One who vowes from vegetables, can they eat gourd? There is a debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis about this. All agree that if one was sent as a messenger to buy vegetables and they didn’t have vegetables, but only gourd, they would ask the one who sent them saying, “They have no vegetables but they do have gourd. Would you like me to buy that instead?” The debate is: does that show that it is not a type of vegetable since they would need to ask (the rabbi’s position), or does it show that it is a type of vegetable because if it was not, they wouldn’t have been able to be suggested as a substitution (Rabbi Akiva’s position)? A Mishna in Meila is quoted, regarding a case of a messenger who was sent to serve meat but served liver instead. If the liver was sanctified and the messenger didn’t know, the meila transgression (misuse of consecrated property) would be on the messenger as the messenger did not do as he was supposed to. Can this be explained also according to Rabbi Akiva who would hold based on our Mishna that liver and meat are considered the same since if one was sent for meat, one would ask if they could get liver instead? Abaye explains how one could even read the Mishna to correspond to Rabbi Akiva’s position as even Rabbi Akiva would expect the messenger to have at least checked first with the one who sent him and in this case, he did not. Therefore, the responsibility (and therefore the transgression) is on the messenger. A braita is brought to show that the position of the one who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva in our Mishna is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The tanna who disagrees with him in the braita holds that if one vowed not to eat meat, one could not eat chicken as well, but could eat fish. The Gemara challenges this distinction. In order to answer the challenge, two possible suggestions are made for an ukimta to the Mishna, establishing it in a particular case where one would not be able to eat fish.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Nedarim 54
הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיָּרָק — מוּתָּר בַּדִּלּוּעִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹסֵר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וַהֲלֹא אוֹמֵר אָדָם לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״קַח לִי יָרָק״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא דִּלּוּעִין״.
MISHNA: For one who vows that vegetables are forbidden to him, it is permitted for him to eat gourds, as people typically do not include gourds in the category of vegetables; and Rabbi Akiva prohibits him from eating gourds. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: But doesn’t a person say to his agent: Purchase vegetables for me, and the agent, after failing to find vegetables, returns with gourds and says: I found only gourds? This indicates that gourds are not considered vegetables.
אָמַר לָהֶם: כֵּן הַדָּבָר, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אוֹמֵר הוּא ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא קִיטְנִית״? אֶלָּא, שֶׁהַדִּלּוּעִין בִּכְלַל יָרָק, וְקִיטְנִית אֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל יָרָק. וְאָסוּר בְּפוֹל הַמִּצְרִי לַח, וּמוּתָּר בַּיָּבֵשׁ.
Rabbi Akiva said to them: The matter is so, and that proves my opinion; or perhaps, does the agent return and say: I found only legumes? Rather, it is apparent that gourds are included in the category of vegetables, although they differ from other vegetables, and therefore, the agent purchases gourds and explains that he found only gourds. And legumes are not included in the category of vegetables, and that is why the agent dispatched to purchase vegetables would not purchase legumes at all. And for one who vows that vegetables are forbidden to him, it is prohibited to eat the fresh cowpea, which is considered a vegetable, and it is permitted to eat dry cowpea, which is not a vegetable.
