Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi promised bar Kapara - forty measures of wheat for not making him laugh.

(b) bar Kapara succeeded in making Rebbi laugh nonetheless - when he chose a wickerwork basket as the measure to receive his 'prize', reinforced it with pitch, and walked in to Rebbi wearing it upside-down on his head.

(c) bar Kapara told Rebbi's daughter the day before her brother (Rebbi Shimon)'s wedding that, at the wedding, he (bar Kapara) would drink wine that her mother had poured for him (Rashi) whilst her father danced in front of him. He achieved this (the first time) - by challenging Rebbi to explain the source of the word (mentioned in Kedoshim in connection with homosexuality) "To'eivah". When, after a number of attempts (each of which bar Kaparah refuted), he asked bar Kaparah to give *his* explanation, he agreed to do so only after Rebbi's wife poured him out a drink, and Rebbi himself began to dance.

(d) *He* explained it to be an acronym of "To'eh Atah Bah" (meaning that the perpetrator goes astray [to leave his wife and go instead] after it [the animal).

(a) He achieved the same thing two more times. Following the same pattern, he explained the word ...

1. ... "Tevel" (ibid - in connection with bestiality) - as the acronym of "Tavlin Yesh Bah?" (Is the animal spiced, that it attracts the woman to leave her husband and go for it instead?)
2. ... "Zimah" (ibid - in connection with a woman who has relations with many men) - as the acronym of 'Zu Mah Hi' (referring to the fact that she will never know from whom she is pregnant - with serious consequences [see Rashi]).

(b) ben Elasha - Rebbi's son-in-law, left the wedding celebrations together with his wife, because he could no longer bear to witness the degrading way in which bar Kapara was treating his father-in-law.

(c) ben Elasha was famous - for spending a lot of money to have his hair cut in the fashion of 'Luli'anus', so as to demonstrate it to those who cut the hair of the Kohen Gadol.

(d) What was so special about the Kohen Gadol's haircut - (which we learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Kasom Yiksemu es Rosheihem") is that (like the haircut of the king) the tip of each hair reached the base of the next one.

(a) Our Mishnah permits someone who declares a Neder forbidding a Tavshil, to eat a Turmita egg and a Remutzah pumpkin. According to Shmuel, the latter refers to pumpkins from Karkuza'a, which did not cook well. Rav Ashi explains it to mean - a pumpkin that is placed in ashes to be heated.

(b) We prove Rav Ashi wrong from the Beraisa where Rebbi Nechemyah, equating an Arama'ic pumpkin with an Egyptian one, goes on to say that it may not be planted together with a Dala'as ha'Remutzah, because they are Kil'ayim - from which it is evident that a Dala'as ha'Remutzah is a species of pumpkin, and not one that is prepared in a certain way.

(a) The Mishnah states 'ha'Noder mi'Ma'aseh Kedeirah, Ein Asur Ela mi'Ma'aseh Raschasa' - which the Yerushalmi explains to mean various forms of wheat kernels and flour heated up in a pot (see also Bartenura and Tosfos Yom-tov).

(b) They are referred to as Ma'aseh Raschasa' - because they require a lot of boiling and cooking.

(c) If one says 'Konem ha'Yored li'Kedeirah she'Eini To'em' - then he is forbidden to eat anything that is cooked in a pot.

(a) The Beraisa states 'ha'Noder min ha'Yored li'Kedeirah, Asur be'Ma'aseh Ilfas'. An 'Ilfas' is - a frying pan.

(b) The reason for this ruling is - because whatever was fried in a pan had been cooked in a pot first.

(c) 'ha'Noder min ha'Yored le'Ilfas Mutar be'Ma'aseh Kedeirah', because not everything that goes into a pot has been fried in a pan first. The Tana finds it necessary to teach us this - because we might otherwise have thought that whatever has been slightly heated (like they used to fry in those days), is considered a Ma'aseh Ilfas.

(d) Someone who is Noder from 'ha'Na'aseh ...

1. ... bi'Kedeirah' is permitted to eat what was fried in an Ilfas (despite the fact that it was cooked in a pot first - because 'ha'Na'aseh bi'Kedeirah' implies that its process was completed in a pot (and not in a pan).
2. ... be'Ilfas' is permitted to eat what was finished in a pan - because, even though the product was later placed in an Ilfas, it was already fully completed in the pot.

7)

(a) The difference whether someone is Noder from ...

1. ... 'ha'Kavush' or if he declares 'Kavush she'Eini To'em' is - that the former is confined to vegetables, whereas the latter incorporates *anything* that is pickled.
2. ... 'ha'Shaluk' or 'ha'Tzeli' on the one hand or if he declares 'Shaluk she'Eini To'em' or 'ha'Tzeli she'Eini To'em' on the other, is - that the former is confined to meat, whereas the latter incorporates anything that is half-cooked.
3. ... 'ha'Meli'ach' or if he declares 'Meli'ach she'Eini To'em' is - that the former is confined to fish, whereas the latter incorporates anything that is salted.

(b) The criterion might lie in the words 'she'Eini To'em' (in the latter statement) - or it might lie in the extra 'Hey' in the former one.

(c) Nevertheless, the Tana needs to add the words 'she'Eini To'em' to teach us that one still needs to say *'ha*'Shaluk' ... in order to be effective (that 'she'Eini To'em' on its own is not sufficient).

(d) If someone is 'Noder min ha'Meli'ach' - the Yerushalmi rules that meat that has been temporarily salted is included in the Neder.

(a) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ivya asked Rav Ashi what the Din will be if someone says 'de'Kavush', 'de'Shaluk', 'di'Tzeli' or 'di'Melia'ach', whether the 'Daled' has the same connotations as the 'Hey'. According to the second explanation in the Mishnah (that the criterion lies in the words 'she'Eini To'em' - the She'eilah is what the Din will be if one said 'Kavush' ... without the 'Hey' and without 'she'Eini To'em'.

(b) The She'eilah remains unresolved.

(c) The difference whether someone is Noder from 'Dag' or from 'Dagim' is - that the former implies large fish (which are sold individually), whereas the latter implies small ones (that are sold in bulk).

(d) Consequently, if he is Noder from 'Dag Dagim' - both are prohibited.

(a) In the previous case, there is no difference whether the fish, in the previous case, are salted or unsalted, cooked or raw.

(b) The Noder is however, permitted to eat chopped fish, fish-juice and fish-fat - because Dag and Dagim both imply fish that one buys and prepares whole.

(a) Someone who is Noder from ...

1. ... 'ha'Tzachanah' (small, salted pickled fish) - is forbidden to eat chopped fish, though fish-juice and fish-fat are permitted.
2. ... 'T'ris T'rufah' - is forbidden to eat fish-juice and fish-fat.

(b) Regarding Tzachanah - the latter is permitted to eat the whole fish, but not the parts of it that are chopped.

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - 'Dag' includes big fish (with regard to Nedarim) and 'Dagah', little ones.

(b) The difference between large fish and small ones - differs from town to town, depending upon local custom (at which size, the fish are sold individually and at which size they are sold in numbers).

(c) Abaye told Rav Papa that from the Pasuk "va'Yeman Hashem Dag Gadol Livlo'a es Yonah" we learn - that 'Dag incorporates large fish.

(d) Although the Pasuk there also writes "Vayispalel Yonah mi'Me'ei ha'Dagah', Abaye explained to Rav Papa that the first fish spewed him out and a second one swallowed him. Despite its size, it was considered a small fish - because, relative to the first one, it *was* small.

(a) We disprove the theory that 'Dagah' means little fish - from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Dagah Asher ba'Ye'or Meisah", and it is obvious that, during the plague of blood the large fish died too.

(b) We explain the distinction between 'Dag' and 'Dagah' in our Mishnah - by referring to the principle 'bi'Nedarim Holchin Achar Leshon B'nei Adam', and people tend to call small fish (specifically) 'Dagah'.

(c) We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Noder min ha'Tzachanah, Mutar be'Tzir u've'Tzachanah'. Small, pickled fish are called 'Tzachanah' - because the juice that oozes from them has an unpleasant odor (as in the Pasuk in Yo'el "Vata'al Tzachanaso").

(d) When Ravina asked Rav Ashi 'Tzichin Mai' - he meant that seeing as we just learned that 'ha'Noder min ha'Tzachanah, Mutar be'Tzir u've'Muryas', would the same apply if he said 'Tzichin', instead of Tzachanah, or would 'Tzichin' (which has connotations of being inclusive), include them too.