## Nedarim Daf 54a

###### Nedarim 54a:1
[Nedarim 54a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/54a:1)

**הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיָּרָק** — מוּתָּר בַּדִּלּוּעִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹסֵר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וַהֲלֹא אוֹמֵר אָדָם לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״קַח לִי יָרָק״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא דִּלּוּעִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** For **one who vows** that **vegetables** are forbidden **to** him, it **is permitted** for him **to** eat **gourds,** as people typically do not include gourds in the category of vegetables; **and Rabbi Akiva prohibits** him from eating gourds. The Rabbis **said to Rabbi Akiva: But doesn’t a person say to his agent: Purchase vegetables for me, and** the agent, after failing to find vegetables, returns with gourds and **says: I found only gourds?** This indicates that gourds are not considered vegetables.


###### Nedarim 54a:2
[Nedarim 54a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/54a:2)

אָמַר לָהֶם: כֵּן הַדָּבָר, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אוֹמֵר הוּא ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא קִיטְנִית״? אֶלָּא, שֶׁהַדִּלּוּעִין בִּכְלַל יָרָק, וְקִיטְנִית אֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל יָרָק. וְאָסוּר בְּפוֹל הַמִּצְרִי לַח, וּמוּתָּר בַּיָּבֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Akiva **said to them: The matter is so,** and that proves my opinion; **or perhaps,** does the agent return and **say: I found only legumes? Rather,** it is apparent **that gourds are included in** the category of **vegetables,** although they differ from other vegetables, and therefore, the agent purchases gourds and explains that he found only gourds. **And legumes are not included in** the category of **vegetables,** and that is why the agent dispatched to purchase vegetables would not purchase legumes at all. **And** for one who vows that vegetables are forbidden to him, it **is prohibited to** eat **the fresh cowpea**, which is considered a vegetable, **and** it **is permitted to** eat **dry** cowpea, which is not a vegetable.


###### Nedarim 54a:3
[Nedarim 54a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/54a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיָּרָק כּוּ׳. וְהָא מִן יָרָק נְדַר! אָמַר עוּלָּא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״יַרְקֵי קְדֵרָה עָלַי״, וְדִילְמָא יָרָק הַנֶּאֱכָל בִּקְדֵרָה קָאָמַר? בְּאוֹמֵר ״יָרָק הַמִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בִּקְדֵרָה עָלַי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** We learned in the mishna: For **one who vows** that **vegetables** are forbidden **to** him, it is permitted to eat gourds, and Rabbi Akiva prohibits him from eating gourds. The Gemara questions Rabbi Akiva’s ruling: **But** how can his vow include gourds, which are fruits and not vegetables; **didn’t he vow** to refrain **from** eating **vegetables? Ulla said:** The mishna is referring **to one who said: Vegetables** cooked **in a pot** are forbidden **to me.** Gourds are included in the category of vegetables cooked in a pot. The Gemara asks: **And** if that is what he said, **perhaps he is saying: A vegetable that is eaten in a pot,** i.e., a vegetable that is added to flavor the food cooked in the pot, is forbidden to me? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring **to one who said: A vegetable that is cooked in a pot** is forbidden **to me,** a statement that can include gourds.


###### Nedarim 54a:4
[Nedarim 54a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/54a:4)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דִּצְרִיךְ שְׁלִיחָא לְאִמְּלוֹכֵי עֲלַהּ — לָאו מִינֵיהּ הוּא. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּמִימְּלִיךְ שְׁלִיחָא עֲלַהּ — מִינֵיהּ הוּא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְעִנְיַן מַלְקוֹת, שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do** Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis **disagree?** The Gemara explains that **the Rabbis maintain: Any item with regard to which an agent must consult** the person who dispatched him before purchasing it, **is not** considered the same **type.** Since the agent must ask whether he can purchase gourds, apparently they are not a vegetable. **And Rabbi Akiva maintains: Any item with regard to which an agent** must **consult is** considered the same **type.** With regard to food of a different type, he does not consult. **Abaye said: Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to lashes that** the one who vowed **is not flogged** if he ate gourds, as the issue of whether or not he violated his vow is not entirely clear.


###### Nedarim 54a:5
[Nedarim 54a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/54a:5)

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַשָּׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ — בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. לֹא עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ — שָׁלִיחַ מָעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Me’ila* 20a): With regard to **an agent who performed his mission** properly, if he was tasked to use a particular item, and the one who dispatched him forgot that it was a consecrated item, **the employer,** who dispatched him, **misused** the consecrated item and is liable, as the agent acted on his behalf. However, if the agent **did not perform his mission** properly, and the **agent misused** the consecrated item, he is liable, as once the agent deviates from his mission, he ceases to be an agent and his actions are attributable to him.


###### Nedarim 54a:6
[Nedarim 54a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/54a:6)

מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דִּתְנַן: כֵּיצַד? אָמַר לוֹ: ״תֵּן בָּשָׂר לָאוֹרְחִים״ וְנָתַן לָהֶם כָּבֵד, ״תֵּן כָּבֵד״ וְנָתַן לָהֶם בָּשָׂר — הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַל. וְאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָא אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּמִימְּלִיךְ עֲלַהּ שָׁלִיחַ — מִינֵיהּ הוּא, לִמְעוֹל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְלָא לִמְעוֹל שָׁלִיחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who is** the ***tanna*** who **taught** this *halakha* in the mishna? **Rav Ḥisda said: The mishna** is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva as we learned** in the mishna: **How so?** If the employer **said to** the agent: **Give meat to the guests, and he gave them liver;** or if he said: **Give** them **liver, and he gave them meat, the agent has misused** the consecrated item, as he deviated from his mission. **And if** this were in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, didn’t Rabbi Akiva say: Any matter with regard to which an agent must consult is** considered the same **type?** Since based on that criterion, liver is certainly considered meat, **let the employer** be liable **for misuse** of consecrated property **and let the agent not** be liable **for misuse** of consecrated property, as he fulfilled his mission.


###### Nedarim 54a:7
[Nedarim 54a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/54a:7)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Even** if **you say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,**