מתני׳ הנודר מן הירק מותר בדלועין ורבי עקיבא אוסר אמרו לו לרבי עקיבא והלא אומר אדם לשלוחו קח לי ירק והוא אומר לא מצאתי אלא דלועין

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.

אמר להם כן הדבר או שמא אומר הוא לא מצאתי אלא קיטנית אלא שהדלועין בכלל ירק וקיטנית אינו בכלל ירק ואסור בפול המצרי לח ומותר ביבש

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.

גמ׳ הנודר מן הירק כו׳ והא מן ירק נדר אמר עולא באומר ירקי קדרה עלי ודילמא ירק הנאכל בקדרה קאמר באומר ירק המתבשל בקדרה עלי

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 say ing: 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.

במאי קא מיפלגי רבנן סברי כל מילתא דצריך שליחא לאמלוכי עלה לאו מיניה הוא ורבי עקיבא סבר כל מילתא דמימליך שליחא עלה מיניה הוא אמר אביי מודה רבי עקיבא לענין מלקות שאינו לוקה

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.

תנן התם השליח שעשה שליחותו בעל הבית מעל לא עשה שליחותו שליח מעל

We learned in a mishna there ( Me’ila 20a): With regard to an agent who performed his mission properly, if he was t asked 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.

מאן תנא אמר רב חסדא מתניתין דלא כרבי עקיבא דתנן כיצד אמר לו תן בשר לאורחים ונתן להם כבד תן כבד ונתן להם בשר השליח מעל ואי רבי עקיבא הא אמר רבי עקיבא כל מילתא דמימליך עלה שליח מיניה הוא למעול בעל הבית ולא למעול שליח

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.

אמר אביי אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא

Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva,