Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 15, 2015 | 讻状讞 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 52

诪讜转专 讘专讜讟讘 讜讘拽讬驻讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专

is permitted to eat gravy and sediments of boiled meat [kifa]. But Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he is prohibited from eating them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗住专 注诇讬谞讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘讘讬爪讬诐 砖谞转讘砖诇讜 注诪讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讻谉 讛讚讘专 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讬讗诪专 讘砖专 讝讛 注诇讬 砖讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讚讘专 讜谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗住讜专

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident where one took such a vow and Rabbi Tarfon prohibited us from even eggs that were cooked with meat. The Rabbis said to him: Indeed so, but when is this the halakha? When he says: This meat is forbidden to me, referring to a specific piece of meat. This is because in the case of one who vows that an item is forbidden to him, and it becomes mixed into another item, if the latter contains an amount of the forbidden food that gives it flavor, i.e., the forbidden food can be tasted in the permitted food, the mixture is forbidden. However, if one vows that meat in general is forbidden to him, without specifying a particular piece, only the meat itself is forbidden, not the gravy, sediments, or eggs cooked with that meat.

讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 诪讜转专 讘转讘砖讬诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讟注诐 讬讬谉 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讬讬谉 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讘砖讬诇 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专

Likewise, one who vows that wine is forbidden to him is permitted to eat a cooked dish that has the flavor of wine. However, if he said: Wine is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it, and the wine fell into a cooked dish, if the dish contains an amount of the wine that gives it flavor, it is forbidden.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讗住讜专 讘讗砖讬砖讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专

GEMARA: The mishna cited a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis, in which Rabbi Yosei ruled that one who vows that milk is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating whey as well. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this ruling and Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion in a later mishna (53b): One who vows that lentils are forbidden to him is prohibited from eating ashishim, a dish made from lentils. But Rabbi Yosei permits it. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei holds that if the forbidden food changes in form, it is permitted, contrary to his opinion with regard to whey.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讘讗转专讗 讚专讘谞谉 拽专讜 诇讞诇讘讗 讞诇讘讗 讜诇拽讜诪讗 拽讜诪讗 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇拽讜诪讗 谞诪讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 拽讜诪讗 讚讞诇讘讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The opinion of this Sage is in accordance with the custom of his locale, and the opinion of that Sage in accordance with the custom of his locale. In the Rabbis鈥 locale they call milk, milk and whey, whey, whereas in Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 locale they also call whey, milk whey. In the latter location, the word milk is used in reference to whey, and therefore one who vows there that milk is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating whey as well.

转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讞诇讘 诪讜转专 讘拽讜诐 诪谉 讛拽讜诐 诪讜转专 讘讞诇讘 诪谉 讛讞诇讘 诪讜转专 讘讙讘讬谞讛 诪谉 讛讙讘讬谞讛 诪讜转专 讘讞诇讘 诪谉 讛专讜讟讘 诪讜转专 讘拽讬驻讛 诪谉 讛拽讬驻讛 诪讜转专 讘专讜讟讘 讗诐 讗诪专 讘砖专 讝讛 注诇讬 讗住讜专 讘讜 讜讘专讜讟讘讜 讜讘拽讬驻讜

It is taught in a baraita: One who vows that milk is forbidden to him is permitted to partake of whey. One who vows that whey is forbidden to him is permitted to partake of milk. One who vows that milk is forbidden to him is permitted to eat cheese. One who vows that cheese is forbidden to him is permitted to partake of milk. One who vows that gravy is forbidden to him is permitted to eat sediments of boiled meat. One who vows that sediments of boiled meat are forbidden to him is permitted to eat gravy. If one said: This piece of meat is hereby forbidden to me, he is prohibited from eating it, and from its gravy, and from its sediments.

讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 诪讜转专 讘转讘砖讬诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讟注诐 讬讬谉 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讬讬谉 讝讛 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讛转讘砖讬诇 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 讟注诐 讬讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专

One who vows: Wine is forbidden to me, is permitted to eat a cooked dish that has the flavor of wine. However, if he said: This wine is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it, and the wine fell into a cooked dish, if the dish contains an amount of the wine that gives it flavor, it is forbidden.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛注谞讘讬诐 诪讜转专 讘讬讬谉 诪谉 讛讝讬转讬诐 诪讜转专 讘砖诪谉 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讗住讜专 讘讛谉 讜讘讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉

MISHNA: One who vows that grapes are forbidden to him is permitted to partake of wine. One who vows that olives are forbidden to him is permitted to partake of oil. However, if one said: Olives and grapes are konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste these items, he is prohibited from tasting them and the wine and oil that emerge from them.

