Meilah — Daf 20b

גמ׳ מאן תנא דכל מילתא דמימלך עלה שליח תרתי מילי הויין

א"ר חסדא דלא כר"ע דתנן הנודר מן הירק מותר בדילועין ור"ע אוסר

אביי אמר אפילו תימא ר"ע מי לא בעי לאימלוכי כי אמרו רבנן קמיה דרבא אמר להו שפיר קאמר נחמני

מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר"ע רשב"ג היא דתניא הנודר מן הבשר אסור בכל מיני בשר ואסור בראש וברגלים בקנה ובכבד ובלב ואסור בבשר עופות ומותר בבשר דגים וחגבים רשב"ג מתיר בראש וברגלים בקנה ובכבד ובעופות ובדגים ובחגבים

וכן היה רשב"ג אומר קרביים לאו בשר הן ואוכליהן לאו בר איניש

ולת"ק מ"ש בבשר עופות משום דרגיל איניש דאמר לא אשכחי בשרא דחיותא ואתאי בשרא דציפרא אי הכי הכי נמי עביד איניש למימרא לא אשכחי בשרא דחיותא ואתאי דגים

אמר רב פפא ביום הקזה עסקינן דלא אכיל איניש דגים

אי הכי ציפרא נמי (לא) ניכול דאמר שמואל דמסוכר ואכל ציפרא פרח ליביה כציפרא ועוד תניא אין מקיזין דם לא על הדגים ולא על העופות ולא על בשר מליח

אלא אמר רב פפא ביומא דכייבין ליה עיניה עסקינן דלא אכיל דגים

אמר לו תן לו חתיכה כו' שמע מינה מוסיף על שליחותו הוי שליח

אמר רב ששת דאמר שליח טול אחת מדעתו ואחת מדעתי

GEMARA. Who is the Tanna who holds that any deviation1 for which the agent would consult [the principal] is considered something different [from the original order]?2 — Said R. Hisda: It is certainly not R. Akiba, for we have learnt: If one vows to abstain from vegetables. he is permitted to eat gourds; R. Akiba holds, he is forbidden.3 Abaye said: The Mishnah may well agree with R. Akiba, for do you not admit that he should have nevertheless consulted his employer?4 When the scholars passed on these words to Raba he said: Nahmani5 said well. Who is the Tanna who opposes R. Akiba? — It is Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, for it has been taught: If one vows to abstain from meat, he is prohibited to eat any kind of flesh as well as the head, the legs, the windpipe, the liver and the heart and even the flesh of fowls, but he is permitted to eat the flesh of fish and locust. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel permits the head, the legs. the windpipe. the liver and the flesh of fowl, fish and locust. Similarly Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said that entrails are no flesh and he who eats them is no man.6 Why is, according to the first Tanna, the flesh of fowl different [from that of fish and locust]? — [Presumably] because people often say. I could not find flesh of the cattle and bought flesh of the fowl instead.7 But can you not argue similarly: people often say. I could not find flesh of the cattle and bought fish instead? — Said R. Papa: We deal with the case where [the vow was made] on the day of blood letting. when people do not as a rule eat any fish.8 But then he may not eat fowl either? For Samuel9 said: If a man who has let blood eats the flesh of fowl, his heart will fly off like a fowl. And it has further been taught: One should not let blood after a meal of fish, fowl and salted meat! — Rather said R. Papa: We deal with a case where [the vow was made] at a time when his eyes were sore, when one does not eat fish. IF THE EMPLOYER SAID TO HIM, ‘GIVE THEM ONE PIECE EACH’ etc. May we not infer from this that if an agent adds to his order he still remains an agent [in respect of the original commission]?10 — Said R. Shesheth: [Our Mishnah deals with a case] where [the agent] said to the guests. ‘Take one piece each at my master's permission and another with my permission’. Ordinarily if one is e.g., charged to buy meat one would enquire first whether liver may be bought instead. that gourds are not regarded as essentially different from herbs, although consultation would be required for such deviation from the original order. The following discussion is recorded there with little variation. considered as essentially different from the original one, he admits that such change may not be undertaken without the employer's authorization, and this the agent has failed to obtain in the instance of our Mishnah, wherefore he is himself guilty of sacrilege.