is the word

“these”

the

precise

element, such that because of it what emerges from them is also prohibited, whereas the additional words “that I will not taste” do not alter the meaning of the vow?

Or

perhaps the words

“that I will not taste”

are

precise,

and these words alter the meaning of the vow to prohibit also what emerges from them. But the word “these” does not alter the meaning of the vow.

We examine this:

If it enters your mind

to say that

“these” is precise,

and this word is what causes the meaning of the vow to include what emerges from them, then there is a difficulty:

“that I will not taste”—

why do I need it?

Why did the Mishna state that the one who vowed added and said, “that I will not taste”?

And if we say that the words “that I will not taste” are determinative, then there is a difficulty: Why did the Mishna state that the one who vowed added the word “these” to his vow?

And we explain: According to the possibility that the word “these” is what causes what emerges from them to be prohibited,

this teaches us

that the Mishna’s statement that the one who vowed also added, “that I will not taste,” comes to teach the following:

Even though he said

in his vow

“that I will not taste,”

nevertheless, only

if he said, “these,”

then

he is prohibited

also from what emerges from them;

but if he did not

say “these,”

he is not

prohibited from what emerges from them.

And conversely, according to the possibility that “that I will not taste” is the precise element, the Mishna comes to teach by stating that the one who vowed added “these” that, even though he said “these,” nevertheless, only if he said “that I will not taste” is he prohibited from what emerges from them; but if he did not say “that I will not taste,” he is not prohibited from what emerges from them.

Rava said

in order to resolve the question:

Come and hear:

We learned below (57a): If one said,

“Konam, these fruits are prohibited to me,”

or if he said,

“Konam, they are prohibited to my mouth,”

and did not say, “that I will not taste,” the law is that

he is prohibited from their exchanges and from their growths,

as is the law with consecrated property, which is prohibited through its exchanges and growths.

It follows precisely from there that he is prohibited specifically from their exchanges and growths;

but he is permitted to consume what emerges from them.

It is apparent that the word “these” does not cause what emerges from them to be prohibited.

If so, the question is resolved: “these” is not precise, whereas “that I will not taste” is precise.

The Gemara rejects the proof: It is possible to say that in that Mishna, indeed,

the same law applies: he is prohibited even from what emerges from them, and

the Mishna there mentioned only the law that their exchanges and growths are prohibited because

it was preferable for it to teach us

the law

that their exchanges are equivalent to their growths.

Come and hear:

The Gemara attempts to resolve the question from the continuation of that Mishna:

If one said, “Konam, fruits

that I will not eat,”

o

r

he said, “Konam, fruits

that I will not taste,”

and did not say “these,” the law is that

he is permitted to consume their exchanges and their growths,

It follows precisely from there that their exchanges and growths specifically are permitted;

but what emerges from them is prohibited.

If so, this can resolve the question: The words “that I will not taste” are what prohibit even what emerges from them, and “that I will not taste” is precise.

The Gemara rejects the proof: It is possible to interpret that Mishna as stating that when one says, “Konam, fruits that I will not taste,” not only are their exchanges and growths permitted, but the same law applies to what emerges from them: it too is permitted. The reason the Mishna did not state this law is that

since it did not mention

the law of

the first clause

concerning

what emerges from them,

therefore it also

did not mention in the latter clause

the law of

what emerges from them.

Come and hear:

The Gemara resolves the question from the earlier Mishna, which teaches that when one says “these,” even what emerges from them is prohibited.

As we learned above:

Rabbi Yehuda said: An incident occurred

in which I vowed to derive no benefit from meat,

and Rabbi Tarfon prohibited eggs that had been cooked with it

—with the meat, since they absorbed the flavor that emerged from the meat.

They said to him,

the Sages:

When

did Rabbi Tarfon prohibit also the flavor that emerges from the object subject to the vow? Only

when he said, “This meat is prohibited to me,” for one who vows concerning a specific substance

that was specified

and it became mixed with another substance, and it contains

within the object subject to the vow

a sufficient amount to impart flavor, that

other substance

is prohibited

because of the flavor that emerged from the forbidden substance.

It is apparent that when one vows concerning a specific substance and says “these,” even without saying “that I will not taste,” what emerges from them is also prohibited.

If so, we see from this Mishna that “these” is precise.

The Gemara says: Indeed,

it

says:

“These” is not the matter about which we have a question as to whether it is precise; it certainly is,

and even what emerges from them is prohibited.

Our question concerns

what remains in doubt:

“that I will not taste.”

Is it also

precise,

so that these words alone likewise prohibit what emerges from them, and the Mishna, which mentions both “these” and “that I will not taste,” means that whether he said only “these” or only “that I will not taste,” he is prohibited from what emerges from them;

or

perhaps the words “that I will not taste” are

not precise

and do not add a prohibition to the vow to prohibit what emerges from them. The Mishna stated that the one who vowed added these words only to teach that even if he said “that I will not taste,” he is not prohibited from what emerges from them until he adds and says “these.”

Come and hear:

We learned in the earlier Mishna: If one said, “Konam,”

fish and fish that I will not taste,

the law is that

he is prohibited from them, both

from large fish,

and both

from small fish,

both

when they are

alive and both

when they are

cooked,

but he is permitted to consume shredded sardines and fish brine.

But shredded sardines and fish brine contain flavor that emerged from the fish concerning which he vowed, and yet they are not prohibited to one who vowed by saying “that I will not taste.” It follows from this Mishna that when one says “that I will not taste,” he does not prohibit what emerges from the object subject to the vow.

Rava said:

No proof can be brought from there, because it is possible to interpret there that the Mishna’s permission to consume shredded sardines and fish brine refers to a case where they were prepared before he vowed,

and the flavor had already emerged

from

them—

from the fish—before he vowed.

Therefore they are not prohibited to the one who vowed, because only what emerges from the object subject to the vow is prohibited; and since they emerged from the object before he vowed concerning it, they did not become prohibited. In summary: The Gemara resolved that when one says “these” or “this” and vows concerning a specific substance, he is prohibited even from what emerges from it. But concerning the statement “that I will not taste,” the Gemara remains uncertain whether these words mean that even the flavor emerging from the object subject to the vow is prohibited or not. The Gemara remains without a resolution.

In summary: The Gemara resolved that when one says “these” or “this” and takes a vow against a specific object, what comes from it is also prohibited. But regarding the phrase “that I am not to taste,” the Gemara leaves unresolved whether these words mean that even the flavor emerging from the object prohibited by the vow is prohibited or not. The Gemara remains without a resolution.