|  |  | Previous Folio / Nedarim Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim ### Folio 54a ## CHAPTER VII MISHNAH. HE WHO VOWS [TO ABSTAIN] FROM VEGETABLES IS PERMITTED GOURDS. R. AKIBA FORBIDS THEM. THE [SAGES] SAID TO HIM, BUT WHEN A MAN SAYS TO HIS AGENT 'FETCH ME VEGETABLES, HE REPLIES, I COULD OBTAIN ONLY GOURDS. HE ANSWERED, EXACTLY: BUT WOULD HE SAY, 'I COULD OBTAIN ONLY PULSE?'1 BUT THAT GOURDS ARE INCLUDED IN VEGETABLES, WHILST PULSE IS [DEFINITELY] NOT. HE IS [ALSO] FORBIDDEN FRESH EGYPTIAN BEANS. BUT PERMITTED THE DRY SPECIES].2 GEMARA. HE WHO VOWS [TO ABSTAIN] FROM VEGETABLES etc. But he vowed [to abstain] from vegetables!3 — Said 'Ulla: This refers to one who vows. 'The vegetables of the pot [be forbidden] to me.'4 But perhaps he meant vegetables which are eaten [with food cooked] in a pot?5 — He said: 'Vegetables that are cooked in a pot [he forbidden] to me.'6 Wherein do they differ? — The Rabbis maintain: Whatever an agent must inquire about does not belong to the same species;7 but R. Akiba maintains, Whatever the agent needs inquire about is of the same species.8 Abaye said: R. Akiba admits in respect to punishment that he is not flagellated.9 We learnt elsewhere: If the agent carried out his commission, the principal10 is guilty of a trespass; if he did not carry out his commission, he himself is guilty of a trespass.11 With which Tanna does this agree? R. Hisda said: Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Akiba. For we learnt:12 Thus, if he said to him, 'Give the guests meat, and he gave them liver; '[give them] liver,' and he gave them meat, the agent is guilty of a trespass.13 But if this agrees with R. Akiba: did he not say. Whatever an agent must inquire about, belongs to that species? In that case, the principal, and not the agent, should be liable to a trespass-[offering]?14 Abaye said, This may agree even with R. Akiba: To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files If only pulse were obtainable, he would simply report that vegetables were unobtainable. These are two different species, the fresh regarded as a vegetable, the dry a cereal, because it is ground into flour. Which gourds are certainly not. And since gourds are boiled in pots, R. Akiba maintains that they are included. E.g., onions, which are put in a pot for seasoning. This most refer to something prepared for itself, and not mere seasoning. A servant, being told to buy vegetables and finding only gourds, would ask his master whether these would do. For if not, he would reject them immediately. For eating them. Though he forbids them, it is not certain that they are vegetables. Lit., 'householder'. V. Me'il, 20a. The reference is to hekdesh (q.v. Glos.), which must not be appropriated for secular use; if it is (unwittingly), a trespass-offering must be brought, v. Lev. V, 14. Now, if one instructs his agent to do this, and his instructions are exactly carried out, he is responsible; if not, the agent is held to have acted of his own accord and is himself responsible. Continuing the Mishnah quoted. It should be observed that by offering this hekdesh to the guests the agent has already misappropriated it by withdrawing it from sacred to secular ownership. The sacrifice is due for that withdrawal; hence when the guests eat it. It is no longer sacred, and no obligation rests upon them. For if one is sent to buy meat and finds only liver, he should certainly consult his master about it. Therefore, if the servant gave liver when ordered to give meat, on R. Akiba's view he carried out his master's instructions. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Nedarim 54b does not R. Akiba admit that he must consult [his principal]?1 When this discussion was repeated before Raba, he remarked, Nahmani hath said well.2 Which Tanna disagrees with R. Akiba? — R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For it was taught: He who vows [to abstain] from meat, is forbidden every kind of meat; he is also forbidden the head, feet, windpipe, liver, heart, and fowl; but he is permitted the flesh of fish and locusts. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He who vows [to abstain] from meat is forbidden every kind of meat, but permitted the head, feet, windpipe, liver, heart and fowl, and it is superfluous to mention the flesh of fish and locusts.3 And thus R. Simeon b. Gamaliel used to say: The entrails are not meat, and he who eats them is no man. In respect of what is this said?4 [To teach that] he who eats them as meat is no man in respect of purchase.5 Why does the first Tanna declare fowl forbidden? Because the agent is wont to inquire about it! But the same applies to flesh of fish in regard to which the agent too, if he can obtain no meat, consults [his master] saying. 'If I cannot obtain meat, shall I bring fish?' Hence it should be forbidden? — Said Abaye: This refers to one who was bled [just before his vow] who [consequently] would not eat fish.6 If so he would not eat fowl either, for Samuel said: If one is bled, and then eats fowl, his heart will palpitate like a fowl's. And it was taught: One must not be bled and eat fish, fowl, or pickled meat. And it was taught: If one is bled, he must not eat milk, cheese, eggs, cress owl, or pickled meat! — Fowl is different, because it may be eaten after being thoroughly boiled. Abaye [also] said:7 It refers to one whose eyes ache, fish being injurious to the eyes. If so, he should eat fish, for Samuel said, Nun, Samek, 'Ayin8 [read] Nuna [fish] sama [are a healing] la-'enayim [to the eyes]! — That is at the end of the illness.9 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Though maintaining that it is of the same species, R. Akiba agrees that a servant should not take meat when ordered to get liver without further instructions. Consequently his action is regarded as his own. Abaye was an orphan brought up in the house of Rabbah b. Nahmani, who called him by the name of his father, v. Git. (Sonc. ed.) p. 240, n. 6. Thus he maintains that liver is not included in meat, and so differs from R. Akiba. Thus the reading as emended by Hart. Since R. Simeon does not exclude the entrails from the things forbidden, in what respect are they not meat? I.e., If one likes them as much as other meat and is prepared to pay the same price, he is regarded as irrational (Rashi). Tosaf. in Meil. 20b s v. [H] explains this: If one buys an animal and finds that the entrails are unfit fir food, he cannot demand that the sale be nullified in that account, since they are not meant for human consumption. It was considered unhealthy to eat fish after being bled. Since then he would not have eaten fish in any case, his vow was not directed against it. 'Also' must be added if this reading be retained, since the first answer was also Abaye's. In Me'il. loc. cit., however, the reading is 'R. Papa'. Three letters of the Hebrew alphabet in order. When the eyes are recovering, fish is beneficial, but at the beginning of the ailment of fish is injurious. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |