Nedarim 51a — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Bar Kappara:

Let the Master see [

let Rabbi see]

that I will take any geriva that I want [

so that I can receive the wheat in whatever measure I wish].

He took [

Bar Kappara took]

a large basket [

a large basket],

he coated it with pitch [

he smeared it with pitch] so that the wheat would not emerge through the holes of the basket,

and placed it over his head [

and turned it over on his head] so that Rabbi would not recognize him.

And he went [

and came] to Rabbi,

and said to him: Let the Master fill for me forty geriva of the wheat that I have a claim against you for [

so that Rabbi would measure for me with this basket the four measures of wheat that Rabbi was obligated to give me].

I will make you laugh [

you swear],

Rabbi!

Rabbi said to

Bar Kappara:

Did I not warn you not to make fun? [

Did I not warn you not to make fun of me]?

Bar Kappara said to

him:

I am taking the wheat that I have a claim against you for [

I came only to take the wheat that you became obligated to give me].

On the evening of the wedding of Rabbi Shimon, the son of Rabbi,

Bar Kappara said to the daughter of

him,

Rabbi,

who was married to Ben Elasa:

Tomorrow I shall drink wine [

tomorrow (at the wedding of Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi) I shall drink wine]

at your father’s dancing [

when your father dances before me]

and at your mother’s shrieking [

and your mother will shriek and sing].

Ben Elasa was Rabbi’s son-in-law, and he was very wealthy; he invited him to the wedding feast of Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi [

he was among those invited to the wedding of Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi].

At the time of the wedding,

Bar Kappara said to Rabbi: What is [

what is the meaning of the word]

“abomination” (Leviticus 20) concerning male intercourse?

concerning intercourse between males.

Every

interpretation

that Rabbi said to him, that this is the meaning [

that this is the meaning of]

“abomination,” Bar Kappara refuted.

Rabbi said to

Bar Kappara:

You explain it

the meaning of “abomination”!

Bar Kappara said to

him:

Let the wife of your household come and pour me a cup [

let your wife come and pour me a cup of wine, and then I shall tell you the interpretation of the matter].

She came and poured it for him [

Rabbi’s wife came and poured it for him].

Bar Kappara said to

Rabbi

: Get up and dance for me,

before me, so that

I may tell you [

that I may tell you] the meaning of the word “abomination”—

Thus the Merciful One said, “abomination”—

you are mistaken in it,

leaving the beds of a woman and going to a male.

For another cup [

when Bar Kappara drank another cup] of wine,

he said to

Rabbi:

What is “tevel” (Leviticus 18), which is written concerning a woman who has intercourse with an animal?

which is written concerning a woman who has intercourse with an animal?

Rabbi said to

him:

As with the first matter. [

that is, as it was with the previous matter], for every interpretation that Rabbi told him, Bar Kappara refuted it, until Rabbi asked Bar Kappara to explain it.

Bar Kappara said to

him,

Do for me [

do for me] as with the previous matter, that your wife should come and pour me a cup, and Rabbi should dance before me, so that

I may tell you

the meaning of “tevel.”

Rabbi did [

he did] as Bar Kappara had told him.

Bar Kappara said to

him,

“Tevel”—it is—

and is there

a spice in it

in intercourse with an animal

? Is this intercourse different from all other forms of intercourse [

what reason is there for her going to the animal and leaving her own kind]?

Rabbi said to

Bar Kappara:

And what is [

what is the meaning of the word]

“zimma” (Leviticus 18)?

Bar Kappara said to

Bar Kappara said to

him,

Do as with the first matter

that your wife should come and pour me a cup of wine, and Rabbi should dance before me.

Rabbi did [

he did] so,

and Bar Kappara said to

him: The meaning of zimma is:

this—

what is it?

An expression of doubt, for it is not known from whom she will conceive.

And since Ben Elasa was wealthy,

he could not contain [

he was unable]

Ben Elasa to bear [

to tolerate] and to see the disrespect toward Rabbi, his father-in-law.

Ben Elasa arose,

Ben Elasa,

and went out [

and exited]

he and his wife [

and his wife—the daughter of Rabbi]

from there [

from there].

What is [the significance of] Ben Elasa,

from where is it [known] that he was wealthy?

For it was taught: Ben Elasa did not scatter his money for nothing,

he would give much money to a barber to cut his hair like the haircut of the High

Priest,

but

to display through it

the beauty of the

haircut of

the

High Priest.

For it is written

concerning the haircut of the High Priest:

“They shall surely shear their heads” (Ezekiel 44).

(Иезекииль 44).

The tannai

taught in a baraita: Ben Elasa’s haircut was

like a lulinit.

What is a lulinit?

Rabbi Judah said: A unique haircut

that was beautiful, with nothing like it.

What does it look like,

how does that haircut appear?

Rava said: The head of

this hair was beside the root of

this

hair

.

One of the hairs did not rise over another.

And this is the haircut of the High Priest:

We learned in the Mishna: One who vows concerning cooked food is permitted

with regard to the delet ha-remuza.

What is the delet ha-remuza?

Shmuel said: A squash [

a squash]

from Karkoz [

from a place called Karkoz],

for this squash never becomes properly cooked, and therefore it is not called cooked food.

Rav Ashi said:

The delet ha-remuza is

a squash buried in hot ashes (

for it is not called cooked food by virtue of its being buried in hot ashes).

Ravina raised an objection to Rav Ashi:

How is it possible to explain that the delet ha-remuza is a squash buried in hot ashes? Yet we learned in the Mishna in tractate Kilayim:

Rabbi Nehemiah says: An Aramean squash is an Egyptian squash.

And it is prohibited in

mixed species with

a squash

of Greek origin.

And likewise it is prohibited in

mixed species with

a squash

that is remuza.

And it follows that the delet ha-remuza is not a squash buried in hot ashes, but rather it is a species of squash.

Refutation

of Rav Ashi’s interpretation!

Mishna:

The kדרה is a vessel in which foods are cooked in water.

The ilpas is a vessel in which foods are fried in oil.

There are foods whose cooking is completed in a kדרה, and these are called “work of the kדרה.”

And there are foods that at the beginning of their cooking are lowered into a kדרה for a slight boiling, and whose cooking is completed in an ilpas with oil; these are not called “work of the kדרה.”

A.

One who vows

to prohibit upon himself

the work of the kדרה—

is not

he

prohibited except from the work of boiling [

a cooked dish that requires much boiling], such as foods made from types of flour or legumes, whose cooking is through much boiling in a kדרה, until they become fit to eat.

For only such foods are called “work of the kדרה.”

But he is not prohibited from foods made in an ilpas, even if their cooking is completed there, for these are not called “work of the kדרה.”

B.

The one who vowed

said:

A konam

upon me is every food

that descends into a kדרה, which I shall not taste,

is prohibited

the one who vowed

from everything cooked in a kדרה.

He is prohibited not only from “work of the kדרה,” but also from all foods whose cooking is completed in an ilpas, since these foods too first descend into a kדרה and are partially cooked in it.

Gemara:

It was taught:

A.

One who vows concerning

the food

that descends into

that was cooked in a

kדרה is prohibited

also

from

the food

that descends into an ilpas,

since

this

food

already descended into a kדרה before it descended into an ilpas.

For the manner of cooking in an ilpas is to boil the food slightly in a kדרה in water before cooking it in an ilpas in oil.

B. But if he vowed

concerning

the food

that descends into

that was cooked inside an

ilpas,

the law is that he is

permitted with regard to what descends into a kדרה,

since it did not descend into an ilpas.

C. And if he vowed

concerning

the food

made in a kדרה,

the law is that he is

permitted with regard to what is made in an ilpas.

Since “made” implies the completion of making, therefore, with regard to what is made in an ilpas, even though it already descended into a kדרה, nevertheless, since its making was completed in an ilpas, one who vows concerning what is made in a kדרה is permitted.

D. And if he vowed

concerning

the food

made in an ilpas,

the law is that he is

permitted with regard to what is made in a kדרה

even if afterward they lowered the food into an ilpas, since its making was completed in a kדרה.

E.

One who vows concerning what descends into an oven,

the law is that he is

prohibited only from bread

since ordinarily what descends into an oven means bread.

F.

And if he said

the one who vowed:

Every work of an oven

is prohibited

to me,

the law is that he is

prohibited from all

the foods

made in an oven.