Yes, that's true. He said "vector F" several times.
[tex]\nabla\times F= \left(\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial z}- \frac{\partial F_z}{\partial y}\right)\vec{i}- \left(\frac{\partial F_x}{\partial z}- \frac{\partial F_z}{\partial x}\right)\vec{j}+ \left(\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial x}- \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial y}\right)\vec{k}[/tex]
so that would be essentially solving the system of equations
[tex]\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial z}- \frac{\partial F_z}{\partial y}= B_x[/tex]
[tex]\frac{\partial F_x}{\partial z}- \frac{\partial F_z}{\partial x}= B_y[/tex]
[tex]\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial x}- \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial y}= B_z[/tex]
Since we can think of the cross product of two vectors as giving a vector perpendicular to both, that system, and the original equation, has a solution only if B is "perpendicular" to the "vector" [itex]\nabla[/itex]", that is if [itex]div B= \nabla\cdot B= 0[/itex].