Commentary page

Nedarim 49a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Nedarim 49a

Nedarim 49a. The full printed text of this folio side — 10 numbered segments, about 236 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמְבוּשָּׁל — מוּתָּר בְּצָלִי וּבְשָׁלוּק. אָמַר: ״קֻוֽנָּם תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁאֵינִי טוֹעֵם״ — אָסוּר בְּמַעֲשֵׂה קְדֵרָה רַךְ, וּמוּתָּר בְּעָבֶה, וּמוּתָּר בְּבֵיצָה טוֹרְמוֹטָא וּבַדַּלַּעַת הָרְמוּצָה. הַנּוֹדֵר מִמַּעֲשֵׂה קְדֵרָה — אֵין אָסוּר אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂה רְתַחְתָּה, אָמַר: ״קֻוֽנָּם הַיּוֹרֵד לִקְדֵרָה שֶׁאֵינִי טוֹעֵם — אָסוּר בְּכׇל הַמִּתְבַּשְּׁלִין בִּקְדֵרָה.

MISHNA: In the case of one who vows that cooked foods are forbidden to him, he is permitted to eat roasted and boiled foods, as they are not defined as cooked. If one said: Cooked food is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it, he is prohibited from tasting a loose cooked food but is permitted to taste a thick one, which people do not generally refer to as a cooked food. And he is likewise permitted to eat a turemuta egg and the remutza gourd, as they are not considered cooked foods either. In the case of one who vows that food cooked in a dish is forbidden to him, he is prohibited from deriving benefit only from food that is cooked by boiling it in a dish. However, if one said: That which enters into a dish is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it, he is prohibited from tasting anything cooked in a dish.

Segment 2

גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹסֵר, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לְדָבָר — זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְבַשְּׁלוּ אֶת הַפֶּסַח בָּאֵשׁ כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״.

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita : In the case of one who vowed that cooked foods are forbidden to him, Rabbi Yoshiya maintains that he is prohibited from eating roasted foods. And although there is no biblical proof of the matter, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “And they cooked the Paschal offering with fire according to the ordinance” (II Chronicles 35:13). Since the Paschal offering must be roasted, it is evident that roasting can also be referred to as cooking.

Segment 3

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה סָבַר: הַלֵּךְ אַחַר לְשׁוֹן תּוֹרָה, וְתַנָּא דִילַן סָבַר: בִּנְדָרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם?

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree with regard to this following principle, that Rabbi Yoshiya holds that one should follow the language of the Torah, and our tanna holds that with regard to vows one should follow the language of people.

Segment 4

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בִּנְדָרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ וּמָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ. בְּאַתְרָא דְּתַנָּא דִילַן — לְצָלִי קָרוּ לֵיהּ צָלִי, וְלִמְבוּשָּׁל קָרוּ לֵיהּ מְבוּשָּׁל. בְּאַתְרָא דְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה — אֲפִילּוּ צָלִי קָרוּ מְבוּשָּׁל.

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, it is possible that everyone agrees that with regard to vows one should follow the language of people. Rather, this Sage stated his opinion in accordance with the language of his locale, and this Sage stated his opinion in accordance with the language of his locale. In the locale of our tanna , roasted food is called roasted and cooked food is called cooked, and in the locale of Rabbi Yoshiya even roasted food is called cooked.

Segment 5

וְהָא קְרָא נָסֵיב לַהּ! אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoshiya cite a verse as proof for his opinion, which shows that his opinion is not based on the vernacular? The Gemara answers: The verse is cited as a mere support for his opinion, as implied by his statement that the verse is only an allusion, not a full proof.

Segment 6

קֻוֽנָּם תַּבְשִׁיל כּוּ׳. וְהָא מִתַּבְשִׁיל נְדַר!

It is stated in the mishna that one who said: A cooked food is konam for me and for that reason I will not taste it, he is prohibited from tasting a loose cooked food but is permitted to taste a thick one. The Gemara asks: Why is he permitted to eat it? But didn’t he vow that a cooked food, which includes one that is thick, is forbidden to him?

Segment 7

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי תַּנָּא כֹּל מִידֵּי דְּמִתְאֲכֵל בֵּיהּ רִיפְתָּא — תַּבְשִׁיל קָרוּ לֵיהּ. וְהָתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַתַּבְשִׁיל — אָסוּר בְּכׇל מִינֵי תַּבְשִׁיל, וְאָסוּר בְּצָלִי וּבְשָׁלוּק וּבִמְבוּשָּׁל, וְאָסוּר בְּהִיטְרִיּוֹת רַכּוֹת שֶׁהַחוֹלִין אוֹכְלִין בָּהֶן פִּיתָּן.

Abaye said: This tanna maintains that anything with which bread is eaten is called a cooked food, whereas a thick dish is eaten without bread. And it is taught likewise in a baraita : One who vows that a cooked food is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating all types of cooked foods, and he is therefore prohibited from eating roasted, boiled, and cooked foods. And he is also prohibited from eating soft gourds [ hiteriyyot ], with which the sick eat their bread. This indicates that a cooked food is one eaten with bread.

Segment 8

אִינִי?! וְהָא רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה חֲלַשׁ, עַל לְגַבֵּיהּ הָהוּא אָסְיָא לְאַסּוֹיֵהּ, חֲזָא קַרָא דְּמַחֵת בְּבֵיתֵיהּ, שַׁבְקֵיהּ וּנְפַק. אֲמַר: מַלְאַךְ מוֹתָא אִית לֵיהּ לְדֵין בְּבֵיתֵיהּ, וַאֲנָא אֵיעוּל לְאַסָּאָה יָתֵיהּ?!

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that the sick eat gourds? But Rabbi Yirmeya fell ill, and a certain doctor came to him to heal him. He saw a gourd that was placed in his house, and he left Rabbi Yirmeya and exited the house and said: This person has an angel of death, a gourd, in his house, and I will enter to heal him? This incident teaches that gourds are detrimental for the sick.

Segment 9

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּרַכִּיכֵי, הָא — בְּאַשּׁוּנֵי. רָבָא בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר: הָא — בְּקַרָא גּוּפֵיהּ, וְהָא — בְּגַוֵּויהּ דִּקְרָא. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לוּלִיבָּא דְקַרָא בְּסִילְקָא, לוּלִיבָּא דְכִיתָּנָא בְּכוּתָּחָא. וְדָבָר זֶה אָסוּר לְאוֹמְרוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ.

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to soft gourds, which are beneficial to the sick, and this incident is referring to hard ones, which are detrimental. Rava bar Ulla said a different answer: This incident is referring to the gourd itself, which is detrimental, and this baraita is referring to the innards [ luliva ] of the gourd, as Rav Yehuda said: The innards of the gourd are best eaten with chard; the innards of flax seeds are best eaten with kuteḥa , a dip made from bread crumbs and sour milk. And one may not say this matter in the presence of an ignoramus, so that ignoramuses do not uproot flax for consumption of its seeds.

Segment 10

רָבָא אָמַר: מַאן חוֹלִין — רַבָּנַן. רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא:

Rava said a different response: Who are the sick mentioned in the baraita , for whom a gourd is beneficial? They are the Sages, who are weakened by their toil in the study of Torah and their abstention from worldly pleasures, although they are not actually sick. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Gourds are harmful for people who are actually sick. The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rava said:

Nedarim 49a

Nedarim 49a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Shita Mekubetzet

Gilyon HaShas

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text