Parashat Hashavua DevarimHaftarah Isaiah 1:1-27Daf Yomi Chullin 77929 Judges 19 (230)Daily Mishnah Mishnah Kelim 17:16-17Daily Rambam Leavened and Unleavened Bread 7Daily Rambam (3 Chapters) Sacrificial Procedure 16-18Daf a Week Nedarim 90Halakhah Yomit Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 224:4-6Arukh HaShulchan Yomi Orach Chaim 318:47-54Tanakh Yomi Proverbs Seder 8Chok LeYisrael DevarimTanya Yomi 2 AvYerushalmi Yomi Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 31

Yerushalmi Yomi · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:1:2-4:2

StandardExpert – Beit Midrash AnalysisNovember 14, 2025

Sugya Map

  • Issue: The definition and scope of "cooked food" (מְבוּשָּׁל) in vows, and how this relates to other forms of food preparation like roasting (צְלִי), scalding (שָׁלוּק), and thickening (עָבֶה). The Yerushalmi also delves into the differing criteria for interpreting vows: common usage (מִדַּת הַבְּרִיוֹת / הַשְּׁגָגָה) versus biblical language (מִדַּת הַכָּתוּב).
  • Nafka Mina(s):
    • Determining the precise boundaries of a vow made against "cooked food."
    • Understanding whether "cooked food" encompasses or excludes related preparations like roasting and scalding.
    • Resolving discrepancies between seemingly contradictory statements in the Mishnah and Halakhah regarding the interpretation of vows.
    • Establishing the operative principle for interpreting vows: reliance on common parlance or strict adherence to biblical terminology.
    • Defining specific food items like soft-boiled eggs, ash-gourds, and various preparations (thickened dishes, baked goods, salted items) within the context of vows.
    • The broader implications for interpreting vows involving other categories of food and prohibitions.
  • Primary Sources:
    • Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:1 (Mishnah and Halakhah)
    • Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 10:6:2
    • Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1-9
    • Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:3:14
    • Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:4:2
    • Jerusalem Talmud Peah 8:7:6
    • Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 2:1:11
    • Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1 (3c 1. 65)
    • Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:9 (41d 1. 35)
    • Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 38a
    • Jerusalem Talmud Demai 1:3:16
    • Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:2-6
    • Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 9:2:1-2
    • Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:6:4
    • Numbers 6:18
    • 2 Chronicles 35:13
    • Exodus 12:9
    • Numbers 29:35
    • Genesis 45:23
    • Exodus 23:19; 34:26
    • Deuteronomy 14:21; 2:28
    • Mishnah Shabbat 7:2
    • Mishnah Ma‘serot 4:1
    • Mishnah Oktzin 2:6
    • Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 49a, 50b, 51a, 51b, 57b, 58a, 60a
    • Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 35b, 37a, 44a
    • Babylonian Talmud Yoma 47a, 41b
    • Tosefta Nedarim (Lieberman) 3:2, 3:5

Full Experience in the App

Listen. Chat. Go deeper.

Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.

Download on the App Store

Text Snapshot

The foundational statement from the Mishnah sets the stage for a nuanced discussion on vows related to food preparation:

MISHNAH: One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food.1 If one said, a qônām that I will not taste a cooked dish, he is forbidden fine dishes2 and permitted thick ones3. Also he is permitted a soft boiled egg4 and ash-gourd5.

  • Nuance: The term "cooked food" (מְבוּשָּׁל) is immediately qualified. While initially seeming straightforward, the Mishnah introduces exceptions (roasted, scalded) and distinctions (fine vs. thick dishes, soft-boiled egg, ash-gourd). This suggests that "cooked food" in the context of vows is not a monolithic category but depends on the specifics of preparation and perceived edibility. The footnote on shalak (שָׁלוּק) is crucial, arguing against the Babylonian interpretation of long-term preservation and favoring scalding, a point that directly impacts the definition of "cooked." The distinction between "fine" (רַךְ) and "thick" (עָבֶה) dishes points to a textural or moisture-based classification, likely tied to how the food is consumed (e.g., with bread or on its own).