讙诪壮 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诇讜 讚讜拽讗 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讚讜拽讗

GEMARA: With regard to the last ruling in the mishna, that one who vows: Olives and grapes are konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste these items, he is prohibited from tasting them and the wine and oil that emerge from them, Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: Is it specifically because he said these, i.e., he referred to specific olives or grapes, or is it specifically because he said: For that reason I will not taste, i.e., he referred not to eating but to tasting?

讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讜 讚讜拽讗 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讗讬 讚讗诪专 讗诇讜 诪讬转住专 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If it enters your mind that it is specifically because he said these, why do I need the phrase: That I will not taste? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that even if he said: That I will not taste, only if he said the word these is he prohibited from tasting oil or wine, but if he did not say the word these, he is not prohibited from doing so. The dilemma therefore cannot be resolved by inference from the phrasing of the vow in the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 讛讗诇讜 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 诇驻讬 讗住讜专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 讛讗 讘讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讜转专

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna below (57a): If one says: This produce is konam upon me, or: It is konam to my mouth, he is prohibited from eating their replacements and anything that grows from them. It may be inferred that liquids that emerge from them are permitted. Evidently, referring to specific produce is not sufficient to render their juice forbidden. Rather, the prohibition in the mishna is apparently due to the phrase: And for that reason I will not taste.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讜讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 诇讬讛 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讻讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 讚诪讬

The Gemara refutes this proof: The same ruling as in the mishna above is true with regard to liquids that emerge from the produce; they too are forbidden. And the reason this ruling isn鈥檛 mentioned there is that it is preferable for that mishna to teach us that their replacements are forbidden just like what grows from them is forbidden, although they contain no substance of the forbidden item.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讗讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 诪讜转专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 讛讗 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讗讬讬讚讬 讚诇讗 谞住讬讘 讘专讬砖讗 讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诇讗 谞住讬讘 谞诪讬 讘住讬驻讗 讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉

Come and hear a resolution from the continuation of that same mishna: If one says: This produce is konam upon me, and for that reason I will not eat them, or: This produce is konam upon me, and for that reason I will not taste them, he is permitted to eat their replacements and anything that grows from them. It may be inferred that liquids that emerge from them are forbidden. The Gemara rejects this argument: Since that mishna did not cite liquids that emerge from them in the first clause, it did not cite liquids that emerge from them in the latter clause either. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that liquids that come from the produce are forbidden.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗住专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 注诇讬 讘讬爪讬诐 砖谞转讘砖诇讜 注诪讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 讘砖专 讝讛 注诇讬 砖讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讚讘专 讜谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专 讜讬砖 讘讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专

Come and hear a resolution from the previous mishna (52a): Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident where Rabbi Tarfon prohibited me from eating even eggs that were cooked with meat. The Rabbis said to him: Indeed so, but when is this the halakha? When the one who took the vow said: This meat is forbidden to me, referring to a specific piece of meat. This is because in the case of one who vows that something is forbidden to him and it gets mixed into another food, and the latter food contains an amount of the forbidden food that gives it flavor, i.e., the prohibited food can be tasted in the permitted food, the mixture is forbidden. Evidently, referring to a specific food causes what emerges from it to be forbidden as well.

讘讗诇讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讚讜拽讗 讛讜讗 讻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讘砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讚讜拽讗 讗讜 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗

The Gemara reinterprets the dilemma: We do not raise the dilemma with regard to the word these, as using specifically this word is certainly sufficient to render the liquids that come from the produce forbidden. When we raise a dilemma, it is with regard to the phrase: That I will not taste it. Is this phrase mentioned by the mishna specifically to teach that using it in a vow is sufficient to render the juice forbidden, or is it not mentioned specifically for that purpose?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讙 讚讙讬诐 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讗住讜专 讘讛谉 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讘讬谉 讞讬讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讜砖诇讬诐 讜诪讜转专 讘讟专讬转 讟专讜驻讛 讜讘爪讬专

Come and hear a resolution from the mishna above (51b): If one vows: Fish or fishes are konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste them, he is prohibited with regard to all of them, whether large fish or small, and whether raw or cooked. But he is permitted to taste minced sardines and to taste fish brine. The phrase: I will not taste, clearly does not render fish brine forbidden, although it contains that which emerged from fish.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻讘专 讬爪讗 诪讛谉

Rava said: But there is no evidence from here, as the fish brine that is permitted by the mishna may be referring to brine that already emerged from them before the vow was taken, and was therefore not included in the fish that were rendered forbidden by the vow. The dilemma therefore remains unresolved.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 52

