Nedarim 52b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who vows from milk—for the Rabbis, kum is permitted, and Rabbi Yosei forbids it.

And it raises a contradiction

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

One who vows

from lentils is forbidden lentil fritters—

the refuse of lentils ,

and Rabbi Yosei permits them.

If so, the words of the Rabbis in our Mishna are difficult in light of the words of the Rabbis in the Mishna below. In our Mishna they said that the expression “milk” does not include the kum that comes out of the milk, whereas in the Mishna below they said that the expression “lentils” includes also ashishim, which is the refuse that comes out of the lentils.

Likewise, Rabbi Yosei’s words are difficult in light of Rabbi Yosei’s words: in our Mishna he said that milk includes kum, whereas in the Mishna below he said that the expression “lentils” does not include ashishim.

And we resolve:

It is not difficult,

there is no contradiction between the Mishnayot.

For the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis is not concerning whether what comes out of the vowed item is included in the prohibition or not; rather, their dispute is because the expression used by the people of their respective places was different.

One master

one of the disputants spoke according to the expression of

his place

the people of his place.

And

likewise

the other master

spoke according to the expression of

his place

.

In the place

the people of the place

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

and since, according to the expression of the people of their place, the name “milk” did not apply to kum, they said that kum is not forbidden to one who vows from milk.

But

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

And since, according to the expression of the people of his place, the name “milk” did apply to it, Rabbi Yosei said that kum too is forbidden to one who vows from milk.

Likewise concerning lentils, the places of Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis differed in their expressions: in the place of the Rabbis, they called ashishim “ashishim of lentils,” and therefore one who vows from lentils is forbidden ashishim. But in the place of Rabbi Yosei, they called lentils “lentils,” and called ashishim “ashishim,” and therefore he said that one who vows from lentils is permitted ashishim.

It was taught:

a.

One who vows from milk is permitted kum.

And likewise conversely, one who vows

from kum is permitted milk.

Because they are two different things.

One who vows

from milk is permitted cheese.

And likewise conversely, one who vows

from cheese is permitted milk.

One who vows

from gravy is permitted kippa.

And likewise conversely, one who vows

from kippa is permitted gravy.

b.

If he said,

“Konam,”

this meat is upon me,

meaning that he prohibited a particular meat, the law is that he is

forbidden to eat it, its gravy, and its kippa.

Because one who vows from a particular item renders it forbidden like a piece of prohibited matter, from which what comes out is also forbidden; therefore, even if they are not called meat, since they contain the taste that comes out of the meat, they are forbidden.

c.

One who vows from wine is permitted a dish containing the taste of wine,

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

But if he

said, “Konam, this wine, which I am not to taste,”

meaning that he prohibited a particular wine,

and it fell into the dish,

in this manner what comes out of the wine is also forbidden, and therefore the law is that

if it has

in the dish

the taste of wine, it is forbidden:

Mishna:

a.

One who vows from grapes is permitted wine

because he prohibited only grapes to himself, and did not prohibit what comes out of them.

And likewise, one who vows

from olives is permitted olive oil

because he prohibited only olives, and not what comes out of the olives.

b. But if he

said, “Konam, these olives and grapes, which I am not to taste,”

the law is that he is

forbidden to them and

also

to what comes out of them.

Gemara:

Rami bar Hama raised a question:

What is the reason that one who says, “Konam, these olives and grapes, which I am not to taste,” is forbidden also to what comes out of them?

Is the word

“these”

the

specific

one, such that because of it what comes out of them is also forbidden, whereas the addition of the words “which I am not to taste” does not change the meaning of the vow?

Or

perhaps the words

“which I am not to taste”

are

specific,

for these words change the meaning of the vow, to prohibit also what comes out of them. But the word “these” does not change the meaning of the vow.

And we inquire concerning it:

If it enters your mind

to say that

“these” is specific,

and this word is what causes the meaning of the vow to prohibit also what comes out of them, then it is difficult:

“which I am not to taste”—

why do I need it?

Why did the Mishna write that the one who vowed added and said “which I am not to taste”?

And if we say that the words “which I am not to taste” are determinative, then it is difficult: why did the Mishna write 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 comes out of them also to be forbidden,

this teaches us

this is the novelty that the Mishna comes to teach by writing that the one who vowed added and also said “which I am not to taste”:

Even though he said

the one who vowed in his vow

“which I am not to taste,”

nevertheless, specifically

if he said “these,”

then

it is forbidden

also what comes out of them; but

if he did not

say “these,”

it is not

forbidden to what comes out of them.

