Rava did not agree with Abaye’s solution in the alley where the non-Jew Lachman bar Ristak lived. He suggested an alternative solution. Rav Yehuda said two halachot in the name of Shmuel – one regarding a hired laborer or gatherer of a non-Jew can join the eruv on behalf of the non-Jew’s property and one regarding one who drinks a quarter log of wine cannot teach/rule on halachic issues. Rav Nachman said that one thing he said was good and the other was not. He was reprimanded by Rava for speaking in that manner. Can one pray after one drank wine? Is there a difference if one just drank some wine or if one is drunk? Where does one draw the line? One who falls into money in a relatively easy manner, what can one do to prevent losing it? Walking a mil (2,000 cubits) or a bit of sleep helps on to become sober. The gemara brings a long story from a braita about Rabban Gamliel who went three mil after drinking before annuling someone’s vow. Why three and not one? Various other laws are derived and discussed from this story such as picking up food that is thrown on the street, sitting while annuling vows, etc.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on the occasion of his first yahrzeit. Over the course of his distinguished career as an educator, as principal of the Yeshiva of Flatbush, and as community rabbi, he inspired thousands of students with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on the occasion of his first yahrzeit. Over the course of his distinguished career as an educator, as principal of the Yeshiva of Flatbush, and as community rabbi, he inspired thousands of students with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Eruvin 64
אִם כֵּן, בִּיטַּלְתָּ תּוֹרַת עֵירוּב מֵאוֹתוֹ מָבוֹי!
If so, you have abolished the halakhic category of eiruv from that alleyway. Since from a halakhic perspective it is considered as though only one person lives in that alleyway, there is no need for an eiruv. Consequently, when the residents carry in it without an eiruv, observers will mistakenly think that it is permitted to carry in an alleyway even without an eiruv.
דִּמְעָרְבִי. יֹאמְרוּ עֵירוּב מוֹעִיל בִּמְקוֹם גּוֹי?! דְּמַכְרְזִינַן.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, replied: It is required that they establish an eiruv anyway, as a reminder of the laws of eiruvin, even though it serves no halakhic purpose. Rava retorted that this in turn results in a different problem: Observers will then say that an eiruv is effective even in the place of a gentile, even if he does not rent out his domain, which is against the halakha. He replied: We make an announcement to the effect that they are not carrying because of the eiruv, and that it only serves as a reminder.
אַכְרָזְתָּא לְדַרְדְּקֵי?!
Rava rejected this option as well: Can we make an announcement for the children? Even if it is assured that all adults present will hear the announcement, how will the children, who do not hear or understand the announcement, know the halakha later in life? Recalling that their fathers established an eiruv in this alleyway, they will think that an eiruv is effective even in the place of a gentile. Therefore, one cannot rely on Abaye’s solution.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לֵיזִיל חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, לִיקְרַב לֵיהּ, וְלִשְׁאוֹל מִינֵּיהּ דּוּכְתָּא וְלַינַּח בֵּיהּ מִידֵּי, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּשְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וַאֲפִילּוּ לְקִיטוֹ — נוֹתֵן עֵירוּבוֹ וְדַיּוֹ.
Rather, Rava said that the gentile’s Jewish neighbors should proceed as follows: Let one of them go and become friendly with the gentile, and ask him for permission to make use of a place in his domain, and set something down there, thus becoming like the gentile’s hired laborer or harvester. And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Not only can the gentile himself rent out his domain for the purpose of an eiruv, but even his hired laborer, and even his harvester, if he is a Jew, may rent out the space and contribute to the eiruv on his behalf, and this is enough.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הָיוּ שָׁם חֲמִשָּׁה שְׂכִירוֹ וַחֲמִשָּׁה לְקִיטוֹ מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם אָמְרוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ לְהָקֵל, יֹאמְרוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר?
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If there were five hired laborers or five harvesters there, what is the halakha? Does the presence of more than one of these, if they are all Jews, entail a stringency, such that they are all required to join in the eiruv or that they are all required to rent out his domain? Rav Yosef said to him: If the Sages said that the gentile’s hired laborer or harvester stands in his place as a leniency, would they say that his hired laborer or harvester stands in his place as a stringency? This law was stated only as a leniency with regard to the laws of renting for the purpose of an eiruv, not in order to introduce more stringencies.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וַאֲפִילּוּ לְקִיטוֹ, נוֹתֵן עֵירוּבוֹ וְדַיּוֹ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כַּמָּה מְעַלְּיָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא.
The Gemara proceeds to examine the ruling cited in the course of the previous discussion. Returning to the matter itself, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even the gentile’s hired laborer, and even his harvester, may contribute to the eiruv in his stead, and this is enough. Rav Naḥman said: How excellent is this halakha. Even Rav Naḥman agreed with this statement, and viewed it as correct and substantiated.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁתָה רְבִיעִית יַיִן — אַל יוֹרֶה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא מְעַלְּיָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, דְּהָא אֲנָא כֹּל כַּמָּה דְּלָא שָׁתֵינָא רְבִיעֵתָא דְּחַמְרָא — לָא צִילָא דַּעְתַּאי.
