Ruling: Regarding [Kinyan] Sudar we hold like Rav Nachman, that [Kinyan] Sudar is "acquire on condition to be Makneh", and the Makneh cannot keep [the Sudar].

Implied question: Rav Ashi said "who will tell us that if he seized the Sudar, it is not Tefisah?!" (I.e. perhaps he may keep it.)

Answer: He said a mere Dichuy. He does not hold like it;

He himself said in Kidushin (6b) regarding one who told a woman "you are Mekudeshes to me with this money on condition that you return it to me" [and similarly regarding a sale, Pidyon ha'Ben and Terumah]...

Regarding all of these, he acquires, except for a woman. This is a decree lest people say that a woman is acquired through Chalipin.

If you would think that if he seized the Sudar, it is Tefisah, why does he decree? If so (the Makneh may keep the Sudar), she is acquired through Chalipin, for there is no Kinyan greater than this!

Conclusion: Rather, surely Rav Ashi himself holds that if he seized the Sudar, it is not Tefisah. He said a mere Dichuy to Rav Nachman.

Note: Rav Ashi never saw Rav Nachman. Rav Ashi was born the day Rava died (Kidushin 72b), and Rav Nachman died before Rava (Mo'ed Katan 28a)! The Ran means a Dichuy to the opinion of Rav Nachman, and similarly below.

Opinion #1: Granted, regarding the Sudar we hold like Rav Nachman, but it connotes that regarding "acquire on condition to be Makneh", we do not hold like him, for Rav Ashi totally argues with him. (The Halachah follows Rav Ashi, for he was later, at the end of the Amora'im - PF);

This is because [Kinyan] Sudar is "acquire on condition to be Makneh from now", but here, the Sudar returned to its owner [before the Kinyan takes effect].

Opinion #2: However, the Rambam rules like Rav Nachman regarding both of them.

Inference: He holds that since Rav Ashi's first rejection was a mere Dichuy, like I wrote, everything he said to him, he intended for a mere Dichuy, and not to argue with him.

The Ramban in his Halachos wrote Stam. (He did not reveal like whom he rules.)

Explanation: These are not included in "Mevushal." "Shaluk" is partially cooked [in water].

Implied question: "Shaluk" also connotes over-cooked, like it says in Chulin (110b)!

Citation (110b): The liver forbids [through Bishul, i.e. normal cooking in water, for foods absorb blood from it], but it is not forbidden. If it is Shaluk, it forbids and is forbidden.

Answer: Here, Shaluk means partially cooked. Nedarim depends on the way people speak;

A food that was cooked too much is included in Mevushal.

Explanation: "Ma'aseh Kederah (foods cooked in a pot)" are e.g. wheat cut into two, three, or four pieces. He teaches that if it is soft, it is forbidden, but if it is thick, it is permitted;

This Tana calls anything eaten with bread "Tavshil", like it says in the Gemara. Thick Ma'aseh Kederah are eaten alone, without bread.

The Gemara says that he is forbidden roasted and Shaluk, for they are eaten with bread.

Implied question: Why does it teach "that I will taste"? This is not only if he said so!

Answer: Rather, this teaches a Chidush. Even if he said "that I will taste", he is permitted if it is thick.

Citation: The Yerushalmi says that just like [when he said] "Konam Tavshil", he is permitted what is thick, also when he vowed from Mevushal, he is permitted what is thick.

Explanation: The Gemara explains that they cook it in hot water 1000 times, and put it 1000 times in cold water, until it shrinks to the point that one can swallow it [whole]. It is not eaten with bread.

Inference: He is permitted only this [egg]. If it was not cooked so much, he is forbidden, for it is eaten with bread.

Support - Citation (Yerushalmi - Rav Chisda): He may not eat a roasted egg, for a Choleh normally eats his bread with it.

Inference: As long as it did not shrivel so much, and [still] bread is eaten with it, it is included in "Tavshil".

Gemara (Beraisa): R. Oshaya forbids.

Explanation: One who vows from Mevushal is forbidden what is roasted.

Gemara: Even though there is no proof for the matter.

Explanation: There is no proof that [roasted] is included in Mevushal. There is a hint for it - "va'Yvashlu Es ha'Pesach." Pesach is eaten only roasted, and it is written "va'Yvashlu"!

However, this is not an absolute proof, like it says in the conclusion, for Nedarim are according to how people speak.

Citation (Yerushalmi): R. Yochanan said that in Nedarim, we follow the way people speak; R. Yoshiyah said that we follow the way the Torah speaks;

Citation (cont.): What do they argue about? If he said "Konam wine that I will not drink it b'Chag (during Sukos)", R. Yochanan forbids on the last Yom Tov of Chag, and R. Yoshiyah permits;

Citation (cont.) Retraction: Even R. Yoshiyah agrees that he is forbidden. He said [that we follow the way the Torah speaks, only] to be stringent.

The Bavli's opinion: Even R. Yoshiyah agrees that we follow only the way people speak.

Inference: Whether to be lenient or stringent, one who says "b'Chag", the last day of Chag is included.