גְּמָ׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיָּרָק כּוּ׳. וְהָא מִן יָרָק נְדַר! אָמַר עוּלָּא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״יַרְקֵי קְדֵרָה עָלַי״, וְדִילְמָא יָרָק הַנֶּאֱכָל בִּקְדֵרָה קָאָמַר? בְּאוֹמֵר ״יָרָק הַמִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בִּקְדֵרָה עָלַי״.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: For one who vows that vegetables are forbidden to him, it is permitted to eat gourds, and Rabbi Akiva prohibits him from eating gourds. The Gemara questions Rabbi Akiva’s ruling: But how can his vow include gourds, which are fruits and not vegetables; didn’t he vow to refrain from eating vegetables? Ulla said: The mishna is referring to one who said: Vegetables cooked in a pot are forbidden to me. Gourds are included in the category of vegetables cooked in a pot. The Gemara asks: And if that is what he said, perhaps he is saying: A vegetable that is eaten in a pot, i.e., a vegetable that is added to flavor the food cooked in the pot, is forbidden to me? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to one who said: A vegetable that is cooked in a pot is forbidden to me, a statement that can include gourds.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דִּצְרִיךְ שְׁלִיחָא לְאִמְּלוֹכֵי עֲלַהּ — לָאו מִינֵיהּ הוּא. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּמִימְּלִיךְ שְׁלִיחָא עֲלַהּ — מִינֵיהּ הוּא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְעִנְיַן מַלְקוֹת, שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara explains that the Rabbis maintain: Any item with regard to which an agent must consult the person who dispatched him before purchasing it, is not considered the same type. Since the agent must ask whether he can purchase gourds, apparently they are not a vegetable. And Rabbi Akiva maintains: Any item with regard to which an agent must consult is considered the same type. With regard to food of a different type, he does not consult. Abaye said: Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to lashes that the one who vowed is not flogged if he ate gourds, as the issue of whether or not he violated his vow is not entirely clear.
תְּנַן הָתָם: הַשָּׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ — בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. לֹא עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ — שָׁלִיחַ מָעַל.
We learned in a mishna there (Me’ila 20a): With regard to an agent who performed his mission properly, if he was tasked to use a particular item, and the one who dispatched him forgot that it was a consecrated item, the employer, who dispatched him, misused the consecrated item and is liable, as the agent acted on his behalf. However, if the agent did not perform his mission properly, and the agent misused the consecrated item, he is liable, as once the agent deviates from his mission, he ceases to be an agent and his actions are attributable to him.
מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דִּתְנַן: כֵּיצַד? אָמַר לוֹ: ״תֵּן בָּשָׂר לָאוֹרְחִים״ וְנָתַן לָהֶם כָּבֵד, ״תֵּן כָּבֵד״ וְנָתַן לָהֶם בָּשָׂר — הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַל. וְאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָא אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּמִימְּלִיךְ עֲלַהּ שָׁלִיחַ — מִינֵיהּ הוּא, לִמְעוֹל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְלָא לִמְעוֹל שָׁלִיחַ!
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha in the mishna? Rav Ḥisda said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva as we learned in the mishna: How so? If the employer said to the agent: Give meat to the guests, and he gave them liver; or if he said: Give them liver, and he gave them meat, the agent has misused the consecrated item, as he deviated from his mission. And if this were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn’t Rabbi Akiva say: Any matter with regard to which an agent must consult is considered the same type? Since based on that criterion, liver is certainly considered meat, let the employer be liable for misuse of consecrated property and let the agent not be liable for misuse of consecrated property, as he fulfilled his mission.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא,
Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva,
מִי לָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דִּצְרִיךְ אִימְּלוֹכֵי? אִיתְּמַר שְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לְהוֹן: שַׁפִּיר אָמַר נַחְמָנִי.
doesn’t Rabbi Akiva concede that the agent must consult his employer? Because he failed to do so and acted on his own, he is not considered to have performed his mission. This halakha was stated before Rava. He said to those who stated the halakha before him: Naḥmani, i.e., Abaye, spoke well.
מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר — אָסוּר בְּכׇל מִינֵי בָשָׂר, וְאָסוּר בָּרֹאשׁ וּבָרַגְלַיִם וּבַקָּנֶה וּבַכָּבֵד וּבַלֵּב, וּבְעוֹפוֹת, וּמוּתָּר בִּבְשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים.
§ The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in the mishna here? The Gemara answers: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a dispute in the baraita: For one who vows that meat is forbidden to him, it is prohibited to eat all types of meat, and it is prohibited for him to eat meat of the head, and of the feet, and of the windpipe, and of the liver, and of the heart, although people do not typically eat meat from those parts of the body. And it is prohibited for him to eat meat of birds, as it too is popularly called meat. However, it is permitted for him to eat of the meat of fish and grasshoppers, as their flesh is not called meat.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר — אָסוּר בְּכׇל מִינֵי בָשָׂר, וּמוּתָּר בָּרֹאשׁ וּבָרַגְלַיִם וּבַקָּנֶה וּבַכָּבֵד וּבַלֵּב וּבְעוֹפוֹת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: קְרָבַיִים לָאו בָּשָׂר, וְאוֹכְלֵיהֶן לָאו בַּר אִינָשׁ. אוֹכְלֵיהֶן כְּבָשָׂר, לְעִנְיַן זְבִינֵי — לָאו בַּר אִינָשׁ.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who vows that meat is forbidden to him, is forbidden in all types of meat, and is permitted to eat meat of the head, and of the feet, and of the windpipe, and of the liver, and of the heart and of birds, and needless to say he may also partake of fish and grasshoppers. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would likewise say: Innards are not considered meat, and one who eats them is not a person, meaning that the innards are not fit for human consumption. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to one who eats them, in terms of the halakhot related to their consumption, e.g., vows, they are considered as meat. However, with regard to purchase, one who purchases them is not a person. In any case, apparently, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as he maintains that although if an agent fails to find meat he is required to consult his employer before replacing it with liver, it is not considered meat with regard to vows.
מַאי שְׁנָא בְּשַׂר עוֹף לְתַנָּא קַמָּא דַּאֲסִיר — דַּעֲבִיד שְׁלִיחָא דְּמִימְּלִיךְ עֲלֵיהּ. בְּשַׂר דָּגִים נָמֵי עָבֵיד שְׁלִיחָא, דְּאִי לָא מַשְׁכַּח בִּישְׂרָא, מִימְּלִיךְ עֲלֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אִי לָא מַשְׁכַּחְנָא בִּישְׂרָא אַיְיתֵי דָּגִים, וְלִיתַּסְרוּ!
The Gemara asks: What is different about the meat of a bird according to the first tanna, that he prohibits it since it is considered meat, due to the fact that when the agent fails to find meat, he tends to consult his employer about it? The same should be true of the meat of fish too. If the agent does not find meat, he tends to consult his employer about it, as he says: If I do not find meat, should I bring fish? And therefore, let fish also be forbidden according to the first tanna.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקִּיז דָּם, דְּלָא אָכֵיל דָּגִים. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ עוֹפוֹת נָמֵי לָא אָכֵיל. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּמְסוֹכַר וְאָכֵיל בִּישְׂרָא דְצִפְּרָא — פָּרַח לִבֵּיהּ כְּצִפְּרָא! וְתַנְיָא: אֵין מַקִּיזִין לֹא עַל דָּגִים, וְלֹא עַל עוֹפוֹת, וְלֹא עַל בָּשָׂר מָלִיחַ. וְתַנְיָא: הִקִּיז דָּם — לֹא יֹאכַל לֹא חָלָב, וְלֹא גְּבִינָה, וְלֹא בֵּיצִים, וְלֹא שַׁחֲלַיִים, וְלֹא עוֹפוֹת, וְלֹא בָּשָׂר מָלִיחַ! שָׁאנֵי עוֹפוֹת, דְּאֶפְשָׁר עַל יְדֵי שְׁלִיקָה.
Abaye said: This is referring to a case where he let his blood when he vowed, as a person in that condition does not eat fish. It was common knowledge then that eating fish after bloodletting is harmful. The Gemara asks: If so, he would not eat birds either, as Shmuel said: With regard to one who lets blood and eats the meat of a bird, his heart rate accelerates and flies like a bird. Clearly, bird meat too is deleterious for his health. And it is taught in a baraita: One neither lets blood before eating fish, nor before eating birds, nor before eating salted meat. And it is taught in another baraita: If one let blood, he may eat neither milk, nor cheese, nor eggs, nor cress, nor birds, nor salted meat. The Gemara answers: Meat of birds is different, as it is possible to eat it safely after bloodletting by means of thoroughly boiling it.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּכָיְיבִין לֵיהּ עֵינֵיהּ, דְּדָגִים קָשִׁין לָעֵינַיִם. אִי הָכִי אָכֵיל דָּגִים, דְּהָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נוּן סָמֶךְ עַיִן — נוּנָא סַמָּא לְעֵינַיִם! הָהוּא סוֹף אוּכְלָא.
Abaye said: This is referring to a case where his eyes hurt him, as fish are harmful for eyes. Therefore, meat of birds is permitted, but not fish. The Gemara asks: If so, and he is suffering from eye pain, he should eat fish, as Shmuel said an acronym: Nun, samekh, ayin, which stands for: Nuna samma la’einayim, which means: Fish is a medicine for eyes. The Gemara answers: That statement of Shmuel is referring to the latter stages of the eye infection.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Minnesota, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Nedarim 54
הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיָּרָק — מוּתָּר בַּדִּלּוּעִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹסֵר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וַהֲלֹא אוֹמֵר אָדָם לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״קַח לִי יָרָק״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא דִּלּוּעִין״.
MISHNA: For one who vows that vegetables are forbidden to him, it is permitted for him to eat gourds, as people typically do not include gourds in the category of vegetables; and Rabbi Akiva prohibits him from eating gourds. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: But doesn’t a person say to his agent: Purchase vegetables for me, and the agent, after failing to find vegetables, returns with gourds and says: I found only gourds? This indicates that gourds are not considered vegetables.
אָמַר לָהֶם: כֵּן הַדָּבָר, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אוֹמֵר הוּא ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא קִיטְנִית״? אֶלָּא, שֶׁהַדִּלּוּעִין בִּכְלַל יָרָק, וְקִיטְנִית אֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל יָרָק. וְאָסוּר בְּפוֹל הַמִּצְרִי לַח, וּמוּתָּר בַּיָּבֵשׁ.
Rabbi Akiva said to them: The matter is so, and that proves my opinion; or perhaps, does the agent return and say: I found only legumes? Rather, it is apparent that gourds are included in the category of vegetables, although they differ from other vegetables, and therefore, the agent purchases gourds and explains that he found only gourds. And legumes are not included in the category of vegetables, and that is why the agent dispatched to purchase vegetables would not purchase legumes at all. And for one who vows that vegetables are forbidden to him, it is prohibited to eat the fresh cowpea, which is considered a vegetable, and it is permitted to eat dry cowpea, which is not a vegetable.
גְּמָ׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיָּרָק כּוּ׳. וְהָא מִן יָרָק נְדַר! אָמַר עוּלָּא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״יַרְקֵי קְדֵרָה עָלַי״, וְדִילְמָא יָרָק הַנֶּאֱכָל בִּקְדֵרָה קָאָמַר? בְּאוֹמֵר ״יָרָק הַמִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בִּקְדֵרָה עָלַי״.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: For one who vows that vegetables are forbidden to him, it is permitted to eat gourds, and Rabbi Akiva prohibits him from eating gourds. The Gemara questions Rabbi Akiva’s ruling: But how can his vow include gourds, which are fruits and not vegetables; didn’t he vow to refrain from eating vegetables? Ulla said: The mishna is referring to one who said: Vegetables cooked in a pot are forbidden to me. Gourds are included in the category of vegetables cooked in a pot. The Gemara asks: And if that is what he said, perhaps he is saying: A vegetable that is eaten in a pot, i.e., a vegetable that is added to flavor the food cooked in the pot, is forbidden to me? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to one who said: A vegetable that is cooked in a pot is forbidden to me, a statement that can include gourds.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דִּצְרִיךְ שְׁלִיחָא לְאִמְּלוֹכֵי עֲלַהּ — לָאו מִינֵיהּ הוּא. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּמִימְּלִיךְ שְׁלִיחָא עֲלַהּ — מִינֵיהּ הוּא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְעִנְיַן מַלְקוֹת, שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara explains that the Rabbis maintain: Any item with regard to which an agent must consult the person who dispatched him before purchasing it, is not considered the same type. Since the agent must ask whether he can purchase gourds, apparently they are not a vegetable. And Rabbi Akiva maintains: Any item with regard to which an agent must consult is considered the same type. With regard to food of a different type, he does not consult. Abaye said: Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to lashes that the one who vowed is not flogged if he ate gourds, as the issue of whether or not he violated his vow is not entirely clear.
