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 sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
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.
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
A Daf Of Their Own –Schita By a Woman
נשים שוחטות- דף משלהן
Zevachim Daf 15-21 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
ערל: בין הגדרה פיזיולוגית להגדרה מהותית- גפ”ת
A Daf Of Their Own –Defining Your Identity
ערל לב- דף משלהן
Din & Daf: The Kohen Gadol’s New Clothes: Yom Kippur as Renewal
Zevachim Daf 8-14 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
A Daf Of Their Own –The Kohen’s Garments
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 learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
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
Palo Alto, CA, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
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.
