Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 12, 2020 | 讻状讚 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Eruvin 64

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.

讗诐 讻谉 讘讬讟诇转 转讜专转 注讬专讜讘 诪讗讜转讜 诪讘讜讬


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.


讚诪注专讘讬 讬讗诪专讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讙讜讬 讚诪讻专讝讬谞谉


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.


讗讻专讝转讗 诇讚专讚拽讬


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鈥檚 solution.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬讝讬诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讬拽专讘 诇讬讛 讜诇砖讗讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讜讻转讗 讜诇讬谞讞 讘讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻砖讻讬专讜 讜诇拽讬讟讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讬讟讜 谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讜讚讬讜


Rather, Rava said that the gentile鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讜 砖诐 讞诪砖讛 砖讻讬专讜 讜讞诪砖讛 诇拽讬讟讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讗诪专讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜诇拽讬讟讜 诇讛拽诇 讬讗诪专讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜诇拽讬讟讜 诇讛讞诪讬专


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鈥檚 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.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讬讟讜 谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讜讚讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗


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鈥檚 hired laborer, and even his harvester, may contribute to the eiruv in his stead, and this is enough. Rav Na岣an said: How excellent is this halakha. Even Rav Na岣an agreed with this statement, and viewed it as correct and substantiated.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讗诇 讬讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚讛讗 讗谞讗 讻诇 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 专讘讬注转讗 讚讞诪专讗 诇讗 爪讬诇讗 讚注转讗讬


However, Rav Na岣an did not give his approval to all of Rav Yehuda鈥檚 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 Na岣an 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诪专 讛讻讬 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讜注讛 讝讜谞讜转 讬讗讘讚 讛讜谉 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 砖诪讜注讛 讝讜 谞讗讛 讜讝讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讛 诪讗讘讚 讛讜谞讛 砖诇 转讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬


Rava said to Rav Na岣an: What is the reason that the Master said this, making a statement that praises one halakha and disparages another? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina say: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淏ut he who keeps company with prostitutes [zonot] wastes his fortune鈥 (Proverbs 29:3)? It alludes to the following: Anyone who says: This teaching is pleasant [zo na鈥檃] 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 Na岣an said to him: I retract, and I will no longer make such comments concerning words of Torah.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖转讜讬 讗诇 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 讛转驻诇诇 转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛 砖讬讻讜专 讗诇 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 讛转驻诇诇 转驻诇转讜 转讜注讘讛


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.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖转讜讬 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讬讻讜专 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 砖讜诪谞讬 讜专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 诪讙讬驻转讬 讛讜讜 拽讗 诪驻讟专讬 诪讛讚讚讬 讗诪注讘专讗 讚谞讛专 讬讜驻讟讬 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞谉 诇讬诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讞讘专讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪专讬 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讬驻讟专 讗讚诐 诪讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 砖诪转讜讱 讻讱 讝讜讻专讜


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.


驻转讞 讞讚 讜讗诪专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖转讜讬 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讬讻讜专 砖转讜讬 讻诇 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讚讘专 诇驻谞讬 讛诪诇讱 砖讬讻讜专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讚讘专 诇驻谞讬 讛诪诇讱


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.


驻转讞 讗讬讚讱 讜讗诪专 讛诪讞讝讬拽 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讜讬转拽讬讬诪讜 讘讬讚讜 讬拽讞 讘讛谉 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗驻讬诇讜


The other one then opened a different discussion and said: With regard to one who took possession of a convert鈥檚 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


讘注诇 讘谞讻住讬 讗砖转讜


a husband who acquired rights to his wife鈥檚 property that she had brought into the marriage as her dowry should use part of the profits for the acquisition of a Torah scroll.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 注讬住拽讗 讜专讜讜讞 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗 诪爪讬讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转讘 讘讛讜 转驻讬诇讬谉


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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讚专 讬砖专讗诇 谞讚专 讜讙讜壮


Rav 岣nin said, and some say it was Rabbi 岣nina who said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 21:2), which shows that one who wishes to succeed should sanctify a portion of his earnings for Heaven.


讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讚专讱 诪讬诇 讜砖讬谞讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪驻讬讙讬谉 讗转 讛讬讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖转讛 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 砖转讛 讬讜转专 诪专讘讬注讬转 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讚专讱 讟讜专讚转讜 讜砖讬谞讛 诪砖讻专转讜


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 Na岣an 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.


讜讚专讱 诪讬诇 诪驻讬讙讛 讛讬讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬讛 专讜讻讘 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讜讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 诪注讻讜 诇讻讝讬讘 讜讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 诪讛诇讱 讗讞专讬讜 诪爪讗 讙诇讜住拽讬谉 讘讚专讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬诇注讗讬 讟讜诇 讙诇讜住拽讬谉 诪谉 讛讚专讱 诪爪讗 讙讜讬 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讘讙讗讬 讟讜诇 讙诇讜住拽讬谉 讛诇诇讜 诪讗讬诇注讗讬


The Gemara poses a question: Does walking a path of only a mil dispel the effects of wine? Wasn鈥檛 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.


谞讬讟驻诇 诇讜 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛讬讻谉 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诪注讬讬专讜转 砖诇 讘讜专讙谞讬谉 讜诪讛 砖诪讱 诪讘讙讗讬 砖诪谞讬 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讻讬专讱 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪注讜诇诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗讜


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.


讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 诇诪讚谞讜 砖讻讜讜谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 讜砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诇诪讚谞讜 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 诇诪讚谞讜 砖讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉


The Gemara interrupts the story in order to comment: At that time we learned that Rabban Gamliel divined the gentile鈥檚 name by way of divine inspiration that rested upon him. And at that time we also learned three matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 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.


讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专讬 专讜讘 注讜讘专讬 讚专讻讬诐 讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖讞诪爪讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛


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鈥檚 gratitude. This benefit is regarded as having monetary value.


讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讻讝讬讘 讘讗 讗讞讚 诇讬砖讗诇 注诇 谞讚专讜 讗诪专 诇讝讛 砖注诪讜 讻诇讜诐 砖转讬谞讜 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 讗诐 讻谉 讬讟讬讬诇 讗讞专讬谞讜 注讚 砖讬驻讬讙 讬讬谞讬谞讜


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.


讜讟讬讬诇 讗讞专讬讛谉 砖诇砖讛 诪讬诇讬谉 注讚 砖讛讙讬注 诇住讜诇诪讗 砖诇 爪讜专 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇住讜诇诪讗 讚爪讜专 讬专讚 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专 讜谞转注讟祝 讜讬砖讘 讜讛转讬专 诇讜 谞讚专讜


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.


讜讛专讘讛 讚讘专讬诐 诇诪讚谞讜 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 诇诪讚谞讜 砖专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 诪砖讻专 讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖讬讻讜专 讗诇 讬讜专讛 讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖讚专讱 诪驻讬讙讛 讗转 讛讬讬谉 讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖讗讬谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 诇讗 专讻讜讘 讜诇讗 诪讛诇讱 讜诇讗 注讜诪讚 讗诇讗 讬讜砖讘


The Gemara continues: At that time we learned many matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 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.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 砖诇砖讛 诪讬诇讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 讚诪砖讻专 讟驻讬


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.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 砖转讛 讬讜转专 诪专讘讬注讬转 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讟讜专讚转讜 讜砖讬谞讛 诪砖讻专转讜


The Gemara poses a question: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an 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鈥檛 a quarter-log be considered like a larger quantity of other wine?


专讻讜讘 砖讗谞讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 诇专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 专讻讜讘 砖讗谞讬


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.


讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讛诇讱 讘讬谉 注讜诪讚 讜讘讬谉 专讻讜讘


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鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: One may annul vows walking, standing, or mounted? Why, then, did Rabban Gamliel dismount his donkey?


转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘讞专讟讛


The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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鈥檚 vow; it is enough to ascertain that he regrets making it. This can be done easily, even while walking, standing, or riding.


讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘讞专讟讛


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).


讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 驻转讞 诇讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讬砖 讘讜讟讛 讻诪讚拽专讜转 讞专讘 讜诇砖讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪专驻讗 讻诇 讛讘讜讟讛 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜拽专讜 讘讞专讘 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪专驻讗


As Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淭here is one who utters like the piercings of a sword; but the tongue of the wise is health鈥 (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.


讗诪专 诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 驻专讜爪讜转 讘讻砖驻讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 砖讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 驻专讜爪讜转 讘讻砖驻讬诐 诪注讘讬专讬谉


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 Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i: 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.


转谞讗 砖诇讬诪讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 驻转讬转讬谉 讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗驻转讬转讬谉 诇讗 注讘讚谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转讞诇诇谞讛 讗讜转讬 讗诇 注诪讬 讘砖注诇讬 砖注讜专讬诐 讜讘驻转讜转讬 诇讞诐 讚砖拽诇讬 讘讗讙专讬讬讛讜


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鈥檛 it written in the verse that deals with witchcraft: 鈥淎nd you have profaned Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread鈥 (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.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛


Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya:


Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 59-65 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will review concepts in Daf 59-65 including making an eruv in public vs. private cities, are ladders...
alon shvut women

The Attributes of Wine

Eruvin Daf 64 In today's daf: The role of wine in our lives, the good, the bad and .... Best...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 64: “What an excellent halakhah!”

