Nedarim 54

הנודר מן הירק מותר בדלועין ורבי עקיבא אוסר אמרו לו לרבי עקיבא והלא אומר אדם לשלוחו קח לי ירק והוא אומר לא מצאתי אלא דלועין

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.

אמר להם כן הדבר או שמא אומר הוא לא מצאתי אלא קיטנית אלא שהדלועין בכלל ירק וקיטנית אינו בכלל ירק ואסור בפול המצרי לח ומותר ביבש:

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.

גמ׳ הנודר מן הירק כו׳: והא מן ירק נדר אמר עולא באומר ירקי קדרה עלי ודילמא ירק הנאכל בקדרה קאמר באומר ירק המתבשל בקדרה עלי

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.

במאי קא מיפלגי רבנן סברי כל מילתא דצריך שליחא לאמלוכי עלה לאו מיניה הוא ורבי עקיבא סבר כל מילתא דמימליך שליחא עלה מיניה הוא אמר אביי מודה רבי עקיבא לענין מלקות שאינו לוקה

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.

תנן התם השליח שעשה שליחותו בעל הבית מעל לא עשה שליחותו שליח מעל

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.

מאן תנא אמר רב חסדא מתניתין דלא כרבי עקיבא דתנן כיצד אמר לו תן בשר לאורחים ונתן להם כבד תן כבד ונתן להם בשר השליח מעל ואי רבי עקיבא הא אמר רבי עקיבא כל מילתא דמימליך עלה שליח מיניה הוא למעול בעל הבית ולא למעול שליח

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.

אמר אביי אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא

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

מי לא מודה רבי עקיבא דצריך אימלוכי איתמר שמעתא קמיה דרבא אמר להון שפיר אמר נחמני

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.

מאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבי עקיבא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא דתניא הנודר מן הבשר אסור בכל מיני בשר ואסור בראש וברגלים ובקנה ובכבד ובלב ובעופות ומותר בבשר דגים וחגבים

§ 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.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר הנודר מן הבשר אסור בכל מיני בשר ומותר בראש וברגלים ובקנה ובכבד ובלב ובעופות ואין צריך לומר בשר דגים וחגבים וכן היה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר קרביים לאו בשר ואוכליהן לאו בר אינש אוכליהן כבשר לענין זביני לאו בר אינש

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.

מאי שנא בשר עוף לתנא קמא דאסיר דעביד שליחא דמימליך עליה בשר דגים נמי עביד שליחא דאי לא משכח בישרא מימליך עליה דאמר אי לא משכחנא בישרא אייתי דגים וליתסרו

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.

אמר אביי כגון שהקיז דם דלא אכיל דגים אי הכי אפילו עופות נמי לא אכיל דאמר שמואל דמסוכר ואכיל בישרא דצפרא פרח לביה כצפרא ותניא אין מקיזין לא על דגים ולא על עופות ולא על בשר מליח ותניא הקיז דם לא יאכל לא חלב ולא גבינה ולא ביצים ולא שחליים ולא עופות ולא בשר מליח שאני עופות דאפשר על ידי שליקה

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.

אביי אמר כגון דכייבין ליה עיניה דדגים קשין לעינים אי הכי אכיל דגים דהא אמר שמואל נון סמך עין נונא סמא לעינים ההוא סוף אוכלא:

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.