Nedarim 54b (נד:) — the Talmud in English

Who does not concede this to Rabbi Akiva, that

the agent cannot do this on his own initiative, but

must consult,

consult with the homeowner whether to provide the liver instead of the meat, and not do so on his own initiative. And since the agent did this on his own initiative and did not ask the homeowner, he is therefore responsible for what he did, and he is the one who misappropriates the consecrated property.

A statement was transmitted before Rava,

they recited these words of Abaye before Rava.

He said to them —

Rava said to his students:

Nahmani spoke well —

Abaye spoke well [he was called Nahmani because he was raised in the home of Rav Nahman], and I too hold this way.

The Gemara now seeks 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 Gamliel.

And the proof is from this

as it was taught: One who vows

a prohibition against deriving benefit

from meat,

is

prohibited from

deriving benefit from

all types of meat.

And he is prohibited

from meat from all parts of the animal, namely:

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

And

he is prohibited not only from the meat of an animal, but also

from

the meat of

birds.

The rationale for prohibiting all these items, despite the plain meaning of the word “meat” being the meat of an animal that people ordinarily eat, is the rationale of Rabbi Akiva. That is, when a person sends his agent to bring him meat, if the agent does not find any, he offers the homeowner all these items as substitutes. It is therefore evident that they too are included in the word “meat.” Consequently, they are prohibited when a person vows to prohibit himself from meat.

And the Mishna continues:

And it is permitted

for this person

to eat the meat of fish and locusts.

The Gemara below will explain why he is not prohibited from them, even though the agent also offers these items as substitutes for meat.

This concludes the view of the first tanna, who follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who vows

to prohibit deriving benefit

from meat

is

prohibited

only

from 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,

as these are not included in the category of meat.

And it is not necessary to say

that he is permitted to eat

the meat of fish and locusts.

For even the first tanna, who is stringent with regard to the other items, permits fish and locusts.

It is evident from the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that although it is customary for an agent to offer liver, heart, poultry, and the like as substitutes for meat, none of these is thereby prohibited as part of the category of meat.

It is therefore evident that the first tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The Gemara cites another statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concerning this matter:

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

at all.

And those who eat them,

one who eats them,

is not a human being

—he is not a proper person!

The Gemara is astonished: How could Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say that

one who eats them

is not a person?

After all, above, among the items that are not included in the category of meat, it was not stated that entrails are not included in the category of meat.

And indeed, entrails are

like ordinary meat,

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

The Gemara explains:

With regard to purchasing,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was speaking about purchasing meat: One who has money to buy ordinary meat, but squanders his money by buying entrails instead,

is not a human being,

since his individual opinion is disregarded in favor of the opinion of all other people.

The Gemara now returns to explain the earlier words of the first tanna, who distinguished between one who prohibited meat to himself: according to his opinion, he is prohibited from poultry but not from fish.

The Gemara asks:

What is different about poultry, which the first tanna prohibits?

The one who vowed said “meat,” and birds are not meat.

Rather, necessarily, the reason is that

an agent would consult him about it

and offer it to the one who sent him as a substitute for meat; therefore, it is included in the category of meat.

If so, fish should also have to be prohibited, since

with regard to fish meat as well, an agent would do this: if he did not find

meat in the marketplace,

he would consult him about it,

and offer 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 criterion are included in the category of meat,

should they not be prohibited?

And

the Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

This is not referring to an ordinary person.

Rather, it is referring

for example

to a person

who had blood let, who does not eat fish.

For it is impossible to interpret this person’s wording as referring to fish meat, since eating fish after bloodletting is harmful to his health.

Such a person, when he speaks of meat, does not think of fish at all, since fish are unhealthy for him.

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 are not included for him in the term “meat,” then poultry should not be prohibited either.

For

he does not eat poultry either,

as poultry too is harmful to his health. If so, when he vows from meat, he does not think of poultry either, since poultry too is unhealthy for him!

The proof that poultry is also unhealthy for one who has had blood let is as follows:

For

it was

Shmuel who said: One who has blood let

and

eats bird meat in the morning,

and afterward eats poultry or birds,

his heart flies away like a bird,

meaning that his heart leaves him as a bird flies away.

And

there is further proof from this

as it was taught: One should not have blood let after eating fish, poultry, or salted meat.

Anyone who has eaten one of these foods should not have blood let, and here too we see that poultry is unhealthy for one who has had blood let.

And

there is further proof from this

as it was taught: A person who

has had blood let

should eat neither milk, nor cheese, nor eggs, nor garden cress, nor poultry, nor salted meat.

It is evident that poultry is unhealthy for a person who has had blood let.

If so, this is difficult: Since we established the Mishna as referring to one who has had blood let, and fish are unhealthy for him, which is why he does not think of them when he vows from meat, then he should not be prohibited from poultry either, since poultry is also unhealthy for him because he had blood let. Why, then, did the first tanna say that he is prohibited from poultry?

The Gemara answers:

Poultry is different,

as he does have it in mind even though he had blood let, since

it is possible

for this person who had blood let to eat it

by boiling it thoroughly.

In that manner it does not harm him.

Abaye said

another answer to distinguish between poultry and fish: The Mishna is not referring to one who had blood let, but rather

for example, one whose eyes hurt,

and therefore he has no thought of fish at all.

For

indeed

fish are harmful to the eyes,

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

The Gemara asks:

If so —

if we say that fish are unhealthy for a person whose eyes hurt, this contradicts the statement of Shmuel, who maintains that

eating fish

is beneficial for a person whose eyes hurt.

For Shmuel said

that from the juxtaposition of the letters nun, samekh, ayin, as they are written in full,

nun, samekh, ayin,

we learn a hint:

Nun

is a fish,

a remedy for the eyes,

for the nun, which represents a fish, supports [corresponding to the letter samekh] the person whose eye hurts [corresponding to the letter ayin].

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

The Gemara answers:

That statement refers to the end of the illness!

What Shmuel said—that fish are beneficial for the eyes—applies only at the end of an eye ailment. At the beginning of the illness, eating fish is harmful to the eyes.

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