What can you do when a non-Jew lives on your courtyard and doesn't want to contribute to an eruv? Among...

Eruvin 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 64

讗诐 讻谉 讘讬讟诇转 转讜专转 注讬专讜讘 诪讗讜转讜 诪讘讜讬


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.


讚诪注专讘讬 讬讗诪专讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讙讜讬 讚诪讻专讝讬谞谉


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.


讗讻专讝转讗 诇讚专讚拽讬


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鈥檚 solution.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬讝讬诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讬拽专讘 诇讬讛 讜诇砖讗讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讜讻转讗 讜诇讬谞讞 讘讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻砖讻讬专讜 讜诇拽讬讟讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讬讟讜 谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讜讚讬讜


Rather, Rava said that the gentile鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讜 砖诐 讞诪砖讛 砖讻讬专讜 讜讞诪砖讛 诇拽讬讟讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讗诪专讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜诇拽讬讟讜 诇讛拽诇 讬讗诪专讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜诇拽讬讟讜 诇讛讞诪讬专


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鈥檚 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.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讬讟讜 谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讜讚讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗


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鈥檚 hired laborer, and even his harvester, may contribute to the eiruv in his stead, and this is enough. Rav Na岣an said: How excellent is this halakha. Even Rav Na岣an agreed with this statement, and viewed it as correct and substantiated.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讗诇 讬讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚讛讗 讗谞讗 讻诇 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 专讘讬注转讗 讚讞诪专讗 诇讗 爪讬诇讗 讚注转讗讬


However, Rav Na岣an did not give his approval to all of Rav Yehuda鈥檚 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 Na岣an 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诪专 讛讻讬 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讜注讛 讝讜谞讜转 讬讗讘讚 讛讜谉 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 砖诪讜注讛 讝讜 谞讗讛 讜讝讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讛 诪讗讘讚 讛讜谞讛 砖诇 转讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬


Rava said to Rav Na岣an: What is the reason that the Master said this, making a statement that praises one halakha and disparages another? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina say: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淏ut he who keeps company with prostitutes [zonot] wastes his fortune鈥 (Proverbs 29:3)? It alludes to the following: Anyone who says: This teaching is pleasant [zo na鈥檃] 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 Na岣an said to him: I retract, and I will no longer make such comments concerning words of Torah.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖转讜讬 讗诇 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 讛转驻诇诇 转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛 砖讬讻讜专 讗诇 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 讛转驻诇诇 转驻诇转讜 转讜注讘讛


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.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖转讜讬 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讬讻讜专 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 砖讜诪谞讬 讜专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 诪讙讬驻转讬 讛讜讜 拽讗 诪驻讟专讬 诪讛讚讚讬 讗诪注讘专讗 讚谞讛专 讬讜驻讟讬 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞谉 诇讬诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讞讘专讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪专讬 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讬驻讟专 讗讚诐 诪讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 砖诪转讜讱 讻讱 讝讜讻专讜


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.


驻转讞 讞讚 讜讗诪专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖转讜讬 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讬讻讜专 砖转讜讬 讻诇 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讚讘专 诇驻谞讬 讛诪诇讱 砖讬讻讜专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讚讘专 诇驻谞讬 讛诪诇讱


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.


驻转讞 讗讬讚讱 讜讗诪专 讛诪讞讝讬拽 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讜讬转拽讬讬诪讜 讘讬讚讜 讬拽讞 讘讛谉 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗驻讬诇讜


The other one then opened a different discussion and said: With regard to one who took possession of a convert鈥檚 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


讘注诇 讘谞讻住讬 讗砖转讜


a husband who acquired rights to his wife鈥檚 property that she had brought into the marriage as her dowry should use part of the profits for the acquisition of a Torah scroll.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 注讬住拽讗 讜专讜讜讞 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗 诪爪讬讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转讘 讘讛讜 转驻讬诇讬谉


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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讚专 讬砖专讗诇 谞讚专 讜讙讜壮


Rav 岣nin said, and some say it was Rabbi 岣nina who said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 21:2), which shows that one who wishes to succeed should sanctify a portion of his earnings for Heaven.


讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讚专讱 诪讬诇 讜砖讬谞讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪驻讬讙讬谉 讗转 讛讬讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖转讛 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 砖转讛 讬讜转专 诪专讘讬注讬转 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讚专讱 讟讜专讚转讜 讜砖讬谞讛 诪砖讻专转讜


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 Na岣an 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.


