Resources and Review Tests for Nedarim 54
The גמרא says that when someone says that he is making a נדר not to eat ירק, it does not include דלועין and the person is allowed to eat them. The ר"ן gives two explanations for this. The first is that ירק refers to a leafy item like lettuce but not a פּרי like דלועין. The second פּשט is that דלועין are not edible raw like a ירק is. The latter פּשט is the פּשט of the רא"ש as well and is the one brought in שולחן ערוך in סימן רי"ז סעיף ד. Nonetheless, ירק is something that is “in the ballpark” of what people mean when they say ירק such that if you asked someone to get you ירק and the store was out they would ask if you wanted דלועין instead. All agree that being in the ballpark on its own is not enough to make the person אסור to eat something since it’s not what he said. However, there is a מחלוקת תנאים what would be the הלכה if instead of just saying ירק the person said he won’t eat ירק המתבשל בקדרה. In that case the חכמים say he can still eat דלועין and ר"ע says he cannot. At first glance, if we went like the ר"ן’s first פּשט, it would make sense why there is still a מחלוקת in this case, since דלועין are a פּרי, so saying המתבשל בקדרה is just a יתור לשון that means you are coming to include something else that also gets cooked a lot. Therefore, the חכמים can say that the fact that a שליח would come back to check on that is not sufficient since it still isn’t what people mean when they say ירק. However, if the issue was that דלועין aren’t called ירק because they aren’t eaten raw, then if one said ירק המתבשל בקדרה everyone should agree that one cannot eat דלועין, yet it is clear from the סוגיא that the חכמים would still say this is מותר. Even ר"ע only holds it is אסור because a שליח would double check if they were out of “ירק המתבשל בקדרה” . Moreover, the גמרא says that even ר"ע agrees that there is no מלקות since it is still a ספק. How can it be a ספק? Isnt ירק המתבשל בקדרה exactly describing דלועין in the second פּשט? The truth is I’m not sure of the answer and realize I am missing something. Be that as it may, theרמב"ם in הלכות נדרים פּרק ט׳ הל׳ ו doesn’t quote the fact that he doesn’t get מלקות. The חתם סופר suggests that he didn’t have our גירסא in the גמרא and therefore held that ר"ע was not unsure and you definitely get מלקות. The דבר יעקב here brings the שיטה בשם רי"ץ who says that the reason our גמרא says that you don’t get מלקות is because it is a התראת ספק since he can say I didn’t mean דלועין in which case he wont get מלקות. The דבר יעקב says that according to that we can understand why the רמב"ם didn’t bring the fact that he doesn’t get מלקות since the רמב"ם holds that התראת ספק is a valid התראה. He also brings the תוספות רי"ד who says that the reason you don’t get מלקות is because even according to ר"ע the fact that the שליח would be מימלך is just a חומרא דרבנן.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander
Rabbi Ari Keilson - Maarei Mekomos