The Halakhah then grapples with the apparent contradiction and the underlying principles:

HALAKHAH: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food,” etc. A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it7.” A verse [states] that “roasted” is called “cooked”8: “They cooked the pesaḥ” etc. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule”. A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage9. What is the difference between them? ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles.’ In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the eighth day of the holiday10. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rebbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions11.

  • Nuance: This section is the crux of the sugya. The Halakhah presents seemingly contradictory evidence:
    • A Mishnah in Nazir (6:9:1) equates scalding with cooking.
    • A verse in Chronicles (35:13) equates roasting with cooking.
    • Yet, the Nedarim Mishnah permits roasted and scalded food when one vows against "cooked food." This leads to the fundamental debate between R. Yoḥanan and R. Yoshiya. R. Yoḥanan posits that vows are interpreted according to middat ha-briyot (common usage), where roasted and scalded are distinct from mevushal (cooked in a pot). R. Yoshiya, conversely, argues for middat ha-katuv (biblical usage), where biblical texts themselves equate these preparations. The example of wine on Shemini Atzeret (the eighth day, often popularly associated with Sukkot but distinct biblically) highlights the practical difference: R. Yoḥanan's middat ha-briyot would naturally extend the prohibition to the biblically designated eighth day, while R. Yoshiya's middat ha-katuv requires a more explicit biblical connection to extend the prohibition. The final clause, "Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions," suggests that R. Yoshiya might concede R. Yoḥanan's principle in certain cases where the vernacular itself draws a distinction, but his default is biblical language.

Readings

Rashi on Nedarim 49a (Babylonian Talmud)

While the primary text is the Yerushalmi, understanding the Babylonian Talmud's treatment of these issues is crucial, as the Yerushalmi often clarifies or responds to the Bavlian discourse. Rashi's commentary on Nedarim 49a provides a foundational interpretation of the sugya that informs the Yerushalmi's approach.

Rashi explains the Mishnah's statement that one who vows against "cooked food" is permitted roasted and scalded food by referencing middat ha-briyot. He writes:21

"One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food." This means that in common parlance, people distinguish between mevushal (cooked in a pot), tzali (roasted), and shaluk (scalded). Therefore, if one vows against mevushal, he has only taken upon himself the prohibition of food cooked in a pot, and the other preparations are not included in his vow.

Rashi's Chiddush: Rashi emphasizes the decisive role of middat ha-briyot (common usage) in interpreting vows. He sees the Mishnah as a direct application of this principle, where the everyday understanding of culinary terms dictates the scope of the vow. The distinction between mevushal, tzali, and shaluk is not based on an objective culinary definition but on how people colloquially categorize these cooking methods. This is the standard approach for vows unless explicitly overridden by a biblical term or a more specific vow.

Rashba, Novellae on Nedarim 49a

The Rashba, in his Hiddushim on Nedarim, directly engages with the Yerushalmi's text and its relationship to the Babylonian Talmud, offering a sophisticated analysis of the sugya's internal logic.

The Rashba begins by analyzing the Yerushalmi's apparent contradiction:

Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted a thick dish? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden soft dishes and permitted thick ones.” Since a dish which would be forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, regarding “cooked food” which permits roasted and scalded, is it not logical that he be permitted the thick dish? Are there arguments de minore ad majus in matters of vows? But it must be so: Since a dish which is forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, the cooked which is permitted roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish. (Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:1:2-3)23

The Rashba's Chiddush: The Rashba's primary contribution here is his methodological approach to reconciling the Yerushalmi's statements. He demonstrates that the Yerushalmi's argument is not a simple kal v'chomer (a fortiori argument) in the strict sense, but rather a comparison based on shared characteristics and the principle of middat ha-briyot. He notes the difficulty in applying kal v'chomer to vows, as R. Yoḥanan famously stated that vows follow common usage, which is not governed by strict logical deductions in the same way as halakhic statutes.