讜讚专讱 诪讬诇 诪驻讬讙讛 讛讬讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬讛 专讜讻讘 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讜讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 诪注讻讜 诇讻讝讬讘 讜讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 诪讛诇讱 讗讞专讬讜 诪爪讗 讙诇讜住拽讬谉 讘讚专讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬诇注讗讬 讟讜诇 讙诇讜住拽讬谉 诪谉 讛讚专讱 诪爪讗 讙讜讬 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讘讙讗讬 讟讜诇 讙诇讜住拽讬谉 讛诇诇讜 诪讗讬诇注讗讬


The Gemara poses a question: Does walking a path of only a mil dispel the effects of wine? Wasn鈥檛 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.


谞讬讟驻诇 诇讜 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛讬讻谉 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诪注讬讬专讜转 砖诇 讘讜专讙谞讬谉 讜诪讛 砖诪讱 诪讘讙讗讬 砖诪谞讬 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讻讬专讱 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪注讜诇诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗讜


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.


讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 诇诪讚谞讜 砖讻讜讜谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 讜砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诇诪讚谞讜 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 诇诪讚谞讜 砖讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉


The Gemara interrupts the story in order to comment: At that time we learned that Rabban Gamliel divined the gentile鈥檚 name by way of divine inspiration that rested upon him. And at that time we also learned three matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 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.


讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专讬 专讜讘 注讜讘专讬 讚专讻讬诐 讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖讞诪爪讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛


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鈥檚 gratitude. This benefit is regarded as having monetary value.


讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讻讝讬讘 讘讗 讗讞讚 诇讬砖讗诇 注诇 谞讚专讜 讗诪专 诇讝讛 砖注诪讜 讻诇讜诐 砖转讬谞讜 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 讗诐 讻谉 讬讟讬讬诇 讗讞专讬谞讜 注讚 砖讬驻讬讙 讬讬谞讬谞讜


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.


讜讟讬讬诇 讗讞专讬讛谉 砖诇砖讛 诪讬诇讬谉 注讚 砖讛讙讬注 诇住讜诇诪讗 砖诇 爪讜专 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇住讜诇诪讗 讚爪讜专 讬专讚 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专 讜谞转注讟祝 讜讬砖讘 讜讛转讬专 诇讜 谞讚专讜


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.


讜讛专讘讛 讚讘专讬诐 诇诪讚谞讜 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 诇诪讚谞讜 砖专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 诪砖讻专 讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖讬讻讜专 讗诇 讬讜专讛 讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖讚专讱 诪驻讬讙讛 讗转 讛讬讬谉 讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖讗讬谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 诇讗 专讻讜讘 讜诇讗 诪讛诇讱 讜诇讗 注讜诪讚 讗诇讗 讬讜砖讘


The Gemara continues: At that time we learned many matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 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.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 砖诇砖讛 诪讬诇讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 讚诪砖讻专 讟驻讬


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.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 砖转讛 讬讜转专 诪专讘讬注讬转 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讟讜专讚转讜 讜砖讬谞讛 诪砖讻专转讜


The Gemara poses a question: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an 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鈥檛 a quarter-log be considered like a larger quantity of other wine?


专讻讜讘 砖讗谞讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 诇专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 专讻讜讘 砖讗谞讬


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.


讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讛诇讱 讘讬谉 注讜诪讚 讜讘讬谉 专讻讜讘


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鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: One may annul vows walking, standing, or mounted? Why, then, did Rabban Gamliel dismount his donkey?


转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘讞专讟讛


The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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鈥檚 vow; it is enough to ascertain that he regrets making it. This can be done easily, even while walking, standing, or riding.


讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘讞专讟讛


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).


讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 驻转讞 诇讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讬砖 讘讜讟讛 讻诪讚拽专讜转 讞专讘 讜诇砖讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪专驻讗 讻诇 讛讘讜讟讛 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜拽专讜 讘讞专讘 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪专驻讗


As Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淭here is one who utters like the piercings of a sword; but the tongue of the wise is health鈥 (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.


讗诪专 诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 驻专讜爪讜转 讘讻砖驻讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 砖讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 驻专讜爪讜转 讘讻砖驻讬诐 诪注讘讬专讬谉


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 Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i: 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.


转谞讗 砖诇讬诪讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 驻转讬转讬谉 讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗驻转讬转讬谉 诇讗 注讘讚谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转讞诇诇谞讛 讗讜转讬 讗诇 注诪讬 讘砖注诇讬 砖注讜专讬诐 讜讘驻转讜转讬 诇讞诐 讚砖拽诇讬 讘讗讙专讬讬讛讜


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鈥檛 it written in the verse that deals with witchcraft: 鈥淎nd you have profaned Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread鈥 (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.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛


Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya:


Scroll To Top