Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 12, 2020 | כ״ד בתשרי תשפ״א

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.

אם כן ביטלת תורת עירוב מאותו מבוי

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.

דמערבי יאמרו עירוב מועיל במקום גוי דמכרזינן

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.

אכרזתא לדרדקי

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.

אלא אמר רבא ליזיל חד מינייהו ליקרב ליה ולשאול מיניה דוכתא ולינח ביה מידי דהוה ליה כשכירו ולקיטו ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו שכירו ואפילו לקיטו נותן עירובו ודיו

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.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף היו שם חמשה שכירו וחמשה לקיטו מהו אמר ליה אם אמרו שכירו ולקיטו להקל יאמרו שכירו ולקיטו להחמיר

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.

גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו שכירו ואפילו לקיטו נותן עירובו ודיו אמר רב נחמן כמה מעליא הא שמעתא

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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שתה רביעית יין אל יורה אמר רב נחמן לא מעליא הא שמעתא דהא אנא כל כמה דלא שתינא רביעתא דחמרא לא צילא דעתאי

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.

אמר ליה רבא מאי טעמא אמר מר הכי האמר רבי אחא בר חנינא מאי דכתיב ורועה זונות יאבד הון כל האומר שמועה זו נאה וזו אינה נאה מאבד הונה של תורה אמר ליה הדרי בי

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.

אמר רבה בר רב הונא שתוי אל יתפלל ואם התפלל תפלתו תפלה שיכור אל יתפלל ואם התפלל תפלתו תועבה

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.

היכי דמי שתוי והיכי דמי שיכור כי הא דרבי אבא בר שומני ורב מנשיא בר ירמיה מגיפתי הוו קא מפטרי מהדדי אמעברא דנהר יופטי אמרו כל חד מינן לימא מילתא דלא שמיע לחבריה דאמר מרי בר רב הונא לא יפטר אדם מחבירו אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שמתוך כך זוכרו

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.

פתח חד ואמר היכי דמי שתוי והיכי דמי שיכור שתוי כל שיכול לדבר לפני המלך שיכור כל שאינו יכול לדבר לפני המלך

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.

פתח אידך ואמר המחזיק בנכסי הגר מה יעשה ויתקיימו בידו יקח בהן ספר תורה אמר רב ששת אפילו

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 remain 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

בעל בנכסי אשתו

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.

רבא אמר אפילו עבד עיסקא ורווח רב פפא אמר אפילו מצא מציאה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אפילו כתב בהו תפילין

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.

ואמר רב חנין ואיתימא רבי חנינא מאי קראה דכתיב וידר ישראל נדר וגו׳

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.

אמר רמי בר אבאדרך מיל ושינה כל שהוא מפיגין את היין אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא ששתה כדי רביעית אבל שתה יותר מרביעית כל שכן שדרך טורדתו ושינה משכרתו

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.

ודרך מיל מפיגה היין והתניא מעשה ברבן גמליאל שהיה רוכב על החמור והיה מהלך מעכו לכזיב והיה רבי אילעאי מהלך אחריו מצא גלוסקין בדרך אמר לו אילעאי טול גלוסקין מן הדרך מצא גוי אחד אמר לו מבגאי טול גלוסקין הללו מאילעאי

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.

ניטפל לו רבי אילעאי אמר לו מהיכן אתה אמר לו מעיירות של בורגנין ומה שמך מבגאי שמני כלום היכירך רבן גמליאל מעולם אמר לו לאו

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.

באותה שעה למדנו שכוון רבן גמליאל ברוח הקודש ושלשה דברים למדנו באותה שעה למדנו שאין מעבירין על האוכלין

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.

ולמדנו שהולכין אחרי רוב עוברי דרכים ולמדנו שחמצו של גוי אחר הפסח מותר בהנאה

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.

כיון שהגיע לכזיב בא אחד לישאל על נדרו אמר לזה שעמו כלום שתינו רביעית יין האיטלקי אמר לו הן אם כן יטייל אחרינו עד שיפיג יינינו

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.

וטייל אחריהן שלשה מילין עד שהגיע לסולמא של צור כיון שהגיע לסולמא דצור ירד רבן גמליאל מן החמור ונתעטף וישב והתיר לו נדרו

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.

והרבה דברים למדנו באותה שעה למדנו שרביעית יין האיטלקי משכר ולמדנו שיכור אל יורה ולמדנו שדרך מפיגה את היין ולמדנו שאין מפירין נדרים לא רכוב ולא מהלך ולא עומד אלא יושב

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.

קתני מיהת שלשה מילין שאני יין האיטלקי דמשכר טפי

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.

והאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא ששתה רביעית אבל שתה יותר מרביעית כל שכן דרך טורדתו ושינה משכרתו

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?

רכוב שאני השתא דאתית להכי לרמי בר אבא נמי לא קשיא רכוב שאני

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.

איני והאמר רב נחמן מפירין נדרים בין מהלך בין עומד ובין רכוב

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?

תנאי היא דאיכא למאן דאמר פותחין בחרטה

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.

ואיכא למאן דאמר אין פותחין בחרטה

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).

דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי פתח ליה רבן גמליאל לההוא גברא יש בוטה כמדקרות חרב ולשון חכמים מרפא כל הבוטה ראוי לדוקרו בחרב אלא שלשון חכמים מרפא

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.

