Let’s start with a few definitions. You likely know “synonym” and “antonym,” and would consult a thesaurus to find just the right word. But, there are additional relationships between words. Thus, the hypernym, or broader term, of “red” is so the hypernym of red is “chromatic color,” while the hyponyms, or more specific terms, include “crimson,” “sanguine” and “vermillion.” You can consult Princeton’s WordNet or K-Dictionaries Open English Wordnet1 to explore these and other relationships.
A frequent focus of masechet Nedarim is the implication of Hebrew phrases or words. The Mishna leading the sixth perek states that one vowing against מְבוּשָּׁל, “cooked foods,” may still consume roasted (צָלִי) and boiled (שָׁלוּק) foods. We might say that “roast,” “boil” and “cook” are near-synonyms of similar, but non-overlapping, processes of preparing food by applying heat. Perhaps this Mishna’s novelty isn’t just providing practical word definitions when someone vows against מְבוּשָּׁל. Rather, it’s that מְבוּשָּׁל is both in the synset of צָלִי and its direct hypernym. We should take it as the parallel term rather than the hypernym.
Let’s examine rabbinic usage of מְבוּשָּׁל and צָלִי. The original Seder night questions (Pesachim 116a) include שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין בָּשָׂר צָלִי, שָׁלוּק, וּמְבֻשָּׁל, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה כֻלּוֹ צָלִי. Looking to biblical usage, the command for consumption of the paschal lamb is אַל תֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ נָא וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל בַּמָּיִם כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ, not to eat it raw or cooked in water, but rather roasted in fire. Thus, מְבֻשָּׁל and צָלִי are contrasted, though note that each is modified by an accompanying “water” or “fire.” In II Divrei Hayamim 35:13, though, וַיְבַשְּׁלוּ אֶת הַפֶּסַח בָּאֵשׁ כַּמִּשְׁפָּט, they “cooked” the pesach in fire in accordance with the law, וְהַקֳּדָשִׁים בִּשְּׁלוּ בַּסִּירוֹת, while the sacred things they “cooked” in pots, cauldrons and pans. Here, “cook” is a hypernym. When a word is both a near-synonym and a hypernym of “roasted,” which sense should we adopt?
Rabbi Yoshiya Argues
That isn’t how the Gemara understands the Mishna, though. In a Brayta, Rabbi Yoshiya disagrees and forbids, citing Divrei Hayamim as allusion rather than proof that cooking encompasses roasting.
Why does Rabbi Yoshiya argue? The Bavli suggests this is a dispute regarding whether we follow biblical language or natural human language in vows. Thus, Rabbi Yoshiya has his biblical quasi-prooftext, while the Sages of the Mishna follow contemporary Tannaitic language. The Bavli then rejects this as the only possible explanation for the dispute. Rabbi Yoshiya’s agrees we follow לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, and the biblical allusion is a mere asmachta. It’s just that in Rabbi Yoshiya’s locale, מְבֻשָּׁל was inclusive of צָלִי (perhaps as a hypernym) while in the locale of the Tanna of the Mishna, it was not.
The fifth-generation Tanna, Rabbi Yoshiya I, originated in Bavel, in Hutzal. Together with his colleague Rabbi Yonatan, he studied in the academy that Rabbi Yishmael (ben Elisha II) founded at the border of Edom after government decrees impacted Usha. Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan don’t appear in the Mishna. The Mishna is one of several works composed by Rabbi Akiva’s students, first Rabbi Meir and then further by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Thus, the locale in question might be Bavel or Edom, versus Israel as the Mishna’s locale.
Parallel Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Nedarim 6:1 notes the biblical, Divrei Hayamim usage of cooking encompassing roasting. It also notes a Tannaitic source indicating that cooking encompasses boiling. Namely, the Bamidbar 6:18, regarding the shelamim of a nazir, instructs the kohen to take אֶת-הַזְּרֹעַ בְּשֵׁלָה מִן-הָאַיִל, the cooked shoulder from the ram. Mishnayot Nazir 6:11 has it as הָיָה מְבַשֵּׁל אֶת הַשְּׁלָמִים אוֹ שׁוֹלֵק, if he cooked the shelamim or boiled it. (I’d argue it’s the Tanna’s understanding of the import of biblical language, not tannaitic language itself.) The Yerushalmi then contrasts this with the local Mishna, that cooking does not encompass roasting or boiling. In answer, it presents an argument between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yoshiya, about following human or biblical language in vows. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָֽלְכוּ בַנְּדָרִים אַחַר לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם. אָמַר רִבִּי יֹאשַׁיָּה. הָֽלְכוּ בַנְּדָרִים אַחַר לְשׁוֹן תּוֹרָה. That parallels the Bavli’s first, perhaps-rejected, assumption and ascribes it to named scholars.
Juxtaposing these rabbis, we might imagine the referents are Rabbi Yochanan II, the famous Israeli second-generation Amora, and Rabbi Yoshiya II, the Israeli third-generation Amora. However, consider that Bavli puts Rabbi Yoshiya in a Brayta (תַּנְיָא). Rabbi Yochanan might be the Rabbi Yochanan I, a fifth-generation Tanna, or even an error for Rabbi Yonatan I, Rabbi Yoshiya I’s colleague in Rabbi Yishmael’s academy.
Dueling Academies
Rabbi Yochanan notes (Sanhedrin 86b) that unattributed statements in Mishna is Rabbi Meir; in Tosefta, Rabbi Nechemia; in Sifra, Rabbi Yehuda; in Sifrei, Rabbi Shimon; and all of them are in accordance with Rabbi Akiva. Thus, the Mishna is associated with Rabbi Meir. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yoshiya I is from Rabbi Yishmael’s academy.
Rabbi Yishmael famously said, in debate with Rabbi Akiva, that דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם. Thus, in Sanhedrin 90b, Rabbi Akiva interprets the double language of Bamidbar 15:31, הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת, “the soul shall be surely cut off”, as excision of the sinner in both this world and the next. Rabbi Yishmael points out that excision is also mentioned in the previous verse. Shall we say that he’ll be cut off in three worlds? Rather, the Torah employs human language. This debate can be extended elsewhere, and we could assume that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva remain consistent.
Could we draw an association between that dispute and the dispute by vows? If biblical language equals human language, then biblical usage/prooftexts can define what is encompassed in the human’s vow. If biblical language is a separate Divine language, with hidden implications extracted via special hermeneutical rules, then biblical prooftexts cannot establish a human speaker’s intent, for it isn’t לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
Rabbi Dr. Joshua Waxman teaches computer science at Stern College for Women, and his research includes programmatically finding scholars and scholastic relationships in the Babylonian Talmud.
1 http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn and https://en-word.net/
2 Indeed, in English WordNet, the hypernym of “roast” is “cook”.
3 That point is too complex for a brief column, but the Talmud often ascribes דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם to specific Tannaim to explain why, in a derasha-chain where each person in turn is held to account as to what he does with an extraneous verse. Once the chain reaches doubled language, just say that this Tanna doesn’t maintain (generally, or perhaps locally) that such language should be interpreted. Is this applied consistently? See Berachot 31b, where the Talmudic Narrator proposes דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה within Rabbi Akiva’s position, against Rabbi Yishmael.
