There is no hamburger meat. May I buy liver instead? TB Nedarim 54

With daf TB Nedarim 54 we begin the seventh chapter of our massekhet. This chapter continues the same theme of the previous one. It clarifies what the terms used meant in a vow during the time of the Talmud. The first Mishna of our chapter raises an interesting question. Does consultation mean inclusion? When you send somebody to the supermarket to pick up a piece of meat and the supermarket is out of it and your personal shopper asks you whether he may substitute something else in its stead, is that new item included in the vow a person makes? For example, if a person makes a vow not to eat meat, does this include hooves, intestines, and the windpipe or may he eat them? That is the disagreement between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Akiva in the Mishna.

“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.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara wants to know who the anonymous Tanna Kamma is. The Ron explains the reason why. When deciding the halakha when there’s a disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and another Tanna, the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva. When deciding the halakha between Rabbi Akiva and a group of rabbis, the halakha follows the rabbis.

By careful analysis the Gemara learns that the Tanna Kamma is none other than Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. “The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in the mishna here? The Gemara answers: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a dispute in the baraita: For one who vows that meat is forbidden to him, it is prohibited to eat all types of meat, and it is prohibited for him to eat meat of the head, and of the feet, and of the windpipe, and of the liver, and of the heart, although people do not typically eat meat from those parts of the body. And it is prohibited for him to eat meat of birds, as it too is popularly called meat. However, it is permitted for him to eat of the meat of fish and grasshoppers, as their flesh is not called meat.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who vows that meat is forbidden to him, is forbidden in all types of meat, and is permitted to eat meat of the head, and of the feet, and of the windpipe, and of the liver, and of the heart and of birds, and needless to say he may also partake of fish and grasshoppers. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would likewise say: Innards are not considered meat, and one who eats them is not a person, meaning that the innards are not fit for human consumption. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to one who eats them, in terms of the halakhot related to their consumption, e.g., vows, they are considered as meat. However, with regard to purchase, one who purchases them is not a person. In any case, apparently, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as he maintains that although if an agent fails to find meat he is required to consult his employer before replacing it with liver, it is not considered meat with regard to vows.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Now we know that consultation does not mean inclusion. Just make sure that the grasshoppers of the kosher kind.