Instead, the Rashba explains the Yerushalmi's logic as follows:

  1. The Mishnah distinguishes between "fine dishes" (רַךְ) and "thick dishes" (עָבֶה).
  2. If one vows against "cooked food" (מְבוּשָּׁל), he is permitted tzali (roasted) and shaluk (scalded). This implies that tzali and shaluk are not encompassed by the term mevushal in this context, following middat ha-briyot.
  3. The Yerushalmi then asks: if tzali and shaluk are permitted under a vow against mevushal, and tzali and shaluk are also distinct from "fine dishes" (which are forbidden to someone vowing against "cooked dish"), then it stands to reason that "thick dishes" (עָבֶה), which are permitted even when tzali or shaluk might be considered "fine" in some sense, should also be permitted to someone vowing against mevushal.
  4. The Rashba clarifies that the Yerushalmi's argument isn't a formal kal v'chomer but a reasoned deduction based on the premise that tzali and shaluk are permitted under a vow against mevushal. If these are permitted, and the distinction between fine and thick dishes is also operative, then a thick dish (which is inherently less "moist" or "fine") should certainly be permitted. The underlying principle remains middat ha-briyot.

Korban Ha'edah on Nedarim 6:1:1-2 (Yerushalmi)

The Korban Ha'edah offers a detailed explication of the Yerushalmi's text, often clarifying the precise meaning of terms and the flow of argumentation.

Regarding the initial Mishnah and Halakhah:

Korban Ha'edah on Nedarim 6:1:1: "One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food." That is, he said, "Konam, cooked food upon me."

Korban Ha'edah on Nedarim 6:1:2: "Is permitted roasted and scalded food." This is because they are not included in the category of 'cooked' in the common understanding. For even though the Mishnah in Nazir states that shaluk is considered mevushal (cooked), and the verse in Chronicles states that tzali is considered mevushal, these are biblical or rabbinic definitions that do not override the common usage (middat ha-briyot) which is the basis for interpreting vows.

The Korban Ha'edah's Chiddush: The Korban Ha'edah emphasizes that the Yerushalmi's resolution hinges on the primacy of middat ha-briyot over other potential definitions. It explicitly states that the Nazir Mishnah and the verse from Chronicles, while establishing a halakhic equivalence for certain purposes, do not establish this equivalence for the interpretation of vows, which must adhere to the vernacular. This reinforces R. Yoḥanan's principle and explains why the Nedarim Mishnah permits tzali and shaluk despite the other sources. The Korban Ha'edah acts as a faithful interpreter of the Yerushalmi's explicit pronouncements.

Friction

The core friction in this sugya revolves around the tension between biblical terminology/rabbinic pronouncements that equate different cooking methods and common usage (middat ha-briyot), which the Yerushalmi, following R. Yoḥanan, posits as the ultimate arbiter in matters of vows.

The Strongest Kushya:

The Mishnah in Nedarim states: "One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food." (ירושלמי נדרים ו:א:ב). However, the sugya itself brings evidence that seems to contradict this permission:

  1. Mishnah in Nazir: The Halakhah section explicitly states: "A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: 'If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it'" (ירושלמי נדרים ו:א:ב). This Mishnah (Nazir 6:9:1) equates shaluk (scalded) with mevushal (cooked) for the purpose of a nazir's offering.
  2. Biblical Verse: The Halakhah further cites: "A verse [states] that 'roasted' is called 'cooked': 'They cooked the pesaḥ' etc." (ירושלמי נדרים ו:א:ב), referencing 2 Chronicles 35:13, which describes the Passover sacrifice being "cooked" (ve'achal'u - וּבִשְּׁלוּ) by fire, implying roasting, as Exodus 12:9 describes the pesach as "roasted in fire" (צְלִי-אֵשׁ).

Given these sources that explicitly equate scalding and roasting with cooking, how can the Nedarim Mishnah permit them when one vows against "cooked food"? This presents a direct clash between the specific ruling in Nedarim and broader halakhic and biblical definitions.

The Best Terutz (or Two):

The Yerushalmi itself provides the resolution through the debate between R. Yoḥanan and R. Yoshiya:

Terutz 1: R. Yoḥanan's Principle - Primacy of Common Usage (Middat Ha-Briyot)

Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. (ירושלמי נדרים ו:א:ב)

This is the most direct and powerful explanation. R. Yoḥanan posits that the interpretation of vows is governed by middat ha-briyot—the way people ordinarily speak and understand terms in their daily lives. In common parlance, "cooked food" (mevushal) refers specifically to food boiled or stewed in a pot. Roasting (tzali) and scalding (shaluk), while they involve heat and transformation, are perceived and spoken of as distinct culinary processes. Therefore, when someone vows against "cooked food," they are understood to mean only what is commonly understood as mevushal, and not tzali or shaluk. The Mishnah in Nazir and the verse in Chronicles establish these equivalences for their specific contexts (e.g., ritual purity of offerings, Passover sacrifice requirements), but these do not override the vernacular for the interpretation of personal vows.

Terutz 2: R. Yoshiya's Nuance - Biblical Usage as a Default, with Caveats

R. Yoshiya's position, that "in matters of vows one follows biblical usage," initially seems to support the prohibition of tzali and shaluk. If biblical usage equates them with mevushal, then a vow against mevushal should include them. However, the Yerushalmi clarifies R. Yoshiya's stance:

Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions. (ירושלמי נדרים ו:א:ב)

This crucial addendum suggests that R. Yoshiya's adherence to biblical usage is not absolute when it contradicts a clear distinction in everyday language, particularly if the biblical usage serves to restrict the vow beyond its common meaning. The Yerushalmi's example of wine on Sukkot, where R. Yoḥanan permits it on the eighth day (part of common Sukkot observance) while R. Yoshiya forbids it (as the eighth day is biblically distinct), illustrates a different facet of their debate. However, regarding food preparation, R. Yoshiya might concede that if the vernacular clearly separates tzali and shaluk from mevushal, then even biblical equivalence doesn't force inclusion in a vow against mevushal. The principle seems to be that if the biblically defined term has a distinct common usage that excludes it, and the vow uses the common term, the common usage prevails. R. Yoshiya's principle might be that if the Bible itself uses the term mevushal to encompass these, then one should be stringent. But the Yerushalmi's elaboration suggests a more nuanced application, perhaps where R. Yoshiya agrees with R. Yoḥanan's conclusion in this specific case due to the strong vernacular distinction.

The Underlying Tension: The friction lies in the very nature of halakhic interpretation. Is the primary lens for vows the explicit word of the Torah and its rabbinic elaborations, or the evolving, culturally embedded understanding of language? The Yerushalmi, through R. Yoḥanan, firmly anchors vow interpretation in the latter, while R. Yoshiya offers a slightly more textually-oriented perspective, albeit one that seems to be tempered by practical considerations in the sugya.

Intertext

Nedarim 49a (Babylonian Talmud)

The Babylonian Talmud's treatment of this sugya is highly relevant, as the Yerushalmi often functions as a commentary or clarification of its Babylonian counterpart. The Babylonian Talmud also grapples with the interpretation of vows and the role of common usage.

R. Yoḥanan said: Vows are interpreted according to the vernacular. R. Meir says: Vows are interpreted according to the Torah. R. Yoḥanan further said: What is the reason of R. Meir? Because it is said: "You shall not profane the word of the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 4:2). R. Meir said to him: What is the reason of R. Yoḥanan? Because it is said: "You shall not swear falsely by My name" (Leviticus 19:12). (Nedarim 49a)21

  • Parallel: This passage directly mirrors the Yerushalmi's debate between R. Yoḥanan and R. Yoshiya. The Babylonian Talmud presents a similar dichotomy, with R. Yoḥanan asserting the primacy of the vernacular (lashon briyot) and R. Meir arguing for interpretation based on Torah law (lashon Torah). The Bavlian discussion uses biblical verses to support each position. The Yerushalmi's R. Yoshiya's stance that "in matters of vows one follows biblical usage" aligns with R. Meir's view in the Bavlian text, while the Yerushalmi's R. Yoḥanan aligns with his Bavlian namesake. The Yerushalmi's focus on middat ha-briyot versus middat ha-katuv is a more specific articulation of this broader debate. The Bavlian context helps solidify the foundational principle that the interpretation of vows is a subject of significant debate, with a strong current favoring common usage as articulated by R. Yoḥanan.

Sifrei Devarim, Parshat Eikev, Siman 46

The Sifrei, a halakhic midrash on Deuteronomy, discusses the interpretation of vows in relation to biblical language.

"And all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:20). This refers to the words of the Torah. R. Yehuda says: This includes the words of the Mishnah and the Gemara. R. Meir says: This refers to the words of the Torah. R. Yosi says: This refers to the words of the prophets and the writings. R. Akiva says: This refers to the words of the Sages. [The Sifrei then discusses the interpretation of vows:] If one says, "Konam is wine to me," and he then drinks wine that has turned to vinegar, he is permitted. Why? Because it is no longer called wine. This is R. Meir's opinion. R. Yosi says: He is forbidden, because it is still called wine. R. Akiva says: If it has the taste of wine, he is forbidden. If it has the taste of vinegar, he is permitted. (Sifrei Devarim, Eikev 46)70

  • Parallel: While not directly about food preparation, this passage from Sifrei demonstrates the principle of interpreting terms based on their common understanding versus their strict biblical definition. R. Yosi's view that vinegar derived from wine is still "called wine" echoes a stricter adherence to the original term's root, similar to R. Yoshiya's emphasis on biblical usage. Conversely, R. Akiva's pragmatic approach, focusing on taste and actual perception, aligns with R. Yoḥanan's middat ha-briyot. This intertextual reference highlights that the debate about whether vows follow strict terminology or common perception is a recurring theme in rabbinic literature, extending beyond just food preparation to other areas of halakha. It underscores that the Yerushalmi's discussion in Nedarim is part of a larger interpretive framework.

Psak/Practice

The Yerushalmi's resolution, favoring R. Yoḥanan's principle that "in matters of vows one follows common usage," has significant practical implications for the interpretation of vows.

  1. Dominance of Vernacular: The ruling establishes that when a person takes a vow using common Hebrew or Aramaic terms, the scope of the prohibition is determined by how ordinary people understand those terms, not by a strict, technical, or biblical definition that might be different. This means that culinary terms like "cooked," "roasted," and "scalded" are defined by their everyday meanings in the community where the vow was made.
  2. Flexibility and Nuance: This principle allows for a more flexible and nuanced application of vows. A vow against "meat" would not necessarily include poultry if the common understanding distinguishes them, or vice versa, depending on the vernacular. Similarly, "fish" might not automatically include fish derivatives like fish cake or fish fluid unless those are also commonly understood as "fish" in the same sense.
  3. Role of Expert Interpretation: While common usage is the rule, identifying that usage can itself require expertise. The Yerushalmi's detailed discussions about "fine" vs. "thick" dishes, or specific items like soft-boiled eggs and ash-gourds, indicate that the Beit Midrash serves as the arbiter of what constitutes "common usage" when there is ambiguity or dispute.
  4. Practical Application in Modern Times: In contemporary halakhic practice, the principle of middat ha-briyot remains a cornerstone for interpreting vows and other similar prohibitions (e.g., oaths, gezeirot). When someone makes a vow today, poskim would first investigate the common understanding of the terms used. For example, if someone vowed not to eat "bread," a modern posk would need to ascertain if this includes items commonly called "bread" but made with different grains or preparation methods, or if it is limited to traditional leavened bread. The Yerushalmi's rigorous examination of food terms in Nedarim serves as a model for this type of analysis.

The meta-heuristic is that the spirit of the vow, as understood by the vow-taker in their linguistic and cultural context, is paramount, provided it aligns with a recognizable common understanding.

Takeaway

The interpretation of vows hinges not on esoteric definitions but on the common tongue, making middat ha-briyot the crucial lens. Precise culinary terms in vows are thus bound by everyday perception, not just biblical or rabbinic equivalences.

Citations

Back to lesson library

derekhlearning.com