However, Rav Naḥman did not give his approval to all of Rav Yehuda’s rulings, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one drank a quarter-log of wine, he may not issue a halakhic ruling, as the wine is liable to confuse his thinking. With regard to this second statement, Rav Naḥman said: This halakha is not excellent, as concerning myself, as long as I have not drunk a quarter-log of wine, my mind is not clear. It is only after drinking wine that I can issue appropriate rulings.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא אָמַר מָר הָכִי? הָאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְרוֹעֶה זוֹנוֹת יְאַבֶּד הוֹן״ — כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר שְׁמוּעָה זוֹ נָאָה, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ נָאָה — מְאַבֵּד הוֹנָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What is the reason that the Master said this, making a statement that praises one halakha and disparages another? Didn’t Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “But he who keeps company with prostitutes [zonot] wastes his fortune” (Proverbs 29:3)? It alludes to the following: Anyone who says: This teaching is pleasant [zo na’a] but this is not pleasant, loses the fortune of Torah. It is not in keeping with the honor of Torah to make such evaluations. Rav Naḥman said to him: I retract, and I will no longer make such comments concerning words of Torah.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: שָׁתוּי אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל, וְאִם הִתְפַּלֵּל — תְּפִלָּתוֹ תְּפִלָּה. שִׁיכּוֹר אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל, וְאִם הִתְפַּלֵּל — תְּפִלָּתוֹ תּוֹעֵבָה.
On the topic of drinking wine, Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who has drunk wine must not pray, but if he nonetheless prayed, his prayer is a prayer, i.e., he has fulfilled his obligation. On the other hand, one who is intoxicated with wine must not pray, and if he prayed, his prayer is an abomination.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שָׁתוּי, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי שִׁיכּוֹר? כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר שׁוּמְנִי וְרַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר יִרְמְיָה מִגִּיפְתִּי הֲווֹ קָא מִפַּטְרִי מֵהֲדָדֵי אַמַּעְבָּרָא דִּנְהַר יוֹפְטִי. אֲמַרוּ: כׇּל חַד מִינַּן לֵימָא מִילְּתָא דְּלָא שְׁמִיעַ לְחַבְרֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר מָרִי בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לָא יִפָּטֵר אָדָם מֵחֲבֵירוֹ אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ דְּבַר הֲלָכָה, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ כָּךְ זוֹכְרוֹ.
The Gemara poses a question: What are the circumstances in which a person is considered one who has drunk wine; and what are the circumstances in which a person is considered one who is intoxicated with wine? The Gemara answers that one can learn this from the following event: As Rabbi Abba bar Shumni and Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya from Gifti were taking leave of each other at the ford of the Yofti River, they said: Let each one of us say something that his fellow scholar has not yet heard, for Mari bar Rav Huna said: A person must take leave of his fellow only in the midst of a discussion of a matter of halakha, as due to this he will remember him.
פְּתַח חַד וַאֲמַר: הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שָׁתוּי, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי שִׁיכּוֹר? שָׁתוּי — כֹּל שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְדַבֵּר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ. שִׁיכּוֹר — כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ.
One of them opened the discussion and said: What are the circumstances where a person is considered one who has drunk wine, and what are the circumstances where a person is considered one who is intoxicated with wine? One who has drunk wine refers to anyone who has drunk wine but whose mind remains clear enough that he is able to talk in the presence of a king. One who is intoxicated refers to anyone who is so disoriented by the wine he has drunk that he is not able to talk in the presence of a king.
פְּתַח אִידַּךְ וַאֲמַר: הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה וְיִתְקַיְּימוּ בְּיָדוֹ? יִקַּח בָּהֶן סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אֲפִילּוּ
The other one then opened a different discussion and said: With regard to one who took possession of a convert’s property, what should he do so that it remains in his hands? The property of a convert who died without children is regarded as ownerless, and is acquired by the first person to perform a valid act of acquisition upon it. Since in this case the one who took possession of the property did not acquire it through his own labor, his ownership is tenuous, and he is liable to lose it unless he uses it for the purpose of a mitzva. One in this situation should buy a Torah scroll with part of the revenue, and by the merit of this act, he will retain the rest. Rav Sheshet said: Even
בַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ.
a husband who acquired rights to his wife’s property that she had brought into the marriage as her dowry should use part of the profits for the acquisition of a Torah scroll.
רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עֲבַד עִיסְקָא וּרְוַוח. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מָצָא מְצִיאָה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אֲפִילּוּ כְּתַב בְּהוּ תְּפִילִּין.
Rava said: Even if he entered into a business venture and made a large profit, he should act in a similar manner. Rav Pappa said: Even if he found a lost article, he should do the same. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He need not use the money to commission the writing of a Torah scroll, as even if he wrote a set of phylacteries with it, this, too, is a mitzva whose merit will enable him to retain the rest of the money.
וְאָמַר רַב חָנִין, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאי קְרָאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּדַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶדֶר וְגוֹ׳״.
Rav Ḥanin said, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥanina who said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: “And Israel vowed a vow to the Lord and said: If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will consecrate their cities” (Numbers 21:2), which shows that one who wishes to succeed should sanctify a portion of his earnings for Heaven.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא: דֶּרֶךְ מִיל, וְשֵׁינָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — מְפִיגִין אֶת הַיַּיִן. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁתָה כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית, אֲבָל שָׁתָה יוֹתֵר מֵרְבִיעִית — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ טוֹרַדְתּוֹ וְשֵׁינָה מְשַׁכַּרְתּוֹ.
