The Edith B. Sit edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, focuses today on Masechet Nedarim, Daf Nun Dalet. We dedicate our study today for the elevation of the souls of Mordechai Koni ben Yosef ben Sarah, Avraham ben Esther, Golda bat Miriam, and Moshe Shlomo ben Dina. May their souls be bound in the bond of life in Gan Eden, Amen.
We begin on Nun Dalet Amud Rishon, starting from the top line of the Mishnah: “The one who makes a neder against yarak (vegetables) is permitted to consume dilu'in (gourd or squash).” This indicates that although the individual prohibited himself from vegetables, he is still allowed to eat gourd, which is classified differently. The Ran explains that gourd is not considered a vegetable but rather a peri (fruit).
There are differing interpretations regarding this classification. Some explain that “stam yarak” refers to vegetables that can be eaten raw, while dilu'in cannot be consumed raw and must be cooked. Thus, two tracks emerge in our discussion: one view holds that gourd is not a vegetable, while the other asserts that it is a vegetable but not one that can be eaten raw.
Rabbi Akiva states that dilu'in is included in the prohibition against yarak. The sages challenge Rabbi Akiva, pointing out that when a person sends a messenger to buy yarak and the messenger returns saying he only found dilu'in, it implies that dilu'in is not included in yarak. Rabbi Akiva responds affirmatively, asserting that the messenger's report actually supports his view. He argues that if the messenger were to return with something completely unrelated, such as legumes (kitniyot), that would indicate a clear distinction between yarak and other items.
Thus, Rabbi Akiva maintains that since the messenger returns with dilu'in, it must be related to yarak. The Gemara concludes that one is forbidden from consuming fool hamitzri (Egyptian beans) when they are moist, as they fall under the category of yarak, while they are permissible when dry.
The Gemara continues by questioning how one can argue that dilu'in is prohibited when the neder was specifically against yarak. Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning is challenged, leading to the conclusion that the classification of yarak must be strictly adhered to. The Ran elaborates that moist items are classified as yarak, while dry items are not.
As the discussion unfolds, Rabbi Akiva's position is further examined. He argues that if the messenger must ask about dilu'in, it indicates that it is indeed part of the same category as yarak. Conversely, the sages assert that if the messenger must inquire, it suggests that dilu'in is not included.
Abaye introduces a new perspective, suggesting that if the person specified yarak as what goes into a pot (as in yarkei kedeira), it broadens the scope to include dilu'in due to the additional specificity in his language. However, the Gemara raises the possibility that the additional wording might refer only to vegetables that enhance the flavor of the dish, like garlic or onions, rather than dilu'in.
The Gemara ultimately concludes that if a person states they are forbidding yarak that is cooked in a pot, it encompasses dilu'in as well. Rabbi Akiva's reasoning is thus validated through the context of the messenger's report and the additional language used.
We learn that if a person makes a neder against yarak, they are not prohibited from consuming fruits of the earth, nor from items that might be used in cooking, such as garlic or onions, unless they specifically include them in their prohibition. The Gemara emphasizes the importance of the language used in the neder and how it influences the halachic outcome.
In conclusion, the halacha follows Rabbi Akiva, affirming that when a person forbids yarak, they are not prohibited from consuming dilu'in or other items that do not fit within the strict definition of vegetables as understood in this context. This discussion highlights the intricacies of halachic language and the careful consideration needed when interpreting nederim.