Daf A Week · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard
Nedarim 55
Sugya Map
The sugya on Nedarim 55a grapples with the precise definition of agricultural terms within the framework of nedarim (vows). The central nafka mina is determining the scope of prohibition for one who vows abstinence from "grain" (דגן) or "produce" (תבואה).
- Core Issue: What constitutes "דגן" and "תבואה" when used in a vow? Does the term refer to the five species of grain (wheat, barley, oats, spelt, rye) as defined by Torah halacha, or a broader category based on common parlance or agricultural practice?
- Nafka Mina(s):
- Whether dry cowpea (פול המצרי יבש) is forbidden to one who vows against "דגן."
- Whether fruits, vegetables, or other field crops are included in a vow against "תבואה" or "דגן."
- The scope of "עלאלת" (crop) in financial agreements.
- The hermeneutic principle of interpreting nedarim: leshon Torah vs. leshon bnei adam (common parlance).
- Primary Sources:
- Mishnah Nedarim 55a: Establishes the core machloket between R' Meir and the Rabbis regarding "דגן" and "תבואה."
- Gemara Nedarim 55a: Explores the definitions through textual analysis, baraitot, and real-life scenarios (Rava's alalta query).
- II Chronicles 31:5: "וכיפרח הדבר הרבו בני ישראל ויתנו ראשית דגן תירוש ויצהר וכל תבואת השדה" – A key pasuk used to distinguish "דגן" from "תבואת השדה."
- Mishnah Berakhot 40b: Cited to discuss the blessing on truffles and mushrooms, which informs the definition of "growths of the ground."
- Numbers 21:18-20, Isaiah 40:4: The pesukim used in Rava's derasha to appease Rav Yosef, illustrating the value of humility.
- Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 12b: Discusses Rosh Hashanah for nedarim, relevant to the alalta discussion's definition of "year."
Full Experience in the App
Listen. Chat. Go deeper.
Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.
Text Snapshot
The sugya opens with a foundational machloket in the Mishnah: Mishnah:
הנודר מן הדגן, אסור בפול המצרי יבש, דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים: אינו אסור אלא מחמשת המינין. רבי מאיר אומר: הנודר מן התבואה, אינו אסור אלא מחמשת המינין. אבל הנודר מן הדגן, אסור בכל מידגן, ומותר בפירות האילן ובירקות. [Nedarim 55a:2-5] Nuance: R' Meir's initial statement implies "דגן" includes "פול המצרי יבש" because it is "מידגן" (placed in a pile). The Rabbis restrict "דגן" to the chamashat minim. R' Meir then clarifies his own position, distinguishing "תבואה" (narrow, five species) from "דגן" (broad, anything midgan). The term "מידגן" (lit. 'dagan-ified' or 'made into a pile') is central to R' Meir's stance.
The Gemara immediately probes R' Meir's broad definition of "דגן": Gemara:
אי הכי דגן כל מידגן? מיתיבי: "וכיפרח הדבר הרבו בני ישראל ויתנו ראשית דגן תירוש ויצהר וכל תבואת השדה" [II Chronicles 31:5]. ואי אמרת דגן כל מידגן, כל תבואת השדה למה לי? [Nedarim 55a:7-9] Nuance: The Gemara queries the redundancy in the pasuk if "דגן" already covers "כל מידגן," which ostensibly would include "כל תבואת השדה." This assumes "תבואת השדה" would be a subset of "מידגן."
Abaye offers an initial resolution: Gemara:
אמר אביי: לאתויי פירות האילן וירקות. [Nedarim 55a:10] Nuance: Abaye suggests "תבואת השדה" in the pasuk is an inclusion for fruits and vegetables, thereby distinguishing it from dagan which would not include them. This implies dagan is narrower than "all field produce" but still broad enough to cause the initial kushya.
Later, the Gemara revisits the definition of "תבואה": Gemara:
אמר ר' יוחנן: הכל מודים בנדר מן התבואה שאינו אסור אלא מחמשת המינין. [Nedarim 55a:13] Nuance: This statement, also found in a baraita, solidifies that "תבואה" generally refers only to the five species, narrowing Abaye's earlier interpretation of "תבואת השדה" if that were to define all tevua.
