Nedarim - Daf 54
- Machlokes about an item that an agent would consult about
The seventh Perek begins: הנודר מן הירק מותר בדלועין, ורבי עקיבא אוסר – One who vows from greens (which are vegetables where the leaves are eaten) is permitted in gourds (which are considered fruit of the ground, since the fruit is eaten and not its leaves), but Rebbe Akiva forbids it. The Rabbis challenged him that when one sends an agent to purchase greens for him, the agent will consult with the sender before purchasing gourds (if he could not find greens), which indicates that they are not included in the original instructions. Rebbe Akiva responded that this very scenario supports his position, for the agent would certainly not consult with the sender about a completely unrelated item, such as beans. That he does consult with him about possibly purchasing gourds indicates that they can be called “greens.” The Gemara explains that their machlokes revolves around this issue of an item that an agent would typically consult with the sender about, if it is included or not in the original term. The Gemara adds that Rebbe Akiva would only forbid gourds where he said ירק המתבשל בקדרה עלי – “Greens which are cooked in a pot on me,” the extraneous phrase suggesting the inclusion of gourds. Abaye concludes that even Rebbe Akiva would concede that the violator would not receive malkos, because he is not certain that gourds are included in this case.
- Mei’lah in a case where the agent would typically consult with the sender
The Gemara quotes a Mishnah which states: השליח שעשה שליחותו בעל הבית מעל – An agent who performed his assignment, the homeowner has committed mei’lah [Mei’lah is an exception to the general rule that one is not liable for an aveirah done through an agent]. לא עשה שליחותו שליח מעל – If he did not perform his assignment, the agent has committed mei’lah, because he has acted on his own. The Mishnah illustrates this principle with a case where the homeowner instructed his agent to give his guests meat which he did not realize was hekdesh meat, and instead the shaliach gave them liver which was hekdesh, or the reverse, then the agent is liable for mei’lah because he did not carry out his instructions. The Gemara asks that the Mishnah seems not to agree with Rebbe Akiva, who holds that anything an agent would consult about qualifies as the same type as the original and should consider this a fulfillment of his instructions and the sender should be liable. Abaye answered: מי לא מודה רבי עקיבא דצריך אימלוכי – Does Rebbe Akiva not agree that he must consult with the sender before deviating from his exact instructions? Since he did not, and the homeowner intended for the agent to consult with him, he acted on his own accord and is liable for mei’lah. With nedarim, however, there is no second party for the vower to rely on to consult him, so the secondary meaning is also included in his neder.
- The difference between fowl and fish when one vows from meat
The Gemara quotes a Baraisa in which the Tanna Kamma said that one who vows from meat is forbidden in fowl but permitted in fish. The Gemara wonders about the difference: just as fowl is prohibited, because an agent would consult his sender regarding purchasing fowl instead of meat (and this Tanna follows the opinion of Rebbe Akiva), fish should be forbidden for the same reason. Abaye answered: כגון שהקיז דם – It is in a case where he let blood before vowing, דלא אכיל דגים – because he would not eat fish anyway in such a condition (since it is harmful), so he did not intend to prohibit it by neder. The Gemara objects by providing three sources that eating fowl is also harmful after bloodletting, so his neder should include neither fish nor fowl. The Gemara answers that fowl, when boiled well, is not harmful after bloodletting. Alternatively, the Gemara says that the Baraisa speaks of one with aching eyes, for whom eating fish is painful at certain times.
