Nedarim 54: Types of Vegetables, Who does the Shopping, Foods Used after Bloodletting

Perek VII begins with a Mishnaic question: are gourds considered to be vegetables?  Abaye's opinions are argued throughout today's daf.  

There are a number of ways to determine whether or not gourds might be included in a vow that prohibits the consumption of vegetables.  First, are they purchased alongside other vegetables?  Next, are they in their own category of vegetables, like legumes?  Third, might their consumption depend on whether or not they are cooked, just like cowpeas which are considered to be vegetables when fresh but not vegetables when dry?

The Gemara attends to the vow itself: what is the person's intent when the vow is stated?  What are the words actually used?  They also discuss whether the conventional wisdom suggests that a vegetable is cooked in a pot, in which case vegetables cooked in pots are included in the parameters of the vow.  Some rabbis - but not Rabbi Akiva - understand that gourds should be classified as fruits and never included in vows regarding vegetables.  

Further on, the Gemara considers the actions of an agent.  Who will be at fault if an agent mistakenly breaks a vow; if an agent gives a gourd to one who has intended to include gourds in his/her vow prohibiting vegetables?  A note in Steinsaltz teaches that usually an agent alone is held responsible for "performing his mission improperly".  However, in the case of a consecrated item, the one who dispatched the agent is also held liable.

Let's throw meat into the mix.  Not literally, of course, especially if that meat is consecrated or included in one's vow.  If a person vows not to consume meat, what is included in his/her vow?  The rabbis discuss the innards of an animal, the flesh of a bird and the flesh of fish and even grasshoppers.    They agree that an agent must consult with his employer if there is a question about what might be included in the employer's (or his guest's) vow.  

What is usually understood to be meat?  Bird flesh?  Kidney? What about the innards of an animal, which we learn (noted by Steinsaltz) were used by the poor exclusively and were not known as meat?

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel  says that one who vows off meat is permitted to eat meat of the head, feet, windpipe, liver, heart, and of birds, fish and grasshoppers.  In fact, he states that one is not a person if one consumes or even buys such crude animal parts.

One proof that the flesh of fish is included in a vow prohibiting meat comes from an agent's question to his employer: "If there is no meat available, should I purchase fish?"  If fish is a usual substitute for meat, perhaps it should be forbidden when meat is forbidden.

We then learn about medical practices of our ancient Jewish relatives.  It seemed to be common knowledge that many foods were unhealthy to eat after letting blood: fish, birds (unless fully boiled, says the Gemara), salted meat, milk, cheese, eggs, nor garden cress (a plant used for seasoning).  Bird meat was thought to make the heart fly like a bird.  Fish was up for grabs:  some said it was dangerous following bloodletting, but others like Shmuel thought fish to be medicine for one's eyes, particularly in later stages of an eye infection (or when served at the end of one's meal, according to Rabbi Yitzchak Tzafati).

Apparently this argument regarding the medicinal use of fish for one's eyes is used to prove that Rashi's student, and not Rashi himself, wrote the commentary for Nedarim.  In Masechet Me'ila, Rashi teaches that fish is medicinally useful for eye infections at the start but not the end of those infections.  However, here he teaches that fish is useful to heal the end but not the start of eye infections.  

Our notes teach that bloodletting, often done by leeches, was commonly practiced to maintain health. It was to be followed by large-enough meals, high in sugar, that digested quickly. Thus boiled bird meat was recommended while bird meat cooked differently was avoided.

It strikes me that once we have established that Rashi's student's commentaries have been used in Nedarim, we should know that all commentary is suspect.  How can we know that the rabbis' interpretations always matched up so flawlessly if even Rashi (yes, a later scholar, but still) could be misattributed?