Rav Yosef objects again from the same pasuk, leading to Rava's pivotal distinction: Gemara:
מיתיבי: "וכיפרח הדבר הרבו בני ישראל ויתנו ראשית דגן... וכל תבואת השדה". רבי יוסף: כל תבואת השדה לאתויי כל מיני דשדה. אמר רבא: תבואה לחוד ותבואה דשדה לחוד. [Nedarim 55a:16-18] Nuance: Rav Yosef's kushya is now on the definition of "תבואה" itself. Rava resolves it by distinguishing between the specific term "תבואה" (the five species) and the broader phrase "כל תבואת השדה" (all crops of the field). This is a crucial dikduk of lashon.
Readings
The sugya in Nedarim 55a is a masterclass in linguistic analysis, seeking to delineate the precise scope of terms like dagan and tevua when invoked in a neder. The Rishonim and Acharonim illuminate the underlying principles and practical implications.
Rashi: Defining Terms and Intent
Rashi unpacks the Mishnah's terms with characteristic clarity. For the Rabbis' position, Rashi on our Mishnah (s.v. אלא מחמשת מינין) simply lists the chamashat minim – wheat, barley, spelt, rye, and oats – establishing the baseline for "דגן" according to their view. This is the narrow, halachic definition derived from Torah usage.
When R' Meir presents his nuanced view, Rashi on Nedarim 55a (s.v. רבי מאיר אומר בו') elucidates: R' Meir concedes that "תבואה" (produce) refers exclusively to the five species. However, for "דגן" (grain), R' Meir expands the definition to "כל מין דמידגן משמע דבר שעושין ממנו כר" – any type that is "מידגן," meaning "something from which a pile/threshing floor is made." This explains why "פול המצרי יבש" (dry cowpea) is included for R' Meir, as it too is piled like grain. Rashi highlights that R' Meir differentiates between "תבואה" and "דגן," with the latter being a broader, more functional term in common parlance. This distinction is crucial for understanding the machloket: is the noder bound by the Torah's precise definition or by the common understanding of the term?
Tosafot & Ran: Reinforcing R' Meir's Functional Definition
Tosafot (Nedarim 55a s.v. אסור בפול המצרי) concur with Rashi's understanding of R' Meir's principle for dagan: "דכל מידי דאידגן שמעמידין אותו בכרי נקרא דגן" – anything that is idgan (made into a kri – a pile or stack) is called dagan. This reiterates that for R' Meir, the function or manner of harvesting/storage (piling) defines dagan, not merely the species.
Similarly, the Ran (Nedarim 55a s.v. מתני' הנודר מן הדגן אסור בפול המצרי יבש) states: "דכיון דמידגן שעושין ממנו דגן סבירא ליה לר' מאיר דדגן מיקרי" – since it is midgan (from which dagan is made, or which is piled like dagan), R' Meir considers it dagan. Both Tosafot and Ran emphasize this functional definition, solidifying R' Meir's chiddush that dagan is broader than the chamashat minim.
Shita Mekubetzet: The Hermeneutic Divide
The Shita Mekubetzet (Nedarim 55a s.v. מתניתין הנודר מן הדגן אסור בפול המצרי יבש דברי רבי מאיר, citing the Ran [presumably the Ramban in some editions, or a general reference to the Ba'alei Tosafot as "הרנב"י ז"ל" in the context of the Shita Mekubetzet]) distills the essence of the machloket: "דקא סלקא דעתיה דרבי מאיר דכל שעושין ממנו גורן איקרי דגן... וחכמים אומרים אינו אסור אלא מחמשת המינין והאי נודר ללשון תורה נתכוון ורבי מאיר סבר ללשון בני אדם נתכוון." This is a critical insight. R' Meir assumes the noder intends to use the term dagan according to leshon bnei adam – common, everyday usage, which includes anything piled on a threshing floor. The Rabbis, however, presume the noder intends leshon Torah – the more precise, halachic definition of dagan as the five species. This distinction between "common parlance" and "Torah language" is a recurring theme in nedarim and shevuot, and the Shita Mekubetzet highlights it here as the root of the disagreement.
Rashba: The Enigma of Processed Grains
The Rashba (Nedarim 55a s.v. הנודר מן הדגן אסור בפול המצרי יבש) delves into a fascinating tzarich iyun stemming from a baraita later in the sugya. The baraita states that one who vows from dagan is permitted אורז בחילקא בטירגיז ובטיסני (rice, split wheat kernels, crushed wheat kernels, and finely crushed wheat kernels). The Rashba notes: "ומיהו אפשר לדחות דהתם כבר פריש טרגיז וטיסני וצריך עיון." This "צריך עיון" is potent. If R' Meir's definition of dagan is "anything midgan," and the Rabbis' definition is the "five species," then wheat products like chilka, targeiz, and tisnei (all derived from wheat) should seemingly be forbidden under either definition (especially for the Rabbis, as they are wheat). The Rashba offers a potential distinction: "מסתברא דאסור דקתני הכא דוקא לכוס, אבל לאפות לא כנודר מן (החטה) [החטים – לפי המגיה המאירי]." He speculates that the prohibition on dagan might apply differently to eating it as a raw ingredient ("כוס") versus using it for baking ("לאפות"). However, the greater difficulty lies in the baraita's plain statement that these processed wheat products are permitted. This challenges the straightforward understanding of dagan. If dagan is the raw grain, perhaps processing fundamentally changes its identity, removing it from the category of dagan. The Mishnah itself says "פול המצרי יבש" (dry cowpea) is forbidden, but the baraita explicitly states "ומותר בפול המצרי לח" (fresh cowpea is permitted). This suggests that the state of the produce is critical. Fresh cowpeas aren't "מידגן" (piled), but dry ones are. Likewise, highly processed wheat might no longer be considered "מידגן" or "דגן" in the same sense as whole kernels. The Rashba's tzarich iyun thus points to a deeper question about the parameters of "דגן": is it about the species, the form, or the stage of processing?
Rosh: Defining "Year" in Nedarim
The Rosh (Rosh on Nedarim 8:2:1), while not directly on the dagan/tevua debate, is highly relevant to the later sugya concerning "עלאלת" (crop) and the definition of a "year" in nedarim. The Gemara on Nedarim 55a discusses the son of Shmuel's instruction to give Rava money from the "עלאלת" of his fields, leading to Rava's query about what "עלאלת" includes. The Rosh discusses a baraita from Rosh Hashanah 12b: "באחד בתשרי ראש השנה לירקות ולמעשרות ולנדרים." The Rosh explains the implication for nedarim: "המודר הנאה מחבירו לשנה מונה שנים עשר חדש מיום ליום ואם אמר שנה זו אפילו לא עמד אלא עשרים ותשעה באלול עלתה לו שנה." This distinguishes between vowing "לשנה" (for a year, meaning 12 full months from the day of the vow) and "שנה זו" (this year, which refers to the calendar year ending on Rosh Hashanah, even if the vow was made late in the year). This principle is crucial for defining the scope of vows tied to specific timeframes or agricultural cycles, mirroring the alalta discussion's need to define "crop of the year." The Rosh further notes: "ואימא ניסן בנדרים הלך אחר לשון בני אדם והא דתנן הכא אסור בה ובעבורה אם אמר שנה אחת אסור שלשה עשר חדש ולא אמרינן לא היתה דעתו על שנה מעוברת אלא כסתם השנים שהם שנים עשר חדש אלא בנדרים הלך אחר לשון בני אדם ובין פשוטה ובין מעוברת קרויה שנה." This reinforces the Shita Mekubetzet's point about leshon bnei adam. Even if "a year" commonly implies 12 months, in nedarim, if the year is me'uberet (leap year), it includes the extra month, because common parlance considers both types of years as "a year." This illustrates the tension and interplay between common understanding and halachic definitions, a central theme of our sugya.
Friction
The sugya presents several points of hermeneutic friction, primarily revolving around the definition of terms and the principle of leshon bnei adam versus leshon Torah.
Kushya: The Semantic Dance of Dagan and Tevua
The most prominent friction point arises from the Gemara's grappling with the terms "דגן" and "תבואה" in II Chronicles 31:5: "וכיפרח הדבר הרבו בני ישראל ויתנו ראשית דגן תירוש ויצהר וכל תבואת השדה" (And as soon as the matter was publicized, the children of Israel gave in abundance the first fruits of dagan, wine, and oil, and of all the tevua of the field). The Gemara's initial kushya directly challenges R' Meir's expansive definition of dagan as "כל מידגן" (anything that is piled). If dagan already encompasses all produce that is piled, then what is the purpose of adding "וכל תבואת השדה" (and all the produce of the field)? This would appear redundant, as "כל מידגן" should logically cover most "תבואת השדה." [Nedarim 55a:7-9]
Abaye's Initial Terutz: Abaye initially resolves this by suggesting that "תבואת השדה" comes "לאתויי פירות האילן וירקות" (to include fruits of the tree and vegetables). [Nedarim 55a:10] This implies that dagan is broader than the chamashat minim (as per R' Meir), but not so broad as to include fruits and vegetables. "תבואת השדה" then functions as an inclusion for these items, distinguishing them from dagan. This terutz allows for R' Meir's broader definition of dagan while maintaining the non-redundancy of the pasuk.
The Friction with the Baraita and Rava's Resolution: The tension escalates when the Gemara later introduces a baraita (and R' Yochanan's statement) asserting that "הכל מודים בנדר מן התבואה שאינו אסור אלא מחמשת המינין" (everyone concedes that one who vows from tevua is prohibited only from the five species of grain). [Nedarim 55a:13] This baraita significantly narrows the definition of "תבואה" itself, making Abaye's earlier terutz problematic. If "תבואה" generally means only the five species, how could "כל תבואת השדה" be interpreted as including fruits and vegetables without contradicting this narrow definition of tevua? Rav Yosef then reiterates the kushya from the pasuk, now implicitly challenging the consistency of tevua's definition.
Rava's Terutz: Rava offers a surgical distinction: "תבואה לחוד ותבואה דשדה לחוד" (plain tevua is one thing, and tevua of the field is another). [Nedarim 55a:18] This is the strongest terutz to resolve the friction. Rava asserts that "תבואה" by itself, as used in a neder (and for which everyone agrees it means the five species), is indeed narrow. However, the phrase "כל תבואת השדה" in the pasuk is a distinct term that encompasses all crops of the field, including fruits and vegetables. This allows the baraita's narrow definition of "תבואה" to stand, while simultaneously explaining the non-redundancy of the pasuk without forcing "תבואה" into a universally broad category. Rava's solution embraces the idea that context and specific phrasing dictate the scope of a term, even if the root word (תבואה) has a narrower default meaning. This is a sophisticated linguistic analysis, differentiating between a standalone term and a composite phrase.
Kushya: Rashba's "Tzarich Iyun" on Processed Grains
A secondary, but conceptually deep, friction point arises from the Rashba's tzarich iyun on the baraita which permits "אורז בחילקא בטירגיז ובטיסני" (rice, split wheat kernels, crushed wheat kernels, and finely crushed wheat kernels) for one who vows from dagan. [Nedarim 55a:25, Rashba Nedarim 55a:1] The kushya is: If dagan includes "anything midgan" (R' Meir) or the "five species" (Rabbis), why are processed wheat products like chilka, targeiz, and tisnei (all derived from wheat) permitted? They are undeniably from wheat, a core dagan. The Rashba struggles with this, noting "ומיהו אפשר לדחות דהתם כבר פריש טרגיז וטיסני וצריך עיון." This implies the baraita itself is problematic or requires a nuanced reading.
Terutz (Implicit in the Sugya and Rishonim): The resolution lies in understanding that "דגן" likely refers to the raw, unprocessed state of the grain that is suitable for piling/threshing. The Mishnah itself specifies "פול המצרי יבש" (dry cowpea) as forbidden, while the later baraita explicitly states that "פול המצרי לח" (fresh cowpea) is permitted. [Nedarim 55a:23] This strongly suggests that the state of the produce is critical for its categorization as "דגן." Fresh cowpeas are not "מידגן" (piled), but dry ones are. By extension, once wheat is processed into chilka, targeiz, or tisnei, it loses its identity as "דגן" in the sense of a raw, pile-able grain. It is no longer "מידגן" in the primary sense of being piled for storage or threshing as a whole grain. This aligns with the idea that nedarim often follow specific, sometimes narrow, understandings of terms as they apply to the object itself rather than its derivatives. The noder vows against "דגן," not against "food made from dagan." This also implicitly supports the R' Meir's "מידגן" definition – the process of piling defines it, and once it's processed beyond that stage, it's no longer that defined item.
Intertext
The sugya on Nedarim 55a, rich in linguistic and halachic nuance, finds resonance and clarification in various other primary texts, highlighting broader principles of interpretation in Jewish law.
Tanakh: II Chronicles 31:5 – The Lexical Bedrock
The verse "וכיפרח הדבר הרבו בני ישראל ויתנו ראשית דגן תירוש ויצהר וכל תבואת השדה" (II Chronicles 31:5) is central to the Gemara's initial kushya and Rava's subsequent resolution regarding the distinction between "דגן" and "תבואת השדה." This pasuk forces the Gemara to precisely define these terms. The inclusion of dagan, tirosh (wine), yitzhar (oil), and then all tevua of the field necessitates a hermeneutic explanation to avoid redundancy. As discussed, Abaye's initial interpretation that tevua of the field includes fruits and vegetables, and Rava's more refined distinction between "תבואה לחוד ותבואה דשדה לחוד," are direct responses to this biblical text. This demonstrates how biblical phrasing drives rabbinic linguistic analysis and the establishment of halachic categories.
Sifrei Devarim 133: Defining Dagan in Torah Language
The Sifrei Devarim 133 on the verse "וכי יתן לכם דגן, תירוש ויצהר" (Devarim 11:14) states: "דגן - חמשת מיני דגן: חטה, שעורה, כוסמין, שיפון ושיבולת שועל" (Dagan – the five species of grain: wheat, barley, spelt, rye, and oats). [Sifrei Devarim 133:1] This Sifrei directly supports the Rabbis' position in our Mishnah (Nedarim 55a:3) that "דגן" refers only to the five species. It establishes a clear leshon Torah definition for dagan, which contrasts sharply with R' Meir's leshon bnei adam (common parlance) definition of "anything midgan." This intertextual parallel underscores the fundamental machloket identified by the Shita Mekubetzet: whether a neder follows the precise, halachic definition derived from Torah exegesis or the broader, functional understanding of everyday speech. In many areas of halacha, leshon Torah takes precedence, and the Sifrei provides the basis for that here.
Mishnah Berakhot 40b: Defining "Growths of the Ground"
The Gemara on Nedarim 55a (55b:10-14) itself introduces a reference to Mishnah Berakhot 40b to clarify the meaning of "גידולי קרקע" (growths of the ground) in the context of vows. The Mishnah in Berakhot states: "על דבר שאין גדולי מן הארץ אומר שהכל נהיה בדברו" (Over an item whose growth is not from the ground, one recites: By Whose word all things came to be). The Gemara then cites a baraita listing salt, brine, truffles, and mushrooms as items over which "שהכל" is recited, implying they are "אין גדולי מן הארץ." This creates a contradiction with the Nedarim baraita (Nedarim 55b:8) that permits truffles and mushrooms if one vows from "פרי הארץ" (produce of the land), but prohibits them if one vows "גידולי קרקע" (growths of the ground). Abaye resolves this by stating that truffles and mushrooms "גדלי מן הארץ, אבל למזונן יונקות מן האויר ולא מן הארץ" (grow from the earth, but for their sustenance, they draw from the air and not from the earth). The Gemara then emends the Mishnah in Berakhot to read: "על דבר שאינו יונק מן הארץ" (Over an item that does not draw sustenance from the ground). [Nedarim 55b:14-15] This entire discussion is a meta-lesson in defining terms. It shows how the Sages meticulously analyze the precise nuance of a phrase ("גדולי מן הארץ" vs. "יונק מן הארץ") to reconcile apparent contradictions and establish accurate halachic categories. This rigorous approach to linguistic precision directly mirrors the detailed analysis of dagan and tevua in our sugya.
Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 12b: Defining "Year" for Nedarim
The Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 12b (and its accompanying baraita) provides the framework for understanding the definition of a "year" in nedarim, a point picked up by the Rosh on Nedarim 8:2:1 (which the prompt provided for Nedarim 55a). The Mishnah states: "באחד בתשרי ראש השנה לירקות ולמעשרות ולנדרים." [Rosh Hashanah 12b:1] The baraita further elaborates: "המודר הנאה מחבירו לשנה – מונה שנים עשר חדש מיום ליום; ואם אמר 'שנה זו' – אפילו לא עמד אלא עשרים ותשעה באלול, עלתה לו שנה." [Rosh Hashanah 12b:11] This distinction between "לשנה" (for a year) and "שנה זו" (this year) is crucial. "לשנה" implies a full solar year of 365 days from the vow's date, while "שנה זו" refers to the current Tishrei-based calendar year, even if only a short period remains. This directly impacts the "עלאלת" (crop) discussion in Nedarim 55a (55a:20-22), where Rava queries the scope of "עלאלת" from the Panya River. If "עלאלת" refers to "crop of the year," the definition of "year" (and thus what crops are included) becomes paramount. This intertextual reference reinforces the idea that even seemingly straightforward terms like "year" require precise halachic definition, often guided by the calendar and agricultural cycles, mirroring the debate over dagan and tevua.
Psak/Practice
The sugya's rigorous linguistic analysis of dagan and tevua culminates in practical halachic directives, primarily concerning the scope of nedarim. The psak generally aligns with the Rabbis' more restrictive interpretation for dagan, while incorporating the principle of leshon bnei adam for specific contexts.
The foundational machloket in our Mishnah (Nedarim 55a:2-5) is between R' Meir, who defines dagan broadly as "כל מידגן" (anything piled like grain), and the Rabbis, who limit it to the chamashat minim (five species of grain). The halacha follows the Rabbis. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 218:1 rules explicitly: "הנודר מן הדגן, אינו אסור אלא מחמשת המינים" (One who vows concerning dagan is prohibited only from the five species). This is a clear rejection of R' Meir's broader definition of dagan and a validation of the leshon Torah approach for this specific term. Therefore, in practice, if one vows "דגן עלי" (grain is forbidden to me), they are only prohibited from wheat, barley, oats, spelt, and rye, and may eat dry cowpeas, rice, etc.
However, the sugya also introduces the nuanced principle of "הכל הולך אחר לשון הנודר" (everything follows the intention/language of the vower), particularly emphasized by Rabbi Yehuda in the latter part of the Mishnah (Nedarim 55a:29-30) regarding vows concerning garments. This principle, while not directly overturning the psak for dagan, suggests a meta-psak heuristic:
- Default to Leshon Torah / Established Halachic Meaning: For ambiguous or general terms like dagan, the default is the halachically established, narrower definition (the five species), as codified in the Shulchan Aruch. This is the psak for dagan.
- Contextual Leshon Bnei Adam: If the noder's specific context, locale, or explicit phrasing clearly indicates a different meaning (as in R' Yehuda's example of one sweating from carrying wool, intending to forbid carrying not wearing), then leshon bnei adam (common parlance) or the specific intent of the vower takes precedence. For instance, if someone in a region where "דגן" colloquially refers to all legumes specifically says "דגן עלי" with the clear intent to forbid all legumes, a Chacham might find an opening for hatarat neder or interpret it broadly based on that specific noder's intent, though the default halacha remains narrow.
The discussion about "עלאלת" (crop) in the Gemara (Nedarim 55a:19-22) also has practical implications. Rav Yosef equates alalta to the five species (like tevua), while Abaye asserts it means "כל מיני דשדה" (all items that grow). The Gemara itself (55a:22) concludes that Rava's original question about "עלאלת" was not about what it includes (he believed it to be "all items") but about rents from houses/boats. This implies that for alalta, the broader interpretation of "all items" is implicitly accepted, distinguishing it from the narrower tevua. This would affect financial agreements or tithing based on "crops" from a field.
In summary, for nedarim regarding "דגן," the psak follows the Rabbis, limiting it to the five species. However, the broader sugya reinforces that the intent and common usage (leshon bnei adam) can override strict definitions when clearly contextualized, a vital principle for a Chacham when addressing she'eilot about nedarim.
Takeaway
The sugya masterfully demonstrates the intricate balance between precise halachic definitions (leshon Torah) and contextual common parlance (leshon bnei adam) in interpreting nedarim. It underscores that seemingly simple words like "grain" demand rigorous linguistic and conceptual analysis to establish their legal scope, often leading to deep philosophical insights about humility and learning.
Citations
- Nedarim 55a:2-5
- Nedarim 55a:7-9
- Nedarim 55a:10
- Nedarim 55a:13
- Nedarim 55a:16-18
- Nedarim 55a:29-30
- Nedarim 55b:8
- Nedarim 55b:10-14
- Nedarim 55b:14-15
- II Chronicles 31:5
- Numbers 21:18-20
- Isaiah 40:4
- Rashi on Nedarim 55a:1:1 s.v. אלא מחמשת מינין
- Rashi on Nedarim 55a:1:2 s.v. רבי מאיר אומר בו'
- Tosafot on Nedarim 55a:1:1 s.v. אסור בפול המצרי
- Ran on Nedarim 55a:1:1 s.v. מתני' הנודר מן הדגן אסור בפול המצרי יבש
- Rashba on Nedarim 55a:1 s.v. הנודר מן הדגן אסור בפול המצרי יבש
- Shita Mekubetzet on Nedarim 55a:1 s.v. מתניתין הנודר מן הדגן אסור בפול המצרי יבש דברי רבי מאיר
- Rosh on Nedarim 8:2:1
- Sifrei Devarim 133:1
- Mishnah Berakhot 40b
- Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 12b:1
- Rosh Hashanah 12b:11
- Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 218:1
derekhlearning.com