ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 54
***** ha'Noder min ha'Yerek *****
(a) The Tana Kama does not consider pumpkin to be a vegetable. Some give the
reason for this because it falls under the category of fruit (which will be
explained shortly). According to others - it is because a vegetable is
defined as something that can be eaten raw, whereas pumpkins must be cooked.
(b) Rebbi Akiva considers a pumpkin a vegetable.
(c) The Rabbanan prove their point from the fact that a Sheli'ach sent to
buy vegetables will come back and ask whether he should buy pumpkins,
because that is all he could find. Rebbi Akiva counters that - by pointing
out the same Sheli'ach would not ask whether buy legumes, (which proves that
legumes are not considered vegetables, whereas pumpkins are).
(d) A wet Egyptian bean is considered a vegetable, a dry one is not.
(a) We query Rebbi Akiva, who considers a pumpkin a vegetable, when in
reality, it is definitely a fruit. What makes a wet Egyptian bean a
vegetable, and a pumpkin, a fruit is - the fact that unlike corn, the bean
is not placed in a pile in a granary (until it is dry), whereas a pumpkin
(b) We refute the suggestion that the Mishnah speaks when the Noder said
'Yarkei Kedeirah Alai' (an expression which comes to include) - on the
grounds that it comes to include things that one tends to add to the pot for
taste, such as leek and onions (but not pumpkins).
(c) We therefore establish our Mishnah - when the Noder said 'Yerek
ha'Misbashel bi'Kedeirah Alai'.
(d) According to the second explanation cited above (that the definition of
a vegetable is one that is eaten raw), *that* is the grounds for our
querying of Rebbi Akiva (who considers a pumpkin a vegetable). In that case,
we reject the suggestion 'be'Omer Yarkei Kedeirah Alai' - on the grounds
that 'Yarkei Kedeirah' comes to include vegetables that can be eaten raw or
cooked, such as garlic and lettuce (which apparently was sometimes eaten
cooked in those days), but not pumpkins, which could not be eaten raw.
(a) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan is -
whether something that a Sheli'ach would have to consult the Meshalei'ach
before purchasing is considered to belong to the species that he was sent to
buy, or not.
(b) The Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva.
(c) Abaye points out however, that even Rebbi Akiva will agree that someone
who makes a Neder not to eat vegetables, and then eats pumpkins, will not
receive Malkos - because pumpkins are not really vegetables, as we
explained, and are only included from the extra Lashon that the Noder used.
This explanation is extremely difficult to understand however - see also
Rosh DH 'Modeh Rebbi Akiva'.
(a) The Mishnah in Me'ilah states 'ha'Sheli'ach she'Asah Shelichuso, Ba'al
ha'Bayis Ma'al; Lo Asah Shelichuso, Sheli'ach Ma'al'. In spite of the fact
that in the Reisha, it is the Shelia'ch who sinned (and we have a principle
'Ein Sheli'ach li'Devar Aveirah'), it is the owner who is Mo'el - because,
based on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah, when it comes to
Me'ilah 'Yesh Sheli'ach li'Devar Aveirah'.
(b) The reason that the Sheli'ach is Mo'el in the Seifa is - because, since
the Sheli'ach changed from the owner's instructions, he acted independently
of the owner.
(a) The Mishnah there continues 'Keitzad: Amar Lo Ten Basar le'Orchim,
ve'Nasan Lahem Kaveid ... ha'Sheli'ach Ma'al'. Rav Chisda maintains that the
author of the Seifa cannot be Rebbi Akiva - because, as we have already
learned, he holds that any commodity that the Sheli'ach would go back and
consult the owner about buying, is considered the same species as the one
that he was initially sent to buy. So why is it the Sheli'ach who is Mo'el,
and not the Meshalei'ach?
(b) This case is better than that of Dilu'in in our Mishnah, where Rebbi
Akiva agreed that the perpetrator will not receive Malkos (in which case he
would not be Mo'el either) because he will consult the owner ... - because,
whereas pumpkin is not a kind of vegetable, liver is certainly a kind of
(c) Abaye disagrees with Rav Chisda, to establish the Mishnah in Me'ilah
even like Rebbi Akiva - because Rebbi Akiva's argument is based on the fact
that the Sheli'ach will ask the owner about the commodity in question. In
the Mishnah in Me'ilah, seeing as the Sheli'ach failed do that, he negated
(d) When they told Rava what Abaye had said - he agreed with him.
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa (who holds like Rebbi Akiva) maintains that
meat incorporates the head, the legs, the wind-pipe, the liver and the
heart. It also includes ...
Despite the fact that a Sheli'ach who does not find meat will ask the
Meshalei'ach whether he should buy fish, the Tana Kama, who includes all the
parts of the animal in 'Basar', still precludes fish - because the Tana is
speaking when the Noder has just let blood, in which case, fish is bad for
(b) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (the Tana who argues with Rebbi
Akiva) all of the above are not considered Basar - because any commodity
that the Sheli'ach needs to consult with the owner before purchasing is
considered to be a different species.
- ... fowl -
- ... but not fish and locusts.
(c) When Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that the innards of an animal are not
considered meat and that someone who eats them is not considered a normal
human-being - he means that anyone who has money to buy meat and chooses to
buys the innards (which *are* considered meat), is not a normal person,
because they are poor quality meat, and normal people would not do that.
(a) Shmuel said that someone who eats fowl after having let blood from his
shoulders - becomes weak like a bird.
(b) According to the Beraisa, what fish, bird's meat and salted meat have in
common is - that one should not any of them after blood-letting.
(c) A second Beraisa adds four other commodities that one should not eat
after letting blood; one of them is cress - the other three are milk, cheese
(d) In any event, we see that fowl is unhealthy after blood-letting. The
Tana Kama of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Beraisa above (which we just
concluded, speaks after blood had been let) nevertheless precludes fowl as
well as fish from things that are not considered Basar - because fowl can be
eaten comfortably after blood-letting, as long as it is well-cooked.
(a) When Shmuel said 'Nun, Samech Ayin' - he meant to say that fish is good
for the eyes (as if it was written 'Nuna Sama le'Ayin'.)
(b) We reconcile Rava, who establishes the Beraisa, not after blood-letting
had been performed, but when the Noder's eyes were hurting (and fish is bad
for the eyes), with Shmuel - by establishing the latter by the end of the
illness (when one can already eat fish), but not in its early stages, which
is when the Beraisa speaks.