(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nedarim 49

***** Perek ha'Noder min ha'Mevushal *****



(a) If someone makes a Neder forbidding cooked food ...
  1. ... it includes food that has been roasted or half-cooked.
  2. ... it does not however, include food that has been over-cooked.
(b) If he says 'Konem Tavshil she'Eini To'em', he is forbidden to eat soft Ma'aseh Kedeirah, but permitted to eat it when it is hard. 'Ma'aseh Kedeirah' is - wheat kernels that have been divided into two, three or four pieces before being cooked.

(c) The basis for the difference between Ma'aseh Kedeirah which is soft and which hard is - that any cooked food that is eaten together with bread is called a Tavshil, and what is not eaten together with bread is not called a Tavshil.

(d) There is no real significance in the wording 'she'Eini To'em', and the Din would have been the same had he said 'she'Eini Ochel'. The Tana mentions it - to teach us that despite having said it, he is permitted to eat thick Ma'seh Kedeirah.

(a) Someone who made a Neder forbidding cooked food - is not permitted to eat an egg, because most kinds of egg dishes are eaten with bread.

(b) Ma'aseh Kedeirah incorporates Ma'aseh Raschasa (which will be explained further in the forthcoming Mishnah).

(a) We just quoted the Tana of our Mishnah, in whose opinion cooking does not include roasting - Rebbi Yashiyah says that it does.

(b) It is clear from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "va'Yevashlu es ha'Pesach ka'Mishpat" that Bishul incorporates roasting - because the Pasuk is referring to the Korban Pesach, which had to be roasted. This is no real proof for Rebbi Yashiyah though - because the Pasuk only reveals Leshon Torah, whereas the Rabbanan follow the principle 'bi'Nedarim Holchin Achar Leshon B'nei Adam'.

(c) The difference between them regarding someone who makes a Neder not to drink wine on Yom-Tov might then be - that the Rabbanan will forbid him to drink wine on the second day of Yom-Tov, too, whereas, Rebbi Yashiyah will permit it.

(d) Assuming that they both hold 'bi'Nedarim Holchin Achar Leshon B'nei Adam' - then they are not really arguing at all, but in the town of the Rabbanan, they would refer to roasting 'Bishul', and in the town of Rebbi Yashiyah, they did not.

(a) Our Tana forbids someone who makes a Noder to abstain from eating a Tavshil, to eat soft Ma'aseh Kedeirah, but permits it when it is hard, on which we ask 'But his Neder was from a Tavshil'? The Kashya might be on the fact that he is permitted to eat Ma'aseh Kedeirah when it is hard (even though it is a Ma'aseh Kedeirah) - and it might be on the fact that he is forbidden to eat it when it soft (even though it is not).

(b) The answer is - that, as we said earlier, whatever is eaten with bread is considered 'Ma'aseh Kedeirah', and whatever is not, is not.

(c) We support this with a Beraisa which forbids someone who made a Neder not to eat a Tavshil, to eat small pumpkins - because sick people eat them with bread.

(d) We initially reconcile this with Rebbi Yirmiyah, whose doctor refused to cure him because he referred to the small pumpkins that he saw in Rebbi Yirmiyah's house as 'the Angel of Death' - by establishing that by hard pumpkins, whereas we are speaking about soft ones.

(a) Rava bar Ula answered the Kashya by making a distinction between the fruit itself - which is unhealthy for sick people, and its inside, which is healthy.

(b) One should eat ...

  1. ... it - with beets.
  2. ... the inside of flax - with Kutach (a preserve containing sour milk, bread-crumbs and salt).
(c) One should not tell the latter to an Am ha'Aretz - because it is only a side-product of flax, and he will probably waste the flax by picking it just for that purpose.

(d) According to Rava, pumpkins are bad for sick people. He therefore explains the Beraisa, which says that they are good - by interpreting the 'sick people' mentioned by the Tana as Talmidei-Chachamim, who are weakened by the Torah that they learn, but not sick in the regular sense of the word.

(a) Rava bases the previous statement on another statement of his, where he says that we Daven for 'Ketziri u'Meri'i' nowadays according to Rebbi Yossi - who says that each person is judged (not just on Rosh Hashanah, but) every day.

(b) We do not Daven for them according to the Rabbanan - because seeing as they were judged finally and irrevocably on Rosh Hashanah, what would be the point of Davening for them during the year?

(c) We prove from this statement - that, according to Rava, all Talmidei-Chachamim are considered 'sick' (as we explained), because 'Ketziri' refers to regular patients, and 'Meri'i', to Talmidei-Chachamim.




(a) Our Mishnah, which permits someone who made a Neder not eat a Tavshil, to eat thick Ma'aseh Kedeirah, does not go like the Bavla'i - who used to eat their thick porridge with bread. Rebbi Zeira called them stupid - because he said, they were eating 'bread with bread'.

(b) 'Nakrani de'Hutzal' means 'the men of Hutzal who would eat in a clean manner'. 'Nakdani (de'Hutzal)' means - ' ...who would take great care about what they ate'.

(c) Bearing in mind that Rav Chisda came from Bavel, the Safek he had (which he hoped the Nakrani de'Hutzal would solve) was - whether the best way to eat Daysa (porridge) was to eat wheat porridge with wheat bread and barley porridge with barley bread, or vice-versa.

(d) Rava would eat it with Chasisi - flour made from fresh wheat-kernels parched in an oven.

(a) When Raba bar Rav Huna asked his father why he ate porridge with his fingers - he quoted Rav as saying that porridge tastes better when it is eaten with a finger, and even better when it is eaten with two fingers, and best of all when it is eaten with three.

(b) Both Rav and Rav Huna advised their sons - to travel up to *one Parsah* (four Mil) in order to eat porridge, but as much as *four* in order to eat the meat of an ox.

(c) The same two Amora'im told their sons - never to spit out food on front of their Rebbe, with the exception of pumpkin and porridge, which are hard to digest (and should therefore be chewed but not swallowed).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi were eating porridge from the same dish. One of them ate it with his hands - the other one, with a straw.

(b) The one asked the other why he fed him the dirt from his fingernails - the second one retorted by asking the first why he fed him his spit.

(c) When Rebbi Yehudah asked Rebbi Shimon why he did not partake from the 'Blusfin' (a species of fig that is hard to digest) that was placed in front of them - Rebbi Shimon replied that it was because they are so difficult to digest that they never leave the body.

(d) The last word however, went to Rebbi Yehudah. In that case, he said, one should certainly eat them, because then they served as a long-term source of nutrition.

(a) When Rebbi Tarfon asked Rebbi Yehudah why his face was shining, he replied that it was because, on the previous day, Rebbi Tarfon's servants had brought them fresh beets from the field and served them without salt. Had they served them *with* salt, he said - his face would have shone even more.

(b) When that Roman matron asked Rebbi Yehudah (whose face was shining) how he could issue rulings whilst in a state of drunkenness - he replied that she must be mistaken, because he even declined to drink the wine of Kidush and Havdalah, and after the four cups on Seder-night, he suffered from head-aches until Shavu'os.

(c) In fact he told her, his face shone because of his wisdom, as the Pasuk in Koheles writes "Chochmas Panav Ta'ir Panav".

(a) A certain Tzedoki told Rebbi Yehudah that his face resembled either that of a moneylender who lent on interest, or to a pig-farmer - both of whom earn lots of easy money, which he believed to be the cause of joy that was reflected on Rebbi Yehudah's face.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah retorted - that neither was possible, because both are forbidden to Jews.

(c) The reason that he gave to explain his shining face - was that he would use all twenty-four public bathrooms that existed on the way from his house to the Beis-ha'Medrash. Notice, that Rebbi Yehudah gave three different reasons to three different people to explain his shining face (see Agados Maharsha).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah would take a barrel with him to the Beis ha'Medrash and say 'Gedolah Melachah, she'Mechabedes es Ba'alehah' - meaning that the effort involved in carrying the barrel to the Beis-ha'Medrash paid off, inasmuch as it provided him with a seat, so that he did not need to sit on the floor.

(b) Rebbi Shimon would do the same thing - only he carried a basket with him to the Beis ha'Medrash.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah's wife purchased wool with which she made a coat - which she shared with her husband; she wore it when she went shopping, and he, when he went to Daven. When Rebbi Yehudah wore it - he would recite 'Baruch ... she'Atani Me'il' (even though it was really a G'lima, which was less auspicious than a Me'il, to him, it was as important as a Me'il).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah did not participate in the proceedings when Raban Shimon ben Gamliel decreed a fast-day - because he did not have a proper coat (a Me'il) to wear.

(c) For some reason, he declined to accept the borrowed coat that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's sent him. He lifted the mat on which he was sitting however - and showed the Sheli'ach who brought it, the scattered gold coins that miraculously appeared there.

(d) He did not make the most of those gold coins, and buy himself a good coat - because it is forbidden to benefit from miracles.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,