The Gemara now cites additional teachings relating to the drinking of wine. Rami bar Abba said: Walking a path of a mil, and similarly, sleeping even a minimal amount, will dispel the effect of wine that one has drunk. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They only taught this with regard to one who has drunk a quarter-log of wine, but with regard to one who has drunk more than a quarter-log, this advice is not useful. In that case, walking a path of such a distance will preoccupy and exhaust him all the more, and a small amount of sleep will further intoxicate him.
וְדֶרֶךְ מִיל מְפִיגָה הַיַּיִן?! וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל הַחֲמוֹר וְהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ מֵעַכּוֹ לִכְזִיב, וְהָיָה רַבִּי אִילְעַאי מְהַלֵּךְ אַחֲרָיו. מָצָא גְּלוּסְקִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ, אָמַר לוֹ: אִילְעַאי, טוֹל גְּלוּסְקִין מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ. מָצָא גּוֹי אֶחָד, אָמַר לוֹ: מַבְגַּאי, טוֹל גְּלוּסְקִין הַלָּלוּ מֵאִילְעַאי.
The Gemara poses a question: Does walking a path of only a mil dispel the effects of wine? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding a donkey and traveling from Akko to Keziv, and his student Rabbi Elai was walking behind him. Rabban Gamliel found some fine loaves of bread on the road, and he said to his student: Elai, take the loaves from the road. Further along the way, Rabban Gamliel encountered a certain gentile and said to him: Mavgai, take these loaves from Elai.
נִיטַּפֵּל לוֹ רַבִּי אִילְעַאי, אָמַר לוֹ: מֵהֵיכָן אַתָּה? אָמַר לוֹ: מֵעֲיָירוֹת שֶׁל בּוּרְגָּנִין. וּמָה שִׁמְךָ? מַבְגַּאי שְׁמֵנִי. כְּלוּם הִיכִּירְךָ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מֵעוֹלָם? אָמַר לוֹ: לָאו.
Elai joined the gentile and said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From the nearby towns of guardsmen. He asked: And what is your name? The gentile replied: My name is Mavgai. He then inquired: Has Rabban Gamliel ever met you before, seeing as he knows your name? He said to him: No.
בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁכִּוֵּון רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים לָמַדְנוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה: לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין.
The Gemara interrupts the story in order to comment: At that time we learned that Rabban Gamliel divined the gentile’s name by way of divine inspiration that rested upon him. And at that time we also learned three matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel’s behavior: We learned that one may not pass by food, i.e., if a person sees food lying on the ground, he must stop and pick it up.
וְלָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהוֹלְכִין אַחֲרֵי רוֹב עוֹבְרֵי דְּרָכִים. וְלָמַדְנוּ שֶׁחֲמֵצוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי אַחַר הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה.
We also learned that we follow the majority of travelers. Since the area was populated mostly by gentiles, Rabban Gamliel assumed that the loaf belonged to a gentile, and was consequently prohibited to be eaten by a Jew. Therefore, he ordered that it be given to a gentile. And we further learned that with regard to leavened bread belonging to a gentile, it is permitted to benefit from this food after Passover. The incident recounted above occurred not long after the festival of Passover. By giving the loaf to the gentile instead of burning it in accordance with the halakhot of leavened bread that remains after Passover, Rabban Gamliel gained a certain benefit from it in the form of the gentile’s gratitude. This benefit is regarded as having monetary value.
כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִכְזִיב, בָּא אֶחָד לִישָּׁאֵל עַל נִדְרוֹ. אָמַר לָזֶה שֶׁעִמּוֹ: כְּלוּם שָׁתִינוּ רְבִיעִית יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי? אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן. אִם כֵּן, יְטַיֵּיל אַחֲרֵינוּ עַד שֶׁיָּפִיג יֵינֵינוּ.
The Gemara resumes the narrative: When Rabban Gamliel arrived in Keziv, a person came before him to request that he dissolve his vow. Rabban Gamliel said to the one who was with him, i.e., Rabbi Elai: Did we drink a quarter-log of Italian wine earlier? He said to him: Yes. Rabban Gamliel replied: If so, let him journey after us until the effect of our wine is dispelled, after which we may consider his issue.
וְטִיֵּיל אַחֲרֵיהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה מִילִין, עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְסוּלָּמָא שֶׁל צוּר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְסוּלָּמָא דְצוֹר, יָרַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִן הַחֲמוֹר, וְנִתְעַטֵּף, וְיָשַׁב, וְהִתִּיר לוֹ נִדְרוֹ.
And that person journeyed after them for three mil, until Rabban Gamliel arrived at the Ladder of Tyre. When he arrived at the Ladder of Tyre, Rabban Gamliel alighted from his donkey and wrapped himself in his shawl in the customary manner of a judge, who wraps himself in a shawl in order to sit in awe at the time of judgment, and he sat and dissolved his vow.
וְהַרְבֵּה דְּבָרִים לָמַדְנוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁרְבִיעִית יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי מְשַׁכֵּר, וְלָמַדְנוּ שִׁיכּוֹר אַל יוֹרֶה, וְלָמַדְנוּ שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ מְפִיגָה אֶת הַיַּיִן, וְלָמַדְנוּ שֶׁאֵין מְפִירִין נְדָרִים לֹא רָכוּב וְלֹא מְהַלֵּךְ וְלֹא עוֹמֵד, אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב.
