Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 18, 2022 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • This month's learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

Nedarim 54

This week’s learning is sponsored by Jeremy Zucker in honor of his wife Wendy Proskin. “So proud of you!”
This weekโ€™s learning is sponsored by Ora Canter for a refuah shleima of Meir ben Mala. โ€œAlways so supportive of my learning โ€“ May HaShem give him the strength to endure and fully recover.”ย 
Today’s daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray in honor of Hadran. โ€œTodah rabah, Rabbanit Michelle, and the Hadran team, for illuminating the pages of Talmud through your dedicated and inspiring teaching. You bring so much light to our learning and to our lives. Chag Urim Sameach to everyone at Hadran and to all of my fellow learners.โ€

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.

ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืจืง ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื“ืœื•ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืกืจ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื”ืœื ืื•ืžืจ ืื“ื ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืงื— ืœื™ ื™ืจืง ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืžืฆืืชื™ ืืœื ื“ืœื•ืขื™ืŸ


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 doesnโ€™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.


ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ื›ืŸ ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืื• ืฉืžื ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ืœื ืžืฆืืชื™ ืืœื ืงื™ื˜ื ื™ืช ืืœื ืฉื”ื“ืœื•ืขื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื™ืจืง ื•ืงื™ื˜ื ื™ืช ืื™ื ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื™ืจืง ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืคื•ืœ ื”ืžืฆืจื™ ืœื— ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืฉ:


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.


ื’ืžืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืจืง ื›ื•ืณ: ื•ื”ื ืžืŸ ื™ืจืง ื ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืจืงื™ ืงื“ืจื” ืขืœื™ ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื™ืจืง ื”ื ืื›ืœ ื‘ืงื“ืจื” ืงืืžืจ ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืจืง ื”ืžืชื‘ืฉืœ ื‘ืงื“ืจื” ืขืœื™


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 Akivaโ€™s ruling: But how can his vow include gourds, which are fruits and not vegetables; didnโ€™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.


ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉืœื™ื—ื ืœืืžืœื•ื›ื™ ืขืœื” ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืžื™ืžืœื™ืš ืฉืœื™ื—ื ืขืœื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืžืœืงื•ืช ืฉืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื”


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.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉื” ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžืขืœ ืœื ืขืฉื” ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ืฉืœื™ื— ืžืขืœ


We learned in a mishna there (Meโ€™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.


ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืชืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื•ืจื—ื™ื ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ื›ื‘ื“ ืชืŸ ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ืžืขืœ ื•ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืžื™ืžืœื™ืš ืขืœื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ืœืžืขื•ืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ืœืžืขื•ืœ ืฉืœื™ื—


The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha in the mishna? Rav แธคisda 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, didnโ€™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.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื


Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva,


ืžื™ ืœื ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืฆืจื™ืš ืื™ืžืœื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืฉืžืขืชื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืžืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™


doesnโ€™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: Naแธฅmani, i.e., Abaye, spoke well.


ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืจืืฉ ื•ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ืงื ื” ื•ื‘ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ื‘ืœื‘ ื•ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ื—ื’ื‘ื™ื


ยง 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.


ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืจืืฉ ื•ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ืงื ื” ื•ื‘ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ื‘ืœื‘ ื•ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉืจ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ื—ื’ื‘ื™ื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื™ื™ื ืœืื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ื”ืŸ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ืื™ื ืฉ ืื•ื›ืœื™ื”ืŸ ื›ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื–ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ืื™ื ืฉ


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.


ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื‘ืฉืจ ืขื•ืฃ ืœืชื ื ืงืžื ื“ืืกื™ืจ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื™ื—ื ื“ืžื™ืžืœื™ืš ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจ ื“ื’ื™ื ื ืžื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื™ื—ื ื“ืื™ ืœื ืžืฉื›ื— ื‘ื™ืฉืจื ืžื™ืžืœื™ืš ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ื ื ื‘ื™ืฉืจื ืื™ื™ืชื™ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ืœื™ืชืกืจื•


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.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ืงื™ื– ื“ื ื“ืœื ืื›ื™ืœ ื“ื’ื™ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืœื ืื›ื™ืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืžืกื•ื›ืจ ื•ืื›ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืฉืจื ื“ืฆืคืจื ืคืจื— ืœื‘ื™ื” ื›ืฆืคืจื ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื™ื–ื™ืŸ ืœื ืขืœ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ืœื ืขืœ ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืžืœื™ื— ื•ืชื ื™ื ื”ืงื™ื– ื“ื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ืœื ื—ืœื‘ ื•ืœื ื’ื‘ื™ื ื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื—ืœื™ื™ื ื•ืœื ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืจ ืžืœื™ื— ืฉืื ื™ ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืœื™ืงื”


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.


ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื“ื’ื™ื ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขื™ื ื™ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื›ื™ืœ ื“ื’ื™ื ื“ื”ื ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ื•ืŸ ืกืžืš ืขื™ืŸ ื ื•ื ื ืกืžื ืœืขื™ื ื™ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืกื•ืฃ ืื•ื›ืœื:


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 laโ€™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.

  • This month's learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 51-57 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we are going to continue learning how the Mishna and Gemara interpret different vows. The Gemara teaches that...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 54: Defining “Vegetables”

Chapter VII: Swearing off "vegetables" - does that include gourds? What about legumes? What drives whether the term "vegetables" is...

Nedarim 54

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 54

ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืจืง ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื“ืœื•ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืกืจ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื”ืœื ืื•ืžืจ ืื“ื ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืงื— ืœื™ ื™ืจืง ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืžืฆืืชื™ ืืœื ื“ืœื•ืขื™ืŸ


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 doesnโ€™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.


ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ื›ืŸ ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืื• ืฉืžื ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ืœื ืžืฆืืชื™ ืืœื ืงื™ื˜ื ื™ืช ืืœื ืฉื”ื“ืœื•ืขื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื™ืจืง ื•ืงื™ื˜ื ื™ืช ืื™ื ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื™ืจืง ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืคื•ืœ ื”ืžืฆืจื™ ืœื— ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืฉ:


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.


ื’ืžืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืจืง ื›ื•ืณ: ื•ื”ื ืžืŸ ื™ืจืง ื ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืจืงื™ ืงื“ืจื” ืขืœื™ ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื™ืจืง ื”ื ืื›ืœ ื‘ืงื“ืจื” ืงืืžืจ ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืจืง ื”ืžืชื‘ืฉืœ ื‘ืงื“ืจื” ืขืœื™


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 Akivaโ€™s ruling: But how can his vow include gourds, which are fruits and not vegetables; didnโ€™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.


ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉืœื™ื—ื ืœืืžืœื•ื›ื™ ืขืœื” ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืžื™ืžืœื™ืš ืฉืœื™ื—ื ืขืœื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืžืœืงื•ืช ืฉืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื”


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.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉื” ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžืขืœ ืœื ืขืฉื” ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ืฉืœื™ื— ืžืขืœ


We learned in a mishna there (Meโ€™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.


ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืชืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื•ืจื—ื™ื ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ื›ื‘ื“ ืชืŸ ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ืžืขืœ ื•ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืžื™ืžืœื™ืš ืขืœื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ืœืžืขื•ืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ืœืžืขื•ืœ ืฉืœื™ื—


The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha in the mishna? Rav แธคisda 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, didnโ€™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.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื


Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva,


ืžื™ ืœื ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืฆืจื™ืš ืื™ืžืœื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืฉืžืขืชื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืžืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™


doesnโ€™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: Naแธฅmani, i.e., Abaye, spoke well.


ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืจืืฉ ื•ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ืงื ื” ื•ื‘ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ื‘ืœื‘ ื•ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ื—ื’ื‘ื™ื


ยง 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.


ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืจืืฉ ื•ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ืงื ื” ื•ื‘ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ื‘ืœื‘ ื•ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉืจ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ื—ื’ื‘ื™ื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื™ื™ื ืœืื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ื”ืŸ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ืื™ื ืฉ ืื•ื›ืœื™ื”ืŸ ื›ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื–ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ืื™ื ืฉ


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.


ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื‘ืฉืจ ืขื•ืฃ ืœืชื ื ืงืžื ื“ืืกื™ืจ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื™ื—ื ื“ืžื™ืžืœื™ืš ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจ ื“ื’ื™ื ื ืžื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื™ื—ื ื“ืื™ ืœื ืžืฉื›ื— ื‘ื™ืฉืจื ืžื™ืžืœื™ืš ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ื ื ื‘ื™ืฉืจื ืื™ื™ืชื™ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ืœื™ืชืกืจื•


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.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ืงื™ื– ื“ื ื“ืœื ืื›ื™ืœ ื“ื’ื™ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืœื ืื›ื™ืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืžืกื•ื›ืจ ื•ืื›ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืฉืจื ื“ืฆืคืจื ืคืจื— ืœื‘ื™ื” ื›ืฆืคืจื ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื™ื–ื™ืŸ ืœื ืขืœ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ืœื ืขืœ ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืžืœื™ื— ื•ืชื ื™ื ื”ืงื™ื– ื“ื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ืœื ื—ืœื‘ ื•ืœื ื’ื‘ื™ื ื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื—ืœื™ื™ื ื•ืœื ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืจ ืžืœื™ื— ืฉืื ื™ ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืœื™ืงื”


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.


ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื“ื’ื™ื ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขื™ื ื™ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื›ื™ืœ ื“ื’ื™ื ื“ื”ื ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ื•ืŸ ืกืžืš ืขื™ืŸ ื ื•ื ื ืกืžื ืœืขื™ื ื™ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืกื•ืฃ ืื•ื›ืœื:


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 laโ€™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.

Scroll To Top