ב א"ר חסדא דלא כר"ע דתנן הנודר מן הירק מותר בדילועין ור"ע אוסר
2 for which the agent would consult [the principal] is considered something different [from the original order]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this situation is assumed to exist in the case of the Mishnah in which the agent offered liver instead of meat. Ordinarily if one is e.g., charged to buy meat one would enquire first whether liver may be bought instead.');"><sup>2</sup></span> - 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ned. 54a. Cf. ibid. as to R. Akiba's reason. In this instance, which is parallel to that of our Mishnah, R. Akiba holds 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.');"><sup>3</sup></span> Abaye said: The Mishnah may well agree with R'Akiba, for do you not admit that he should have nevertheless consulted his employer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although R. Akiba holds that also where consultation is required the changed order is not necessarily to be 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.');"><sup>4</sup></span>