מתני׳ הנודר מן המבושל מותר בצלי ובשלוק אמר קונם תבשיל שאיני טועם אסור במעשה קדרה רך ומותר בעבה ומותר בביצה טורמוטא ובדלעת הרמוצה הנודר ממעשה קדרה אין אסור אלא ממעשה רתחתה אמר קונם היורד לקדרה שאיני טועם אסור בכל המתבשלין בקדרה

MISHNA: In the case of one who vows that cooked foods are forbidden to him, he is permitted to eat roasted and boiled foods, as they are not defined as cooked. If one said: Cooked food is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it, he is prohibited from tasting a loose cooked food but is permitted to taste a thick one, which people do not generally refer to as a cooked food. And he is likewise permitted to eat a turemuta egg and the remutza gourd, as they are not considered cooked foods either. In the case of one who vows that food cooked in a dish is forbidden to him, he is prohibited from deriving benefit only from food that is cooked by boiling it in a dish. However, if one said: That which enters into a dish is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it, he is prohibited from tasting anything cooked in a dish.

גמ׳ תניא רבי יאשיה אוסר ואף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר שנאמר ויבשלו את הפסח באש כמשפט

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita:

In the case of one who vowed that cooked foods are forbidden to him, Rabbi Yoshiya maintains that he is prohibited from eating roasted foods. And although there is no biblical proof of the matter, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “ And they cooked the Paschal offering with fire according to the ordinance” (II Chronicles 35: 13). Since the Paschal offering must be roasted, it is evident that roasting can also be referred to as cooking.

לימא בהא קמיפלגי דרבי יאשיה סבר הלך אחר לשון תורה ותנא דילן סבר בנדרים הלך אחר לשון בני אדם

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree with regard to this following principle, that Rabbi Yoshiya holds that one should follow the language of the Torah, and our tanna holds that with regard to vows one should follow the language of people.

לא דכולי עלמא בנדרים הלך אחר לשון בני אדם מר כי אתריה ומר כי אתריה באתרא דתנא דילן לצלי קרו ליה צלי ולמבושל קרו ליה מבושל באתרא דרבי יאשיה אפילו צלי קרו מבושל

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, it is possible that everyone agrees that with regard to vows one should follow the language of people. Rather, this Sage stated his opinion in accordance with the language of his locale, and this Sage stated his opinion in accordance with the language of his locale. In the locale of our tanna, roasted food is called roasted and cooked food is called cooked, and in the locale of Rabbi Yoshiya even roasted food is called cooked.

והא קרא נסיב לה אסמכתא בעלמא

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoshiya cite a verse as proof for his opinion, which shows that his opinion is not based on the vernacular? The Gemara answers: The verse is cited as a mere support for his opinion, as implied by his statement that the verse is only an allusion, not a full proof.

קונם תבשיל כו׳ והא מתבשיל נדר

It is stated in the mishna that one who said: A cooked food is konam for me and for that reason I will not taste it, he is prohibited from tasting a loose cooked food but is permitted to taste a thick one. The Gemara asks: Why is he permitted to eat it? But didn’t he vow that a cooked food, which includes one that is thick, is forbidden to him?

אמר אביי האי תנא כל מידי דמתאכל ביה ריפתא תבשיל קרו ליה והתניא הנודר מן התבשיל אסור בכל מיני תבשיל ואסור בצלי ובשלוק ובמבושל ואסור בהיטריות רכות שהחולין אוכלין בהן פיתן

Abaye said: This tanna maintains that anything with which bread is eaten is called a cooked food, whereas a thick dish is eaten without bread. And it is taught likewise in a baraita:

One who vows that a cooked food is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating all types of cooked foods, and he is therefore prohibited from eating roasted, boiled, and cooked foods. And he is also prohibited from eating soft gourds [hiteriyyot], with which the sick eat their bread. This indicates that a cooked food is one eaten with bread.

איני והא רבי ירמיה חלש על לגביה ההוא אסיא לאסיוה חזא קרא דמחת בביתיה שבקיה ונפק אמר מלאך מותא אית ליה לדין בביתיה ואנא איעול לאסאה יתיה

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that the sick eat gourds? But Rabbi Yirmeya fell ill, and a certain doctor came to him to heal him. He saw a gourd that was placed in his house, and he left Rabbi Yirmeya and exited the house and said: This person has an angel of death, a gourd, in his house, and I will enter to heal him? This incident teaches that gourds are detrimental for the sick.

לא קשיא הא ברכיכי הא באשוני רבא בר עולא אמר הא בקרא גופיה והא בגוויה דקרא דאמר רב יהודה לוליבא דקרא בסילקא לוליבא דכיתנא בכותחא ודבר זה אסור לאומרו בפני עם הארץ

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to soft gourds, which are beneficial to the sick, and this incident is referring to hard ones, which are detrimental. Rava bar Ulla said a different answer: This incident is referring to the gourd itself, which is detrimental, and this baraita is referring to the innards [luliva] of the gourd, as Rav Yehuda said: The innards of the gourd are best eaten with chard; the innards of flax seeds are best eaten with kuteḥa, a dip made from bread crumbs and sour milk. And one may not say this matter in the presence of an ignoramus, so that ignoramuses do not uproot flax for consumption of its seeds.

רבא אמר מאן חולין רבנן רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא

Rava said a different response: Who are the sick mentioned in the baraita, for whom a gourd is beneficial? They are the Sages, who are weakened by their toil in the study of Torah and their abstention from worldly pleasures, although they are not actually sick. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Gourds are harmful for people who are actually sick. The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rava said: