that any se’a I wish I will take. He took a large palm basket, smeared it with tar, and overturned it upon his head, and went, and said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Let the Master measure for me the forty se’a of wheat that I am owed by you. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi laughed at this and said to him: Did I not warn you not to make me laugh? He said to him: What I am taking from you is simply the wheat that I am owed by you.

The Gemara relates another story. Bar Kappara said to the daughter of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whose husband’s name was ben Elasa: Tomorrow I will drink wine at your father’s dancing and your mother’s singing [kirekanei]. Ben Elasa was the son-in-law of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and was a very wealthy man. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi invited him to the wedding of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi at the wedding: What is the meaning of the word to’eva, abomination, used by the Torah to describe homosexual intercourse (see Leviticus 18:22)? Whatever it was that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara in explanation, claiming that this is the meaning of to’eva, bar Kappara refuted it by proving otherwise. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: You explain it. Bar Kappara said to him: Let your wife come and pour me a goblet of wine. She came and poured him wine. Bar Kappara then said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Arise and dance for me, so that I will tell you the meaning of the word: This is what the Merciful One is saying in the Torah in the word to’eva: You are straying after it [to’e ata bah], i.e., after an atypical mate.

When they came to drink another cup, bar Kappara said to him: What is the meaning of the word tevel, perversion, as in the verse: “Neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion [tevel]” (Leviticus 18:23)? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said various explanations to him, as he did the previous time, which were all refuted again by bar Kappara. Bar Kappara then said to him: Perform for me as you did before, so that I will tell you. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so. Bar Kappara then said to him that the phrase: “It is tevel” means: Does it have any spice [tevalin yesh bah]? Is this act of sexual intercourse with an animal different than all other acts of sexual intercourse, which would cause one to engage in such a repulsive action?

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara: And what is the meaning of the word zimma, lewdness, as in the verse: “They are near kinswomen; it is lewdness [zimma]” (Leviticus 18:17), stated with regard to a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman and her daughter? He said to him: Perform for me as you did the previous time. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so, and bar Kappara said to him that zimma means: What is she [zo ma hi]? This man would be confused about how to refer to his wives; his wife is also his other wife’s mother or daughter. Ben Elasa could not tolerate Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s humiliation, so he and his wife arose and left the wedding.

In what other context is ben Elasa mentioned? He is mentioned in a baraita, as it is taught: Ben Elasa did not dispense his money on his special haircut for naught. Rather, he spent it to show others what the haircut of a High Priest looked like.

As it is written with regard to the priests: “They shall poll their heads” (Ezekiel 44:20), and it is taught in a baraita: This haircut is like a luleyanit. The Gemara asks: What is a luleyanit? Rav Yehuda said: It is a unique haircut. The Gemara asks: What is this haircut like? Rava said: The edge of this hank of hair is by the roots of that hank of hair. The hair is cut in the form of hanks that do not overlap. And this is the haircut of a High Priest, for which ben Elasa paid a large sum.

§ It is stated in the mishna that one who said: Cooked food is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it, is permitted to taste a turemita egg and the remutza gourd. The Gemara asks: What is the remutza gourd? Shmuel said: A type of gourd that grows in Karkuza [kara karkuzai], which does not cook well. Rav Ashi said: A gourd that is insulated in embers [remetz].

Ravina raised an objection to the definition given by Rav Ashi from a baraita: The halakha is that one who plants different types of vegetables in close proximity to each other violates, by rabbinic law, the transgression of diverse kinds (see Kilayim). Concerning which types of gourd are considered to be different types, Rabbi Neḥemya says that an Aramean gourd is identical to the Egyptian gourd, and one is permitted to plant them together. However, there is a prohibition of diverse kinds when it is planted with the Greek gourd, and there is a prohibition of diverse kinds when it is planted with the remutza gourd. This indicates that the remutza gourd is a type of gourd rather than a gourd prepared in a certain manner. This is a conclusive refutation of Rav Ashi’s opinion.

MISHNA: In the case of one who vows that food cooked in a dish is forbidden to him, he is prohibited from eating only food that is cooked by boiling it in a dish, i.e., its main preparation is in a dish. However, if one said: That which enters into a dish is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it, he is prohibited from tasting anything cooked in a dish, even if the final stage of the food’s preparation is not in a dish.

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: One who vows that that which enters into a dish is forbidden to him is also prohibited from eating that which enters a stewpot, as it has already entered into a dish before it enters into the stewpot. Food would be cooked in a dish and then it would be cooked some more in a stewpot. However, if one vowed that that which enters into the stewpot is forbidden to him, he is permitted to eat from that which enters into a dish, i.e., food that is cooked only in a regular dish. If one vows that that which is cooked in a dish is forbidden to him, he is permitted to eat that which is cooked in a stewpot, as he referred only to foods whose main preparation is in a dish. Similarly, if one vows that that which is cooked in a stewpot is forbidden to him, he is permitted to eat that which is cooked in a dish.

One who vows that that which enters into an oven is forbidden to him is prohibited only from eating bread, as that is the main food that is baked in an oven. But if one said: Anything made in an oven is forbidden to me, he is prohibited from eating anything made in an oven.