Nedarim 54 - December 18, 24 Kislev

This week's learning is sponsored by Jeremy Zucker in honor of his wife Wendy Proskin. "So proud of you during this season of Thanksgiving!"

This week’s learning is sponsored by Ora Canter for a refuah shleima of Meir ben Mala. “Always so supportive of my learning – May HaShem give him the strength to endure and fully recover." 

Today's daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray in honor of Hadran. “Todah rabah, Rabbanit Michelle, and the Hadran team, for illuminating the pages of Talmud through your dedicated and inspiring teaching. You bring so much light to our learning and to our lives. Chag Urim Sameach to everyone at Hadran and to all of my fellow learners.”

One who vowes from vegetables, can they eat gourd? There is a debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis about this. All agree that if one was sent as a messenger to buy vegetables and they didn't have vegetables, but only gourd, they would ask the one who sent them saying, "They have no vegetables but they do have gourd. Would you like me to buy that instead?" The debate is: does that show that it is not a type of vegetable since they would need to ask (the rabbi's position), or does it show that it is a type of vegetable because if it was not, they wouldn't have been able to be suggested as a substitution (Rabbi Akiva's position)? A Mishna in Meila is quoted, regarding a case of a messenger who was sent to serve meat but served liver instead. If the liver was sanctified and the messenger didn't know, the meila transgression (misuse of consecrated property) would be on the messenger as the messenger did not do as he was supposed to. Can this be explained also according to Rabbi Akiva who would hold based on our Mishna that liver and meat are considered the same since if one was sent for meat, one would ask if they could get liver instead? Abaye explains how one could even read the Mishna to correspond to Rabbi Akiva's position as even Rabbi Akiva would expect the messenger to have at least checked first with the one who sent him and in this case, he did not. Therefore, the responsibility (and therefore the transgression) is on the messenger. A braita is brought to show that the position of the one who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva in our Mishna is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The tanna who disagrees with him in the braita holds that if one vowed not to eat meat, one could not eat chicken as well, but could eat fish. The Gemara challenges this distinction. In order to answer the challenge, two possible suggestions are made for an ukimta to the Mishna, establishing it in a particular case where one would not be able to eat fish.