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 month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
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 went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
Ontario, Canada
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Oceanside NY, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, 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.
