Nedarim 54b — the Talmud in English

Who does not agree with Rabbi Akiva?

The agent cannot do this on his own initiative; rather,

he must consult,

consult with the homeowner whether to give the liver in place of the meat, and not do this on his own initiative. And since the agent does this on his own initiative and did not ask the homeowner, therefore he is responsible for what he did, and he is the one who misappropriates [the consecrated property].

The statement was transmitted before Rava,

they recited these words of Abaye before Rava.

He said to them —

Rava to his students:

Nahmani spoke well —

Abaye spoke well [he was called Nahmani because he grew up in Rav Nahman’s household], and I too hold this way.

And now the Gemara comes to clarify who the Rabbis are who disagree with Rabbi Akiva?

Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva? —

It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

And the proof for this is from that

which was taught: One who vows

a prohibition against deriving benefit

from meat,

he is

forbidden to derive benefit from

all

types of meat.

And he is forbidden

to eat meat from all the parts of the animal, and they are:

the head, the legs, the windpipe, the liver, and the heart.

And

he is forbidden not only in the meat of an animal, but also

in

the meat of

birds.

And the reasoning that he is forbidden in all these things, although the simple meaning of meat is the meat of an animal, which people ordinarily eat, is the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva. That is, since if a person sends his agent to bring him meat, if he does not find any, the agent offers the homeowner all these things as a substitute, it is demonstrated that they too are included in the word “meat.” Therefore they are forbidden when a person forbids himself by a vow from meat.

And the Mishna continues:

And it is permitted

for this person

to eat the meat of fish and locusts.

And in the Gemara below it will be explained why he is not forbidden in them, even though the agent also offers these things as a substitute for meat.

Thus far is the opinion of the first tanna, who holds like Rabbi Akiva.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: One who vows

to derive benefit

from meat,

he is

forbidden

only

in all types of meat

itself.

And it is permitted

for him

to eat the head, the legs, the windpipe, the liver, the heart, and birds,

for they are not included in the category of meat.

And it is not necessary to say

that it is permitted for him to eat

the meat of fish and locusts.

For even the first tanna, who is stringent regarding the other things, permits fish and locusts.

And it is demonstrated from the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel that although it is customary for an agent to offer liver, heart, poultry, and the like as a substitute for meat, nevertheless none of this is forbidden under the category of meat.

And it is demonstrated from here that the first tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva is Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

And the Gemara brings another statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel concerning this matter:

And so Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel would also say: Entrails are not meat

—they are not.

And those who eat them,

one who eats them —

is not a human being

—he is not a human being!

And the Gemara wonders: How could Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel say that

those who eat them

the entrails are not human beings?

But above, regarding the things that are not included in the category of meat, it was not said that entrails are not included in the category of meat.

But the entrails

are like meat

ordinarily; so why did Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel say that one who eats entrails is not a human being!?

And the Gemara explains:

With regard to purchases,

with regard to the purchase of meat, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said that one who has money to purchase ordinary meat, but squanders his money and purchases entrails with it,

is not a human being,

since his opinion is nullified in relation to the opinion of all people.

And now the Gemara returns to explain the words of the first tanna above, who differentiated in the case of a person who forbade meat to himself: in his opinion, he is forbidden only in poultry, but not in fish.

And the Gemara asks:

What is different about poultry, such that according to the first tanna it is forbidden?

But the one who vows said “meat,” and birds are not meat?

Rather, necessarily, the reason for this is that since

an agent does offer it to him as a substitute

and offers it to his sender as a substitute for meat, it is included in the category of meat.

If so, fish too should be forbidden, since

the meat of fish too, an agent does offer it, for if he does not find

it in the marketplace

meat, he offers it as a substitute,

and offers fish to the homeowner as a substitute,

saying

to the homeowner:

“If I do not find meat, bring fish!”

And

if so, fish too, which according to this standard are included in the category of meat,

should be forbidden?

And

the Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

This does not refer to an ordinary person.

Rather, it refers

for example

to a person

who had blood let, who does not eat fish.

For this person, it is impossible to interpret his wording as meaning the meat of fish, since eating fish after bloodletting is harmful to his health.

And such a person, when he speaks of meat, does not think of fish at all, since they are not healthy for him.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

if the Mishna is established as referring to a particular person who had blood let, and therefore fish too are not included for him in the wording “meat,” then poultry too should not be forbidden.

For

even poultry too he does not eat,

since they too are not good for his health; and if so, when he vows from meat he does not think of poultry either, since poultry too are not good for his health!

And the proof that poultry too are not good for the health of one who had blood let is:

For

behold,

Shmuel said: One who had blood let,

one who had blood let,

and eats the meat of birds,

and afterward eats the meat of poultry or birds,

his heart takes flight like a bird,

his heart flies from him as a bird flies.

And

there is another proof from that

which was taught: One does not let blood after eating fish, or poultry, or salted meat.

For anyone who has eaten one of these foods, it is not good for him to have blood let—and from here too it is evident that poultry is unhealthy for a person who had blood let.

And

there is another proof from that

which was taught:

A person who

had blood let should not eat either milk, cheese, eggs, watercress, poultry, or salted meat.

And it is demonstrated that poultry is not good for the health of a person who had blood let.

If so, this is difficult: since we established the Mishna as referring to a person who had blood let, and fish are unhealthy for him, and therefore he does not think of them when he vows from meat, then he should not be forbidden in poultry either, since they too are unhealthy for him because he had blood let. And why did the first tanna say that he is forbidden in poultry meat?

And the Gemara answers:

Poultry is different,

for he does have them in mind even though he had blood let, since

it is possible

for this person who had blood let to eat them

by boiling.

For then they do not harm him.

Abaye said

another answer to distinguish between poultry and fish: the Mishna is not speaking of a person who had blood let, but rather

for example, one whose eyes hurt,

and therefore he has no thought of fish at all.

For

behold,

fish are hard on the eyes,

and he did not think of fish at all when he said “meat.”

And the Gemara asks:

If so —

if we say that fish are not healthy for a person whose eyes hurt, then this contradicts the words of Shmuel, who holds that

he should eat fish —

it is good for a person whose eyes hurt to eat fish.

For Shmuel said

that from the proximity of the letters nun, samekh, ayin, as they are written in the full spelling, they are written as follows:

nun, samekh, ayin

we learn a hint:

fish,

which is a fish,

is medicine for the eyes,

a remedy for them, since the nun, which is a fish, supports [opposite the letter samekh] the person whose eye hurts [corresponding to the letter ayin].

And since eating fish is good for the eyes and does not harm them, why did Abaye say that this fish is not good for the eyes, and that a person whose eyes hurt does not have them in mind?

And the Gemara answers:

That statement refers to the end of the illness!

What Shmuel said—that fish are good for the eyes—applies only at the end of the illness of eye pain. But at the beginning of the illness, eating fish is harmful to them.

And the Mishna, which says that the person who vows from meat does not have fish in mind because they are not good for his health, refers to a person who vowed at the beginning of the illness, when eating fish is not good for the eyes, and he has no thought of fish at all.