The Gemara continues: At that time we learned many matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel’s conduct. We learned that a quarter-log of Italian wine intoxicates, and we learned that one who is intoxicated may not issue a halakhic ruling, and we learned that walking on a path dispels the effect of wine, and lastly we learned that one may not annul vows when he is either mounted on an animal, or walking, or even standing, but only when he is sitting.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת שְׁלֹשָׁה מִילִין! שָׁאנֵי יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי דִּמְשַׁכַּר טְפֵי.
In any event, the baraita is teaching that Rabban Gamliel found it necessary to walk three mil in order to become sober after drinking wine. The Gemara resolves the contradiction. Italian wine is different in that it is more intoxicating, therefore more extended activity is required in order to dispel its effects.
וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁתָה רְבִיעִית, אֲבָל שָׁתָה יוֹתֵר מֵרְבִיעִית, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ טוֹרַדְתּוֹ וְשֵׁינָה מְשַׁכַּרְתּוֹ!
The Gemara poses a question: But didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh said: They taught this only with regard to one who has drunk a quarter-log of wine, but with regard to one who has drunk more than a quarter-log, walking that distance will preoccupy and exhaust him all the more, and a small amount of sleep will further intoxicate him? If Italian wine is more intoxicating than other wine, shouldn’t a quarter-log be considered like a larger quantity of other wine?
רָכוּב שָׁאנֵי. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, לְרָמִי בַּר אַבָּא נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: רָכוּב שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara answers: Being mounted on an animal is different from walking; since he is not on foot it is not such a tiring activity. Accordingly, riding three mil will not exhaust him; rather, it will dispel the effect of the wine. The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, according to Rami bar Abba, who says that walking one mil is sufficient, it is also not difficult, as he too can say that riding is different from walking. Since one is not on foot, the effects of the wine are not dispelled as quickly. Therefore, three mil is necessary.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְפִירִין נְדָרִים בֵּין מְהַלֵּךְ בֵּין עוֹמֵד וּבֵין רָכוּב!
The Gemara poses a question with regard to one of the details of the story: Is that so, that Rabban Gamliel was required to alight from his donkey in order to annul the vow? But didn’t Rav Naḥman say: One may annul vows walking, standing, or mounted? Why, then, did Rabban Gamliel dismount his donkey?
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: פּוֹתְחִין בַּחֲרָטָה.
The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im, as there is an authority who says that one may open the possibility for dissolution of a vow by means of regret alone. In other words, there is no need to search for a special reason in order to dissolve a person’s vow; it is enough to ascertain that he regrets making it. This can be done easily, even while walking, standing, or riding.
וְאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין פּוֹתְחִין בַּחֲרָטָה.
And there is another authority who says that one may not open the possibility for dissolution of a vow by means of regret alone. Rather, one must find an opening, i.e., a particular reason to dissolve the vow in question, which requires a thorough analysis of the circumstances of the vow. This task must be performed free of distractions, which means one must be seated (Tosafot).
דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי פָּתַח לֵיהּ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא: ״יֵשׁ בּוֹטֶה כְּמַדְקְרוֹת חָרֶב וּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים מַרְפֵּא״ — כֹּל הַבּוֹטֶה רָאוּי לְדוֹקְרוֹ בְּחֶרֶב, אֶלָּא שֶׁלְּשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים מַרְפֵּא.
As Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With what did Rabban Gamliel open the possibility for dissolving his vow for that man, i.e., what opening did he find for him? Rabban Gamliel cited the verse: “There is one who utters like the piercings of a sword; but the tongue of the wise is health” (Proverbs 12:18) and explained it as follows: Whoever utters a vow deserves to be pierced by a sword, as he might fail to fulfill it. Therefore, one should not vow at all. Had you known that whoever vows is liable to be executed, would you have vowed? Rather, it is the tongue of the wise that heals, as when a Sage dissolves a vow, he dissolves it retroactively, and it is as though one had never taken the vow.
אָמַר מָר: וְאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּדוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁאֵין בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל פְּרוּצוֹת בִּכְשָׁפִים. אֲבָל בְּדוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים, שֶׁבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל פְּרוּצוֹת בִּכְשָׁפִים — מַעֲבִירִין.
The Gemara continues with its analysis of the baraita. The Master said previously: One of the halakhot learned from the incident involving Rabban Gamliel was that one may not pass by food; rather, one must treat the food with respect and pick it up. Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: They taught this ruling only in the early generations, when Jewish women were not accustomed to using witchcraft. However, in the later generations, when Jewish women are accustomed to using witchcraft, one may pass by food, as a spell might have been cast on the bread, and one must not put himself in unnecessary danger.
תָּנָא: שְׁלֵימִין מַעֲבִירִין, פְּתִיתִין אֵין מַעֲבִירִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַסִּי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאַפְּתִיתִין לָא עָבְדָן? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַתְּחַלֶּלְנָה אוֹתִי אֶל עַמִּי בְּשַׁעֲלֵי שְׂעוֹרִים וּבִפְתוֹתֵי לֶחֶם״! דְּשָׁקְלִי בְּאַגְרַיְיהוּ.