And likewise conversely, according to the possibility that “which I am not to taste” is specific, the Mishna comes to teach by writing that the one who vowed added and said “these,” to say that even though he said “these,” nevertheless, specifically if he said “which I am not to taste,” what comes out of them is also forbidden, but if he did not say “which I am not to taste,” what comes out of them is not forbidden.

Rava said

to resolve the question:

Come and hear:

We learned below (57a): If he said

“Konam, these fruits are upon me,”

or if he said

“Konam, they are to my mouth,”

and he did not say “which I am not to taste,” the law is that he is

forbidden their exchanges and their growths

as is the law with consecrated property, which is forbidden in its exchanges and its growths.

It is precise there that he is forbidden specifically in their exchanges and their growths:

but what comes out of them is permitted.

It follows that the word “these” does not cause what comes out of them to be forbidden.

And if so, the question is resolved: “these” is not specific, and “which I am not to taste” is specific.

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

the same law applies that even what comes out of them is forbidden, and

the Mishna there wrote only the law that their exchanges and their growths are forbidden, because

it was preferable for it to teach us

the law

that their exchanges are comparable to their growths.

Come and hear:

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

For if he said konam, fruits

that I am not to eat

or

if

he said konam, fruits

that I am not to taste,

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

permitted their exchanges and their growths,

It is precise there that specifically their exchanges and their growths are permitted:

but what comes out of them is forbidden,

If so, one can resolve from there that the words “which I am not to taste” prohibit even what comes out of them, and “which I am not to taste” is specific.

The Gemara rejects the proof: it is possible to interpret the Mishna there as follows: when he says “Konam, fruits that I am not to taste,” not only are their exchanges and their growths permitted, but the same law applies to what comes out of them—it is permitted. And the reason that the Mishna did not bring this law is that

since it did not state

because the Mishna did not state

at the beginning

the law of

what comes out of them,

therefore it also

did not state in the latter clause

the law of

what comes out of them.

Come and hear

the Gemara resolves from the Mishna above that when he says “these,” even what comes out of them is forbidden,

as we learned above:

Rabbi Yehuda said: An incident occurred

and I vowed from meat,

and Rabbi Tarfon prohibited to me eggs that had been cooked with it

with the meat, since they absorbed the taste that comes out of the meat.

They said to him

the Sages,

“When”

did Rabbi Tarfon prohibit also the taste that comes out of the vowed item? Specifically

when he said, “This meat is upon me,” for one who vows from the particular item

that was specified

and it became mixed with another, and there is in it

in the vowed item

enough to impart taste, it is

the other item

forbidden

because of the taste that came out of the prohibited item.

It follows that when one vows from a particular item and says “these,” even without saying “which I am not to taste,” what comes out of them is also forbidden.

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

The Gemara says: Indeed,

if

he says

“We have no question that ‘these’ is indeed specific”

and even what comes out of them is forbidden.

Our question is

there is still a question

concerning “which I am not to taste”:

Are these words also

specific,

and with these words alone he likewise prohibits what comes out of them, and the Mishna, which brought both “these” and “which I am not to taste,” means that whether he said only “these” or whether he said only “which I am not to taste,” what comes out of them is forbidden,

or

perhaps the words “which I am not to taste” are

not specific

and do not add a prohibition to the vow, to prohibit what comes out of them. And the Mishna wrote that the one who vowed added these words only to teach that even if he said “which I am not to taste,” what comes out of them is not forbidden until he adds and says “these.”

Come and hear:

We learned in the Mishna above: If he said konam,

fish, which I am not to taste,

the law is that he is

forbidden whether

to large fish

or whether

to small fish,

whether

they are

alive or whether

they are

cooked,

and he is permitted crushed sardines and fish brine.

But in crushed sardines and fish brine there is taste that came out of the fish from which he vowed, and they were not forbidden to one who vowed and said “which I am not to taste.” We see from this Mishna that by saying “which I am not to taste,” he does not prohibit what comes out of the vowed item.

Rava said:

One cannot bring a proof from there, because it is possible to interpret there that what the Mishna permitted—crushed sardines and fish brine—refers to a case where they were prepared before he vowed,

and the taste had already gone out

the taste

from them

from the fish, before he vowed,

and therefore they are not forbidden to the one who vowed, because only what comes out of the vowed item is forbidden, and since they came out of the item before he vowed from it, they were not forbidden.

In summary: the Gemara resolved that when he says “these” or “this,” and vows from a particular item, even what comes out of them is forbidden; but concerning saying “which I am not to taste,” the Gemara is uncertain whether these words mean that even the taste that comes out of the vowed item is forbidden or not. And the Gemara remains without a resolution.