תְּנַן הָתָם: הַשָּׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ — בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. לֹא עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ — שָׁלִיחַ מָעַל.
We learned in a mishna there (Me’ila 20a): With regard to an agent who performed his mission properly, if he was tasked to use a particular item, and the one who dispatched him forgot that it was a consecrated item, the employer, who dispatched him, misused the consecrated item and is liable, as the agent acted on his behalf. However, if the agent did not perform his mission properly, and the agent misused the consecrated item, he is liable, as once the agent deviates from his mission, he ceases to be an agent and his actions are attributable to him.
מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דִּתְנַן: כֵּיצַד? אָמַר לוֹ: ״תֵּן בָּשָׂר לָאוֹרְחִים״ וְנָתַן לָהֶם כָּבֵד, ״תֵּן כָּבֵד״ וְנָתַן לָהֶם בָּשָׂר — הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַל. וְאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָא אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּמִימְּלִיךְ עֲלַהּ שָׁלִיחַ — מִינֵיהּ הוּא, לִמְעוֹל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְלָא לִמְעוֹל שָׁלִיחַ!
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha in the mishna? Rav Ḥisda said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva as we learned in the mishna: How so? If the employer said to the agent: Give meat to the guests, and he gave them liver; or if he said: Give them liver, and he gave them meat, the agent has misused the consecrated item, as he deviated from his mission. And if this were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn’t Rabbi Akiva say: Any matter with regard to which an agent must consult is considered the same type? Since based on that criterion, liver is certainly considered meat, let the employer be liable for misuse of consecrated property and let the agent not be liable for misuse of consecrated property, as he fulfilled his mission.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא,
Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva,
מִי לָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דִּצְרִיךְ אִימְּלוֹכֵי? אִיתְּמַר שְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לְהוֹן: שַׁפִּיר אָמַר נַחְמָנִי.
doesn’t Rabbi Akiva concede that the agent must consult his employer? Because he failed to do so and acted on his own, he is not considered to have performed his mission. This halakha was stated before Rava. He said to those who stated the halakha before him: Naḥmani, i.e., Abaye, spoke well.
מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר — אָסוּר בְּכׇל מִינֵי בָשָׂר, וְאָסוּר בָּרֹאשׁ וּבָרַגְלַיִם וּבַקָּנֶה וּבַכָּבֵד וּבַלֵּב, וּבְעוֹפוֹת, וּמוּתָּר בִּבְשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים.
§ The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in the mishna here? The Gemara answers: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a dispute in the baraita: For one who vows that meat is forbidden to him, it is prohibited to eat all types of meat, and it is prohibited for him to eat meat of the head, and of the feet, and of the windpipe, and of the liver, and of the heart, although people do not typically eat meat from those parts of the body. And it is prohibited for him to eat meat of birds, as it too is popularly called meat. However, it is permitted for him to eat of the meat of fish and grasshoppers, as their flesh is not called meat.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר — אָסוּר בְּכׇל מִינֵי בָשָׂר, וּמוּתָּר בָּרֹאשׁ וּבָרַגְלַיִם וּבַקָּנֶה וּבַכָּבֵד וּבַלֵּב וּבְעוֹפוֹת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: קְרָבַיִים לָאו בָּשָׂר, וְאוֹכְלֵיהֶן לָאו בַּר אִינָשׁ. אוֹכְלֵיהֶן כְּבָשָׂר, לְעִנְיַן זְבִינֵי — לָאו בַּר אִינָשׁ.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who vows that meat is forbidden to him, is forbidden in all types of meat, and is permitted to eat meat of the head, and of the feet, and of the windpipe, and of the liver, and of the heart and of birds, and needless to say he may also partake of fish and grasshoppers. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would likewise say: Innards are not considered meat, and one who eats them is not a person, meaning that the innards are not fit for human consumption. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to one who eats them, in terms of the halakhot related to their consumption, e.g., vows, they are considered as meat. However, with regard to purchase, one who purchases them is not a person. In any case, apparently, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as he maintains that although if an agent fails to find meat he is required to consult his employer before replacing it with liver, it is not considered meat with regard to vows.
מַאי שְׁנָא בְּשַׂר עוֹף לְתַנָּא קַמָּא דַּאֲסִיר — דַּעֲבִיד שְׁלִיחָא דְּמִימְּלִיךְ עֲלֵיהּ. בְּשַׂר דָּגִים נָמֵי עָבֵיד שְׁלִיחָא, דְּאִי לָא מַשְׁכַּח בִּישְׂרָא, מִימְּלִיךְ עֲלֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אִי לָא מַשְׁכַּחְנָא בִּישְׂרָא אַיְיתֵי דָּגִים, וְלִיתַּסְרוּ!
The Gemara asks: What is different about the meat of a bird according to the first tanna, that he prohibits it since it is considered meat, due to the fact that when the agent fails to find meat, he tends to consult his employer about it? The same should be true of the meat of fish too. If the agent does not find meat, he tends to consult his employer about it, as he says: If I do not find meat, should I bring fish? And therefore, let fish also be forbidden according to the first tanna.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקִּיז דָּם, דְּלָא אָכֵיל דָּגִים. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ עוֹפוֹת נָמֵי לָא אָכֵיל. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּמְסוֹכַר וְאָכֵיל בִּישְׂרָא דְצִפְּרָא — פָּרַח לִבֵּיהּ כְּצִפְּרָא! וְתַנְיָא: אֵין מַקִּיזִין לֹא עַל דָּגִים, וְלֹא עַל עוֹפוֹת, וְלֹא עַל בָּשָׂר מָלִיחַ. וְתַנְיָא: הִקִּיז דָּם — לֹא יֹאכַל לֹא חָלָב, וְלֹא גְּבִינָה, וְלֹא בֵּיצִים, וְלֹא שַׁחֲלַיִים, וְלֹא עוֹפוֹת, וְלֹא בָּשָׂר מָלִיחַ! שָׁאנֵי עוֹפוֹת, דְּאֶפְשָׁר עַל יְדֵי שְׁלִיקָה.
Abaye said: This is referring to a case where he let his blood when he vowed, as a person in that condition does not eat fish. It was common knowledge then that eating fish after bloodletting is harmful. The Gemara asks: If so, he would not eat birds either, as Shmuel said: With regard to one who lets blood and eats the meat of a bird, his heart rate accelerates and flies like a bird. Clearly, bird meat too is deleterious for his health. And it is taught in a baraita: One neither lets blood before eating fish, nor before eating birds, nor before eating salted meat. And it is taught in another baraita: If one let blood, he may eat neither milk, nor cheese, nor eggs, nor cress, nor birds, nor salted meat. The Gemara answers: Meat of birds is different, as it is possible to eat it safely after bloodletting by means of thoroughly boiling it.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּכָיְיבִין לֵיהּ עֵינֵיהּ, דְּדָגִים קָשִׁין לָעֵינַיִם. אִי הָכִי אָכֵיל דָּגִים, דְּהָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נוּן סָמֶךְ עַיִן — נוּנָא סַמָּא לְעֵינַיִם! הָהוּא סוֹף אוּכְלָא.
Abaye said: This is referring to a case where his eyes hurt him, as fish are harmful for eyes. Therefore, meat of birds is permitted, but not fish. The Gemara asks: If so, and he is suffering from eye pain, he should eat fish, as Shmuel said an acronym: Nun, samekh, ayin, which stands for: Nuna samma la’einayim, which means: Fish is a medicine for eyes. The Gemara answers: That statement of Shmuel is referring to the latter stages of the eye infection.