A Sage taught: If the loaves are whole, one may pass them by, as they might have been placed there for the purposes of witchcraft; however, if they are in pieces, one may not pass them by, because bread in pieces is not used for witchcraft. Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: Do they not perform magic with pieces of bread? Isn’t it written in the verse that deals with witchcraft: “And you have profaned Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread” (Ezekiel 13:19)? The Gemara answers: The verse does not mean that they used pieces of bread in their witchcraft, but rather that they took such pieces as their wages.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה:
Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: Kodshei Kodashim vs. Kodashim Kalim – What’s the Difference?
Zevachim Daf 22-29 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Zevahim 34: Pouring and Disposing of the Dregs
A Daf Of Their Own –Pigul
Zevahim 33: The Heavy Laying on of Hands
Zevahim 31: It’s a Measure of Time: Half a Loaf of Bread
Zevahim 32: The Surprising Leniencies and Leeway of Sacrifices
Zevahim 30: An Olive’s Measure of Intent
Zevahim 29: More Ways to Offer Offerings Right
Zevahim 28: Beyond Place, Beyond Time
Zevahim 27: Hindrances to Atonement
A Daf Of Their Own –Schita By a Woman
Zevahim 26: When a Father Corrects His Rabbi-Son
Zevahim 25: Knife Technique and Troubleshooting
Zevahim 24: Between the Floor and the Foot
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Eruvin 64
אִם כֵּן, בִּיטַּלְתָּ תּוֹרַת עֵירוּב מֵאוֹתוֹ מָבוֹי!
If so, you have abolished the halakhic category of eiruv from that alleyway. Since from a halakhic perspective it is considered as though only one person lives in that alleyway, there is no need for an eiruv. Consequently, when the residents carry in it without an eiruv, observers will mistakenly think that it is permitted to carry in an alleyway even without an eiruv.
דִּמְעָרְבִי. יֹאמְרוּ עֵירוּב מוֹעִיל בִּמְקוֹם גּוֹי?! דְּמַכְרְזִינַן.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, replied: It is required that they establish an eiruv anyway, as a reminder of the laws of eiruvin, even though it serves no halakhic purpose. Rava retorted that this in turn results in a different problem: Observers will then say that an eiruv is effective even in the place of a gentile, even if he does not rent out his domain, which is against the halakha. He replied: We make an announcement to the effect that they are not carrying because of the eiruv, and that it only serves as a reminder.
אַכְרָזְתָּא לְדַרְדְּקֵי?!
Rava rejected this option as well: Can we make an announcement for the children? Even if it is assured that all adults present will hear the announcement, how will the children, who do not hear or understand the announcement, know the halakha later in life? Recalling that their fathers established an eiruv in this alleyway, they will think that an eiruv is effective even in the place of a gentile. Therefore, one cannot rely on Abaye’s solution.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לֵיזִיל חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, לִיקְרַב לֵיהּ, וְלִשְׁאוֹל מִינֵּיהּ דּוּכְתָּא וְלַינַּח בֵּיהּ מִידֵּי, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּשְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וַאֲפִילּוּ לְקִיטוֹ — נוֹתֵן עֵירוּבוֹ וְדַיּוֹ.
Rather, Rava said that the gentile’s Jewish neighbors should proceed as follows: Let one of them go and become friendly with the gentile, and ask him for permission to make use of a place in his domain, and set something down there, thus becoming like the gentile’s hired laborer or harvester. And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Not only can the gentile himself rent out his domain for the purpose of an eiruv, but even his hired laborer, and even his harvester, if he is a Jew, may rent out the space and contribute to the eiruv on his behalf, and this is enough.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הָיוּ שָׁם חֲמִשָּׁה שְׂכִירוֹ וַחֲמִשָּׁה לְקִיטוֹ מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם אָמְרוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ לְהָקֵל, יֹאמְרוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר?
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If there were five hired laborers or five harvesters there, what is the halakha? Does the presence of more than one of these, if they are all Jews, entail a stringency, such that they are all required to join in the eiruv or that they are all required to rent out his domain? Rav Yosef said to him: If the Sages said that the gentile’s hired laborer or harvester stands in his place as a leniency, would they say that his hired laborer or harvester stands in his place as a stringency? This law was stated only as a leniency with regard to the laws of renting for the purpose of an eiruv, not in order to introduce more stringencies.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וַאֲפִילּוּ לְקִיטוֹ, נוֹתֵן עֵירוּבוֹ וְדַיּוֹ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כַּמָּה מְעַלְּיָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא.
The Gemara proceeds to examine the ruling cited in the course of the previous discussion. Returning to the matter itself, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even the gentile’s hired laborer, and even his harvester, may contribute to the eiruv in his stead, and this is enough. Rav Naḥman said: How excellent is this halakha. Even Rav Naḥman agreed with this statement, and viewed it as correct and substantiated.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁתָה רְבִיעִית יַיִן — אַל יוֹרֶה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא מְעַלְּיָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, דְּהָא אֲנָא כֹּל כַּמָּה דְּלָא שָׁתֵינָא רְבִיעֵתָא דְּחַמְרָא — לָא צִילָא דַּעְתַּאי.
However, Rav Naḥman did not give his approval to all of Rav Yehuda’s rulings, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one drank a quarter-log of wine, he may not issue a halakhic ruling, as the wine is liable to confuse his thinking. With regard to this second statement, Rav Naḥman said: This halakha is not excellent, as concerning myself, as long as I have not drunk a quarter-log of wine, my mind is not clear. It is only after drinking wine that I can issue appropriate rulings.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא אָמַר מָר הָכִי? הָאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְרוֹעֶה זוֹנוֹת יְאַבֶּד הוֹן״ — כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר שְׁמוּעָה זוֹ נָאָה, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ נָאָה — מְאַבֵּד הוֹנָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What is the reason that the Master said this, making a statement that praises one halakha and disparages another? Didn’t Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “But he who keeps company with prostitutes [zonot] wastes his fortune” (Proverbs 29:3)? It alludes to the following: Anyone who says: This teaching is pleasant [zo na’a] but this is not pleasant, loses the fortune of Torah. It is not in keeping with the honor of Torah to make such evaluations. Rav Naḥman said to him: I retract, and I will no longer make such comments concerning words of Torah.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: שָׁתוּי אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל, וְאִם הִתְפַּלֵּל — תְּפִלָּתוֹ תְּפִלָּה. שִׁיכּוֹר אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל, וְאִם הִתְפַּלֵּל — תְּפִלָּתוֹ תּוֹעֵבָה.
On the topic of drinking wine, Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who has drunk wine must not pray, but if he nonetheless prayed, his prayer is a prayer, i.e., he has fulfilled his obligation. On the other hand, one who is intoxicated with wine must not pray, and if he prayed, his prayer is an abomination.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שָׁתוּי, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי שִׁיכּוֹר? כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר שׁוּמְנִי וְרַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר יִרְמְיָה מִגִּיפְתִּי הֲווֹ קָא מִפַּטְרִי מֵהֲדָדֵי אַמַּעְבָּרָא דִּנְהַר יוֹפְטִי. אֲמַרוּ: כׇּל חַד מִינַּן לֵימָא מִילְּתָא דְּלָא שְׁמִיעַ לְחַבְרֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר מָרִי בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לָא יִפָּטֵר אָדָם מֵחֲבֵירוֹ אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ דְּבַר הֲלָכָה, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ כָּךְ זוֹכְרוֹ.
The Gemara poses a question: What are the circumstances in which a person is considered one who has drunk wine; and what are the circumstances in which a person is considered one who is intoxicated with wine? The Gemara answers that one can learn this from the following event: As Rabbi Abba bar Shumni and Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya from Gifti were taking leave of each other at the ford of the Yofti River, they said: Let each one of us say something that his fellow scholar has not yet heard, for Mari bar Rav Huna said: A person must take leave of his fellow only in the midst of a discussion of a matter of halakha, as due to this he will remember him.
פְּתַח חַד וַאֲמַר: הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שָׁתוּי, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי שִׁיכּוֹר? שָׁתוּי — כֹּל שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְדַבֵּר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ. שִׁיכּוֹר — כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ.
One of them opened the discussion and said: What are the circumstances where a person is considered one who has drunk wine, and what are the circumstances where a person is considered one who is intoxicated with wine? One who has drunk wine refers to anyone who has drunk wine but whose mind remains clear enough that he is able to talk in the presence of a king. One who is intoxicated refers to anyone who is so disoriented by the wine he has drunk that he is not able to talk in the presence of a king.
פְּתַח אִידַּךְ וַאֲמַר: הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה וְיִתְקַיְּימוּ בְּיָדוֹ? יִקַּח בָּהֶן סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אֲפִילּוּ
The other one then opened a different discussion and said: With regard to one who took possession of a convert’s property, what should he do so that it remains in his hands? The property of a convert who died without children is regarded as ownerless, and is acquired by the first person to perform a valid act of acquisition upon it. Since in this case the one who took possession of the property did not acquire it through his own labor, his ownership is tenuous, and he is liable to lose it unless he uses it for the purpose of a mitzva. One in this situation should buy a Torah scroll with part of the revenue, and by the merit of this act, he will retain the rest. Rav Sheshet said: Even
בַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ.
a husband who acquired rights to his wife’s property that she had brought into the marriage as her dowry should use part of the profits for the acquisition of a Torah scroll.
רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עֲבַד עִיסְקָא וּרְוַוח. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מָצָא מְצִיאָה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אֲפִילּוּ כְּתַב בְּהוּ תְּפִילִּין.
Rava said: Even if he entered into a business venture and made a large profit, he should act in a similar manner. Rav Pappa said: Even if he found a lost article, he should do the same. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He need not use the money to commission the writing of a Torah scroll, as even if he wrote a set of phylacteries with it, this, too, is a mitzva whose merit will enable him to retain the rest of the money.
וְאָמַר רַב חָנִין, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאי קְרָאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּדַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶדֶר וְגוֹ׳״.
Rav Ḥanin said, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥanina who said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: “And Israel vowed a vow to the Lord and said: If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will consecrate their cities” (Numbers 21:2), which shows that one who wishes to succeed should sanctify a portion of his earnings for Heaven.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא: דֶּרֶךְ מִיל, וְשֵׁינָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — מְפִיגִין אֶת הַיַּיִן. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁתָה כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית, אֲבָל שָׁתָה יוֹתֵר מֵרְבִיעִית — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ טוֹרַדְתּוֹ וְשֵׁינָה מְשַׁכַּרְתּוֹ.
The Gemara now cites additional teachings relating to the drinking of wine. Rami bar Abba said: Walking a path of a mil, and similarly, sleeping even a minimal amount, will dispel the effect of wine that one has drunk. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They only taught this with regard to one who has drunk a quarter-log of wine, but with regard to one who has drunk more than a quarter-log, this advice is not useful. In that case, walking a path of such a distance will preoccupy and exhaust him all the more, and a small amount of sleep will further intoxicate him.
וְדֶרֶךְ מִיל מְפִיגָה הַיַּיִן?! וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל הַחֲמוֹר וְהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ מֵעַכּוֹ לִכְזִיב, וְהָיָה רַבִּי אִילְעַאי מְהַלֵּךְ אַחֲרָיו. מָצָא גְּלוּסְקִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ, אָמַר לוֹ: אִילְעַאי, טוֹל גְּלוּסְקִין מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ. מָצָא גּוֹי אֶחָד, אָמַר לוֹ: מַבְגַּאי, טוֹל גְּלוּסְקִין הַלָּלוּ מֵאִילְעַאי.
The Gemara poses a question: Does walking a path of only a mil dispel the effects of wine? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding a donkey and traveling from Akko to Keziv, and his student Rabbi Elai was walking behind him. Rabban Gamliel found some fine loaves of bread on the road, and he said to his student: Elai, take the loaves from the road. Further along the way, Rabban Gamliel encountered a certain gentile and said to him: Mavgai, take these loaves from Elai.
נִיטַּפֵּל לוֹ רַבִּי אִילְעַאי, אָמַר לוֹ: מֵהֵיכָן אַתָּה? אָמַר לוֹ: מֵעֲיָירוֹת שֶׁל בּוּרְגָּנִין. וּמָה שִׁמְךָ? מַבְגַּאי שְׁמֵנִי. כְּלוּם הִיכִּירְךָ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מֵעוֹלָם? אָמַר לוֹ: לָאו.
Elai joined the gentile and said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From the nearby towns of guardsmen. He asked: And what is your name? The gentile replied: My name is Mavgai. He then inquired: Has Rabban Gamliel ever met you before, seeing as he knows your name? He said to him: No.
בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁכִּוֵּון רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים לָמַדְנוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה: לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין.
The Gemara interrupts the story in order to comment: At that time we learned that Rabban Gamliel divined the gentile’s name by way of divine inspiration that rested upon him. And at that time we also learned three matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel’s behavior: We learned that one may not pass by food, i.e., if a person sees food lying on the ground, he must stop and pick it up.
וְלָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהוֹלְכִין אַחֲרֵי רוֹב עוֹבְרֵי דְּרָכִים. וְלָמַדְנוּ שֶׁחֲמֵצוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי אַחַר הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה.
We also learned that we follow the majority of travelers. Since the area was populated mostly by gentiles, Rabban Gamliel assumed that the loaf belonged to a gentile, and was consequently prohibited to be eaten by a Jew. Therefore, he ordered that it be given to a gentile. And we further learned that with regard to leavened bread belonging to a gentile, it is permitted to benefit from this food after Passover. The incident recounted above occurred not long after the festival of Passover. By giving the loaf to the gentile instead of burning it in accordance with the halakhot of leavened bread that remains after Passover, Rabban Gamliel gained a certain benefit from it in the form of the gentile’s gratitude. This benefit is regarded as having monetary value.
כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִכְזִיב, בָּא אֶחָד לִישָּׁאֵל עַל נִדְרוֹ. אָמַר לָזֶה שֶׁעִמּוֹ: כְּלוּם שָׁתִינוּ רְבִיעִית יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי? אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן. אִם כֵּן, יְטַיֵּיל אַחֲרֵינוּ עַד שֶׁיָּפִיג יֵינֵינוּ.
The Gemara resumes the narrative: When Rabban Gamliel arrived in Keziv, a person came before him to request that he dissolve his vow. Rabban Gamliel said to the one who was with him, i.e., Rabbi Elai: Did we drink a quarter-log of Italian wine earlier? He said to him: Yes. Rabban Gamliel replied: If so, let him journey after us until the effect of our wine is dispelled, after which we may consider his issue.
וְטִיֵּיל אַחֲרֵיהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה מִילִין, עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְסוּלָּמָא שֶׁל צוּר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְסוּלָּמָא דְצוֹר, יָרַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִן הַחֲמוֹר, וְנִתְעַטֵּף, וְיָשַׁב, וְהִתִּיר לוֹ נִדְרוֹ.
And that person journeyed after them for three mil, until Rabban Gamliel arrived at the Ladder of Tyre. When he arrived at the Ladder of Tyre, Rabban Gamliel alighted from his donkey and wrapped himself in his shawl in the customary manner of a judge, who wraps himself in a shawl in order to sit in awe at the time of judgment, and he sat and dissolved his vow.
וְהַרְבֵּה דְּבָרִים לָמַדְנוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁרְבִיעִית יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי מְשַׁכֵּר, וְלָמַדְנוּ שִׁיכּוֹר אַל יוֹרֶה, וְלָמַדְנוּ שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ מְפִיגָה אֶת הַיַּיִן, וְלָמַדְנוּ שֶׁאֵין מְפִירִין נְדָרִים לֹא רָכוּב וְלֹא מְהַלֵּךְ וְלֹא עוֹמֵד, אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב.
The Gemara continues: At that time we learned many matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel’s conduct. We learned that a quarter-log of Italian wine intoxicates, and we learned that one who is intoxicated may not issue a halakhic ruling, and we learned that walking on a path dispels the effect of wine, and lastly we learned that one may not annul vows when he is either mounted on an animal, or walking, or even standing, but only when he is sitting.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת שְׁלֹשָׁה מִילִין! שָׁאנֵי יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי דִּמְשַׁכַּר טְפֵי.