诪讜转专 讘专讜讟讘 讜讘拽讬驻讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专

is permitted to eat gravy and sediments of boiled meat [kifa]. But Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he is prohibited from eating them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗住专 注诇讬谞讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘讘讬爪讬诐 砖谞转讘砖诇讜 注诪讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讻谉 讛讚讘专 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讬讗诪专 讘砖专 讝讛 注诇讬 砖讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讚讘专 讜谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗住讜专

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident where one took such a vow and Rabbi Tarfon prohibited us from even eggs that were cooked with meat. The Rabbis said to him: Indeed so, but when is this the halakha? When he says: This meat is forbidden to me, referring to a specific piece of meat. This is because in the case of one who vows that an item is forbidden to him, and it becomes mixed into another item, if the latter contains an amount of the forbidden food that gives it flavor, i.e., the forbidden food can be tasted in the permitted food, the mixture is forbidden. However, if one vows that meat in general is forbidden to him, without specifying a particular piece, only the meat itself is forbidden, not the gravy, sediments, or eggs cooked with that meat.

讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 诪讜转专 讘转讘砖讬诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讟注诐 讬讬谉 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讬讬谉 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讘砖讬诇 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专

Likewise, one who vows that wine is forbidden to him is permitted to eat a cooked dish that has the flavor of wine. However, if he said: Wine is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it, and the wine fell into a cooked dish, if the dish contains an amount of the wine that gives it flavor, it is forbidden.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讗住讜专 讘讗砖讬砖讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专

GEMARA: The mishna cited a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis, in which Rabbi Yosei ruled that one who vows that milk is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating whey as well. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this ruling and Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion in a later mishna (53b): One who vows that lentils are forbidden to him is prohibited from eating ashishim, a dish made from lentils. But Rabbi Yosei permits it. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei holds that if the forbidden food changes in form, it is permitted, contrary to his opinion with regard to whey.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讘讗转专讗 讚专讘谞谉 拽专讜 诇讞诇讘讗 讞诇讘讗 讜诇拽讜诪讗 拽讜诪讗 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇拽讜诪讗 谞诪讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 拽讜诪讗 讚讞诇讘讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The opinion of this Sage is in accordance with the custom of his locale, and the opinion of that Sage in accordance with the custom of his locale. In the Rabbis鈥 locale they call milk, milk and whey, whey, whereas in Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 locale they also call whey, milk whey. In the latter location, the word milk is used in reference to whey, and therefore one who vows there that milk is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating whey as well.

转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讞诇讘 诪讜转专 讘拽讜诐 诪谉 讛拽讜诐 诪讜转专 讘讞诇讘 诪谉 讛讞诇讘 诪讜转专 讘讙讘讬谞讛 诪谉 讛讙讘讬谞讛 诪讜转专 讘讞诇讘 诪谉 讛专讜讟讘 诪讜转专 讘拽讬驻讛 诪谉 讛拽讬驻讛 诪讜转专 讘专讜讟讘 讗诐 讗诪专 讘砖专 讝讛 注诇讬 讗住讜专 讘讜 讜讘专讜讟讘讜 讜讘拽讬驻讜

It is taught in a baraita: One who vows that milk is forbidden to him is permitted to partake of whey. One who vows that whey is forbidden to him is permitted to partake of milk. One who vows that milk is forbidden to him is permitted to eat cheese. One who vows that cheese is forbidden to him is permitted to partake of milk. One who vows that gravy is forbidden to him is permitted to eat sediments of boiled meat. One who vows that sediments of boiled meat are forbidden to him is permitted to eat gravy. If one said: This piece of meat is hereby forbidden to me, he is prohibited from eating it, and from its gravy, and from its sediments.

讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 诪讜转专 讘转讘砖讬诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讟注诐 讬讬谉 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讬讬谉 讝讛 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讛转讘砖讬诇 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 讟注诐 讬讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专

One who vows: Wine is forbidden to me, is permitted to eat a cooked dish that has the flavor of wine. However, if he said: This wine is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it, and the wine fell into a cooked dish, if the dish contains an amount of the wine that gives it flavor, it is forbidden.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛注谞讘讬诐 诪讜转专 讘讬讬谉 诪谉 讛讝讬转讬诐 诪讜转专 讘砖诪谉 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讗住讜专 讘讛谉 讜讘讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉

MISHNA: One who vows that grapes are forbidden to him is permitted to partake of wine. One who vows that olives are forbidden to him is permitted to partake of oil. However, if one said: Olives and grapes are konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste these items, he is prohibited from tasting them and the wine and oil that emerge from them.

讙诪壮 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诇讜 讚讜拽讗 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讚讜拽讗

GEMARA: With regard to the last ruling in the mishna, that one who vows: Olives and grapes are konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste these items, he is prohibited from tasting them and the wine and oil that emerge from them, Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: Is it specifically because he said these, i.e., he referred to specific olives or grapes, or is it specifically because he said: For that reason I will not taste, i.e., he referred not to eating but to tasting?

讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讜 讚讜拽讗 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讗讬 讚讗诪专 讗诇讜 诪讬转住专 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If it enters your mind that it is specifically because he said these, why do I need the phrase: That I will not taste? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that even if he said: That I will not taste, only if he said the word these is he prohibited from tasting oil or wine, but if he did not say the word these, he is not prohibited from doing so. The dilemma therefore cannot be resolved by inference from the phrasing of the vow in the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 讛讗诇讜 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 诇驻讬 讗住讜专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 讛讗 讘讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讜转专

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna below (57a): If one says: This produce is konam upon me, or: It is konam to my mouth, he is prohibited from eating their replacements and anything that grows from them. It may be inferred that liquids that emerge from them are permitted. Evidently, referring to specific produce is not sufficient to render their juice forbidden. Rather, the prohibition in the mishna is apparently due to the phrase: And for that reason I will not taste.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讜讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 诇讬讛 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讻讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 讚诪讬

The Gemara refutes this proof: The same ruling as in the mishna above is true with regard to liquids that emerge from the produce; they too are forbidden. And the reason this ruling isn鈥檛 mentioned there is that it is preferable for that mishna to teach us that their replacements are forbidden just like what grows from them is forbidden, although they contain no substance of the forbidden item.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讗讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 诪讜转专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉 讛讗 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讗讬讬讚讬 讚诇讗 谞住讬讘 讘专讬砖讗 讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诇讗 谞住讬讘 谞诪讬 讘住讬驻讗 讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉

Come and hear a resolution from the continuation of that same mishna: If one says: This produce is konam upon me, and for that reason I will not eat them, or: This produce is konam upon me, and for that reason I will not taste them, he is permitted to eat their replacements and anything that grows from them. It may be inferred that liquids that emerge from them are forbidden. The Gemara rejects this argument: Since that mishna did not cite liquids that emerge from them in the first clause, it did not cite liquids that emerge from them in the latter clause either. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that liquids that come from the produce are forbidden.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗住专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 注诇讬 讘讬爪讬诐 砖谞转讘砖诇讜 注诪讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 讘砖专 讝讛 注诇讬 砖讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讚讘专 讜谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专 讜讬砖 讘讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专

Come and hear a resolution from the previous mishna (52a): Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident where Rabbi Tarfon prohibited me from eating even eggs that were cooked with meat. The Rabbis said to him: Indeed so, but when is this the halakha? When the one who took the vow said: This meat is forbidden to me, referring to a specific piece of meat. This is because in the case of one who vows that something is forbidden to him and it gets mixed into another food, and the latter food contains an amount of the forbidden food that gives it flavor, i.e., the prohibited food can be tasted in the permitted food, the mixture is forbidden. Evidently, referring to a specific food causes what emerges from it to be forbidden as well.

讘讗诇讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讚讜拽讗 讛讜讗 讻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讘砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讚讜拽讗 讗讜 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗

The Gemara reinterprets the dilemma: We do not raise the dilemma with regard to the word these, as using specifically this word is certainly sufficient to render the liquids that come from the produce forbidden. When we raise a dilemma, it is with regard to the phrase: That I will not taste it. Is this phrase mentioned by the mishna specifically to teach that using it in a vow is sufficient to render the juice forbidden, or is it not mentioned specifically for that purpose?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讙 讚讙讬诐 砖讗讬谞讬 讟讜注诐 讗住讜专 讘讛谉 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讘讬谉 讞讬讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讜砖诇讬诐 讜诪讜转专 讘讟专讬转 讟专讜驻讛 讜讘爪讬专

Come and hear a resolution from the mishna above (51b): If one vows: Fish or fishes are konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste them, he is prohibited with regard to all of them, whether large fish or small, and whether raw or cooked. But he is permitted to taste minced sardines and to taste fish brine. The phrase: I will not taste, clearly does not render fish brine forbidden, although it contains that which emerged from fish.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻讘专 讬爪讗 诪讛谉

Rava said: But there is no evidence from here, as the fish brine that is permitted by the mishna may be referring to brine that already emerged from them before the vow was taken, and was therefore not included in the fish that were rendered forbidden by the vow. The dilemma therefore remains unresolved.

Scroll To Top