Gemara - Question: He vowed to forbid a Tavshil!

Explanation #1: Why is a thick [dish] permitted? It is a Tavshil! (The Ran gives another explanation at the end of the following Dibur.)

Gemara: This Tana calls anything eaten with bread a Tavshil.

Explanation: However, a thick cooked food, which is not eaten with bread, is not called a Tavshil.

Explanation #2 (of the previous Dibur, 'he vowed to forbid a Tavshil!'): Some say that [the Makshan] asked why he is forbidden a thin cooked food. It is not a Tavshil!

The Gemara answered that anything eaten with bread is called a Tavshil.

Gemara: And a Beraisa [supports this].

Explanation: This is said b'Nichusa (it is not a question).

Gemara: He is forbidden soft Hitriyos (small gourds).

Translation: 'Hitriyos' means small gourds.

Gemara: Since sick people eat their bread with them.

Inference: Since he gives the reason to forbid because Cholim eat their bread with them, this shows that anything eaten with bread is called a Tavshil.

Gemara: This is not so!

Explanation: That gourds are good for a Choleh.

Gemara: Soft [gourds].

Explanation: They are good [for a Choleh].

Gemara: Ashuni (hard).

Translation: 'Ashuni' means hard.

Gemara: The gourd itself.

Explanation: It is bad [for a Choleh].

Gemara: The Gav of a gourd.

Explanation: What is inside it - it is good [for a Choleh].

Gemara: Luliva of (what is inside) a gourd.

Translation: 'Luliva' means what is inside it.

Gemara: With beets.

Explanation: One should cook it with beets.

Gemara: Luliva of flax seeds with Kutach (a dip made with milk and bread).

Explanation: What is inside [flax] is good to eat with Kutach.

Gemara: One may not say this in front of an ignoramus.

Explanation: Lest they detach flax for this.

Gemara: Who are 'sick people'? They are Rabanan.

Explanation: Indeed, gourds, whether soft or hard, are bad for Cholim. The Beraisa that says that Cholim eat their bread with them, it does not literally refers to sick people;

Rather, who are 'Cholim'? They are Rabanan. Even when they are healthy, they are weak, for Torah weakens their strength.

Gemara: We pray for the sick and afflicted - like whom is this?

Explanation: [We pray for them] the entire year.

Gemara: Like whom? It is like R. Yosi.

Explanation: He said in Rosh Hashanah (16a) that man is judged every day.

Distinction: Rabanan hold that he is judged on Rosh Hashanah. Since his verdict was finished, prayer [after Rosh Hashanah] will not help for [the sick and afflicted].

Gemara: [If] Ketziri is literal.

Explanation: It means Cholim, and they are called Ketziri because their Nefesh is Ketzarah (short; they are close to death) due to their illness.

Gemara: Our Mishnah is not like the Babylonians.

Explanation: Our Mishnah permits a thick cooked food, because it is not eaten with bread.

Gemara: It is not like the Babylonians.

Explanation: For Babylonians, since they eat [thick porridge] with bread, it is called a Tavshil [for them], and it is forbidden.

Gemara: Nakrani.

Version #1: They eat with decorum. (This is like Nekiyus ha'Da'as. - PF)

Version #2: The text says Nakdani. They are meticulous about their eating (to eat what is proper). This is like it says in Brachos (50a) 'the Nakdanim criticize him for this.'

Gemara: Porridge.

Explanation: It is a food made from cooked wheat.

Gemara: Wheat [porridge] with wheat bread.

Explanation: Rav Chisda was from Bavel; they used to eat bread with porridge.

Gemara: B'Chasisi (with flour of parched grain).

Translation: 'Chasisi' means flour of parched grain.

Gemara: Until a Parsah.

Explanation: Travel [up to] a Parsah in order to eat porridge.

Gemara: Molten lead.

Explanation: It is not digested.

Gemara: B'Hutza (with bark).

Translation: 'Hutza' means bark.

Gemara: You cause me to eat your saliva!

Explanation: It is not normal to clean the bark after putting it in his mouth, when he returns it to the bowl (to take more).

Gemara: You cause me to eat your dirt!

Explanation: Dirt under the fingernails.

Gemara: Bluspine (a species of date that is difficult to digest).

Translation: 'Bluspine' is a species of date that is difficult to digest.

Gemara: All the more so [we should eat them]. We will rely on them tomorrow!

Explanation: Since they are not digested, they remain in the intestines, and as long as they are there, they sustain the body.

Gemara: He gives rulings, and he is drunk?!

Explanation: He gives rulings, and he gets drunk?! Because his face was glowing, she thought that he was drunk.

Gemara: Like people who raise pigs.

Explanation: Because they profit greatly, their faces glow.

Gemara: Gulfa (barrel).

Explanation: It is a barrel, and he brought it to the Beis Midrash in order to sit on it.

Gemara: It honors the laborer.

Explanation: He did not sit on the ground.

Gemara: Dehutvei (esteemed).

Translation: 'Dehutvei' means an esteemed (shirt).

Gemara: That He clothed me with a robe.

Explanation: It was esteemed in his eyes, like a robe.