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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 16, 2015 | 讻状讟 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nedarim 54

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬专拽 诪讜转专 讘讚诇讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜住专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛诇讗 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇砖诇讜讞讜 拽讞 诇讬 讬专拽 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗诇讗 讚诇讜注讬谉

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻谉 讛讚讘专 讗讜 砖诪讗 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗诇讗 拽讬讟谞讬转 讗诇讗 砖讛讚诇讜注讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讬专拽 讜拽讬讟谞讬转 讗讬谞讜 讘讻诇诇 讬专拽 讜讗住讜专 讘驻讜诇 讛诪爪专讬 诇讞 讜诪讜转专 讘讬讘砖

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.

讙诪壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬专拽 讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诪谉 讬专拽 谞讚专 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 讬专拽讬 拽讚专讛 注诇讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讬专拽 讛谞讗讻诇 讘拽讚专讛 拽讗诪专 讘讗讜诪专 讬专拽 讛诪转讘砖诇 讘拽讚专讛 注诇讬

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鈥檚 ruling: But how can his vow include gourds, which are fruits and not vegetables; didn鈥檛 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.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚爪专讬讱 砖诇讬讞讗 诇讗诪诇讜讻讬 注诇讛 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪讬诪诇讬讱 砖诇讬讞讗 注诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛砖诇讬讞 砖注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪注诇 诇讗 注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 砖诇讬讞 诪注诇

We learned in a mishna there (Me鈥檌la 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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 讘砖专 诇讗讜专讞讬诐 讜谞转谉 诇讛诐 讻讘讚 转谉 讻讘讚 讜谞转谉 诇讛诐 讘砖专 讛砖诇讬讞 诪注诇 讜讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪讬诪诇讬讱 注诇讛 砖诇讬讞 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讗 诇诪注讜诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诇讗 诇诪注讜诇 砖诇讬讞

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha in the mishna? Rav 岣sda 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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

诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚爪专讬讱 讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讗讬转诪专 砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 砖驻讬专 讗诪专 谞讞诪谞讬

doesn鈥檛 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: Na岣ani, i.e., Abaye, spoke well.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讘砖专 讜讗住讜专 讘专讗砖 讜讘专讙诇讬诐 讜讘拽谞讛 讜讘讻讘讚 讜讘诇讘 讜讘注讜驻讜转 讜诪讜转专 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐

搂 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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讘砖专 讜诪讜转专 讘专讗砖 讜讘专讙诇讬诐 讜讘拽谞讛 讜讘讻讘讚 讜讘诇讘 讜讘注讜驻讜转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 拽专讘讬讬诐 诇讗讜 讘砖专 讜讗讜讻诇讬讛谉 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讬谞砖 讗讜讻诇讬讛谉 讻讘砖专 诇注谞讬谉 讝讘讬谞讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讬谞砖

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘砖专 注讜祝 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗住讬专 讚注讘讬讚 砖诇讬讞讗 讚诪讬诪诇讬讱 注诇讬讛 讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 谞诪讬 注讘讬讚 砖诇讬讞讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪砖讻讞 讘讬砖专讗 诪讬诪诇讬讱 注诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬 诇讗 诪砖讻讞谞讗 讘讬砖专讗 讗讬讬转讬 讚讙讬诐 讜诇讬转住专讜

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讬讝 讚诐 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讚讙讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜驻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚诪住讜讻专 讜讗讻讬诇 讘讬砖专讗 讚爪驻专讗 驻专讞 诇讘讬讛 讻爪驻专讗 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讝讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讚讙讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 注讜驻讜转 讜诇讗 注诇 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 讜转谞讬讗 讛拽讬讝 讚诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讗 讞诇讘 讜诇讗 讙讘讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讘讬爪讬诐 讜诇讗 砖讞诇讬讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜驻讜转 讜诇讗 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 砖讗谞讬 注讜驻讜转 讚讗驻砖专 注诇 讬讚讬 砖诇讬拽讛

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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讻讬讬讘讬谉 诇讬讛 注讬谞讬讛 讚讚讙讬诐 拽砖讬谉 诇注讬谞讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讻讬诇 讚讙讬诐 讚讛讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讜谉 住诪讱 注讬谉 谞讜谞讗 住诪讗 诇注讬谞讬诐 讛讛讜讗 住讜祝 讗讜讻诇讗

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鈥檈inayim, 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 learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 54

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 54

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬专拽 诪讜转专 讘讚诇讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜住专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛诇讗 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇砖诇讜讞讜 拽讞 诇讬 讬专拽 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗诇讗 讚诇讜注讬谉

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻谉 讛讚讘专 讗讜 砖诪讗 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗诇讗 拽讬讟谞讬转 讗诇讗 砖讛讚诇讜注讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讬专拽 讜拽讬讟谞讬转 讗讬谞讜 讘讻诇诇 讬专拽 讜讗住讜专 讘驻讜诇 讛诪爪专讬 诇讞 讜诪讜转专 讘讬讘砖

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.

讙诪壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬专拽 讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诪谉 讬专拽 谞讚专 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 讬专拽讬 拽讚专讛 注诇讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讬专拽 讛谞讗讻诇 讘拽讚专讛 拽讗诪专 讘讗讜诪专 讬专拽 讛诪转讘砖诇 讘拽讚专讛 注诇讬

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鈥檚 ruling: But how can his vow include gourds, which are fruits and not vegetables; didn鈥檛 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.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚爪专讬讱 砖诇讬讞讗 诇讗诪诇讜讻讬 注诇讛 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪讬诪诇讬讱 砖诇讬讞讗 注诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛砖诇讬讞 砖注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪注诇 诇讗 注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 砖诇讬讞 诪注诇

We learned in a mishna there (Me鈥檌la 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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 讘砖专 诇讗讜专讞讬诐 讜谞转谉 诇讛诐 讻讘讚 转谉 讻讘讚 讜谞转谉 诇讛诐 讘砖专 讛砖诇讬讞 诪注诇 讜讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪讬诪诇讬讱 注诇讛 砖诇讬讞 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讗 诇诪注讜诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诇讗 诇诪注讜诇 砖诇讬讞

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha in the mishna? Rav 岣sda 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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

诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚爪专讬讱 讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讗讬转诪专 砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 砖驻讬专 讗诪专 谞讞诪谞讬

doesn鈥檛 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: Na岣ani, i.e., Abaye, spoke well.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讘砖专 讜讗住讜专 讘专讗砖 讜讘专讙诇讬诐 讜讘拽谞讛 讜讘讻讘讚 讜讘诇讘 讜讘注讜驻讜转 讜诪讜转专 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐

搂 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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讘砖专 讜诪讜转专 讘专讗砖 讜讘专讙诇讬诐 讜讘拽谞讛 讜讘讻讘讚 讜讘诇讘 讜讘注讜驻讜转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 拽专讘讬讬诐 诇讗讜 讘砖专 讜讗讜讻诇讬讛谉 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讬谞砖 讗讜讻诇讬讛谉 讻讘砖专 诇注谞讬谉 讝讘讬谞讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讬谞砖

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘砖专 注讜祝 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗住讬专 讚注讘讬讚 砖诇讬讞讗 讚诪讬诪诇讬讱 注诇讬讛 讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 谞诪讬 注讘讬讚 砖诇讬讞讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪砖讻讞 讘讬砖专讗 诪讬诪诇讬讱 注诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬 诇讗 诪砖讻讞谞讗 讘讬砖专讗 讗讬讬转讬 讚讙讬诐 讜诇讬转住专讜

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讬讝 讚诐 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讚讙讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜驻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚诪住讜讻专 讜讗讻讬诇 讘讬砖专讗 讚爪驻专讗 驻专讞 诇讘讬讛 讻爪驻专讗 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讝讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讚讙讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 注讜驻讜转 讜诇讗 注诇 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 讜转谞讬讗 讛拽讬讝 讚诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讗 讞诇讘 讜诇讗 讙讘讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讘讬爪讬诐 讜诇讗 砖讞诇讬讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜驻讜转 讜诇讗 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 砖讗谞讬 注讜驻讜转 讚讗驻砖专 注诇 讬讚讬 砖诇讬拽讛

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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讻讬讬讘讬谉 诇讬讛 注讬谞讬讛 讚讚讙讬诐 拽砖讬谉 诇注讬谞讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讻讬诇 讚讙讬诐 讚讛讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讜谉 住诪讱 注讬谉 谞讜谞讗 住诪讗 诇注讬谞讬诐 讛讛讜讗 住讜祝 讗讜讻诇讗

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鈥檈inayim, 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