In any event, the baraita is teaching that Rabban Gamliel found it necessary to walk three mil in order to become sober after drinking wine. The Gemara resolves the contradiction. Italian wine is different in that it is more intoxicating, therefore more extended activity is required in order to dispel its effects.
וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁתָה רְבִיעִית, אֲבָל שָׁתָה יוֹתֵר מֵרְבִיעִית, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ טוֹרַדְתּוֹ וְשֵׁינָה מְשַׁכַּרְתּוֹ!
The Gemara poses a question: But didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh said: They taught this only with regard to one who has drunk a quarter-log of wine, but with regard to one who has drunk more than a quarter-log, walking that distance will preoccupy and exhaust him all the more, and a small amount of sleep will further intoxicate him? If Italian wine is more intoxicating than other wine, shouldn’t a quarter-log be considered like a larger quantity of other wine?
רָכוּב שָׁאנֵי. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, לְרָמִי בַּר אַבָּא נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: רָכוּב שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara answers: Being mounted on an animal is different from walking; since he is not on foot it is not such a tiring activity. Accordingly, riding three mil will not exhaust him; rather, it will dispel the effect of the wine. The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, according to Rami bar Abba, who says that walking one mil is sufficient, it is also not difficult, as he too can say that riding is different from walking. Since one is not on foot, the effects of the wine are not dispelled as quickly. Therefore, three mil is necessary.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְפִירִין נְדָרִים בֵּין מְהַלֵּךְ בֵּין עוֹמֵד וּבֵין רָכוּב!
The Gemara poses a question with regard to one of the details of the story: Is that so, that Rabban Gamliel was required to alight from his donkey in order to annul the vow? But didn’t Rav Naḥman say: One may annul vows walking, standing, or mounted? Why, then, did Rabban Gamliel dismount his donkey?
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: פּוֹתְחִין בַּחֲרָטָה.
The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im, as there is an authority who says that one may open the possibility for dissolution of a vow by means of regret alone. In other words, there is no need to search for a special reason in order to dissolve a person’s vow; it is enough to ascertain that he regrets making it. This can be done easily, even while walking, standing, or riding.
וְאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין פּוֹתְחִין בַּחֲרָטָה.
And there is another authority who says that one may not open the possibility for dissolution of a vow by means of regret alone. Rather, one must find an opening, i.e., a particular reason to dissolve the vow in question, which requires a thorough analysis of the circumstances of the vow. This task must be performed free of distractions, which means one must be seated (Tosafot).
דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי פָּתַח לֵיהּ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא: ״יֵשׁ בּוֹטֶה כְּמַדְקְרוֹת חָרֶב וּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים מַרְפֵּא״ — כֹּל הַבּוֹטֶה רָאוּי לְדוֹקְרוֹ בְּחֶרֶב, אֶלָּא שֶׁלְּשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים מַרְפֵּא.
As Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With what did Rabban Gamliel open the possibility for dissolving his vow for that man, i.e., what opening did he find for him? Rabban Gamliel cited the verse: “There is one who utters like the piercings of a sword; but the tongue of the wise is health” (Proverbs 12:18) and explained it as follows: Whoever utters a vow deserves to be pierced by a sword, as he might fail to fulfill it. Therefore, one should not vow at all. Had you known that whoever vows is liable to be executed, would you have vowed? Rather, it is the tongue of the wise that heals, as when a Sage dissolves a vow, he dissolves it retroactively, and it is as though one had never taken the vow.
אָמַר מָר: וְאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּדוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁאֵין בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל פְּרוּצוֹת בִּכְשָׁפִים. אֲבָל בְּדוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים, שֶׁבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל פְּרוּצוֹת בִּכְשָׁפִים — מַעֲבִירִין.
The Gemara continues with its analysis of the baraita. The Master said previously: One of the halakhot learned from the incident involving Rabban Gamliel was that one may not pass by food; rather, one must treat the food with respect and pick it up. Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: They taught this ruling only in the early generations, when Jewish women were not accustomed to using witchcraft. However, in the later generations, when Jewish women are accustomed to using witchcraft, one may pass by food, as a spell might have been cast on the bread, and one must not put himself in unnecessary danger.
תָּנָא: שְׁלֵימִין מַעֲבִירִין, פְּתִיתִין אֵין מַעֲבִירִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַסִּי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאַפְּתִיתִין לָא עָבְדָן? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַתְּחַלֶּלְנָה אוֹתִי אֶל עַמִּי בְּשַׁעֲלֵי שְׂעוֹרִים וּבִפְתוֹתֵי לֶחֶם״! דְּשָׁקְלִי בְּאַגְרַיְיהוּ.
A Sage taught: If the loaves are whole, one may pass them by, as they might have been placed there for the purposes of witchcraft; however, if they are in pieces, one may not pass them by, because bread in pieces is not used for witchcraft. Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: Do they not perform magic with pieces of bread? Isn’t it written in the verse that deals with witchcraft: “And you have profaned Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread” (Ezekiel 13:19)? The Gemara answers: The verse does not mean that they used pieces of bread in their witchcraft, but rather that they took such pieces as their wages.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה:
Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya:
