Previous daf

1)

(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 is.

(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 meat.

(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 his Shelichus.

(d) When they told Rava what Abaye had said - he agreed with him.

6)

(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 ...

1. ... fowl -
2. ... but not fish and locusts.

(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.

(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.

8)

(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 and eggs.

(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.