אמר מר ואין מעבירין על האוכלין אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי לא שנו אלא בדורות הראשונים שאין בנות ישראל פרוצות בכשפים אבל בדורות האחרונים שבנות ישראל פרוצות בכשפים מעבירין

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.

תנא שלימין מעבירין פתיתין אין מעבירין אמר ליה רב אסי לרב אשי ואפתיתין לא עבדן והכתיב ותחללנה אותי אל עמי בשעלי שעורים ובפתותי לחם דשקלי באגרייהו

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.

אמר רב ששת משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה

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

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...
hamat gader pool

Oh the places you’ll go

A number of interesting geographical references have come up in the daf over the last few days. Last week we...
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

אם כן ביטלת תורת עירוב מאותו מבוי

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.

דמערבי יאמרו עירוב מועיל במקום גוי דמכרזינן

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.

אכרזתא לדרדקי

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.

אלא אמר רבא ליזיל חד מינייהו ליקרב ליה ולשאול מיניה דוכתא ולינח ביה מידי דהוה ליה כשכירו ולקיטו ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו שכירו ואפילו לקיטו נותן עירובו ודיו

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.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף היו שם חמשה שכירו וחמשה לקיטו מהו אמר ליה אם אמרו שכירו ולקיטו להקל יאמרו שכירו ולקיטו להחמיר

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.

גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו שכירו ואפילו לקיטו נותן עירובו ודיו אמר רב נחמן כמה מעליא הא שמעתא

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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שתה רביעית יין אל יורה אמר רב נחמן לא מעליא הא שמעתא דהא אנא כל כמה דלא שתינא רביעתא דחמרא לא צילא דעתאי

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.

אמר ליה רבא מאי טעמא אמר מר הכי האמר רבי אחא בר חנינא מאי דכתיב ורועה זונות יאבד הון כל האומר שמועה זו נאה וזו אינה נאה מאבד הונה של תורה אמר ליה הדרי בי

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.

אמר רבה בר רב הונא שתוי אל יתפלל ואם התפלל תפלתו תפלה שיכור אל יתפלל ואם התפלל תפלתו תועבה

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.

היכי דמי שתוי והיכי דמי שיכור כי הא דרבי אבא בר שומני ורב מנשיא בר ירמיה מגיפתי הוו קא מפטרי מהדדי אמעברא דנהר יופטי אמרו כל חד מינן לימא מילתא דלא שמיע לחבריה דאמר מרי בר רב הונא לא יפטר אדם מחבירו אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שמתוך כך זוכרו

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.

פתח חד ואמר היכי דמי שתוי והיכי דמי שיכור שתוי כל שיכול לדבר לפני המלך שיכור כל שאינו יכול לדבר לפני המלך

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.

פתח אידך ואמר המחזיק בנכסי הגר מה יעשה ויתקיימו בידו יקח בהן ספר תורה אמר רב ששת אפילו

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 remain 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

בעל בנכסי אשתו

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.

רבא אמר אפילו עבד עיסקא ורווח רב פפא אמר אפילו מצא מציאה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אפילו כתב בהו תפילין

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.

ואמר רב חנין ואיתימא רבי חנינא מאי קראה דכתיב וידר ישראל נדר וגו׳

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.

אמר רמי בר אבאדרך מיל ושינה כל שהוא מפיגין את היין אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא ששתה כדי רביעית אבל שתה יותר מרביעית כל שכן שדרך טורדתו ושינה משכרתו

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.

ודרך מיל מפיגה היין והתניא מעשה ברבן גמליאל שהיה רוכב על החמור והיה מהלך מעכו לכזיב והיה רבי אילעאי מהלך אחריו מצא גלוסקין בדרך אמר לו אילעאי טול גלוסקין מן הדרך מצא גוי אחד אמר לו מבגאי טול גלוסקין הללו מאילעאי

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.

ניטפל לו רבי אילעאי אמר לו מהיכן אתה אמר לו מעיירות של בורגנין ומה שמך מבגאי שמני כלום היכירך רבן גמליאל מעולם אמר לו לאו

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.

באותה שעה למדנו שכוון רבן גמליאל ברוח הקודש ושלשה דברים למדנו באותה שעה למדנו שאין מעבירין על האוכלין

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.

ולמדנו שהולכין אחרי רוב עוברי דרכים ולמדנו שחמצו של גוי אחר הפסח מותר בהנאה

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.

כיון שהגיע לכזיב בא אחד לישאל על נדרו אמר לזה שעמו כלום שתינו רביעית יין האיטלקי אמר לו הן אם כן יטייל אחרינו עד שיפיג יינינו

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.

וטייל אחריהן שלשה מילין עד שהגיע לסולמא של צור כיון שהגיע לסולמא דצור ירד רבן גמליאל מן החמור ונתעטף וישב והתיר לו נדרו

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.

והרבה דברים למדנו באותה שעה למדנו שרביעית יין האיטלקי משכר ולמדנו שיכור אל יורה ולמדנו שדרך מפיגה את היין ולמדנו שאין מפירין נדרים לא רכוב ולא מהלך ולא עומד אלא יושב

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.

קתני מיהת שלשה מילין שאני יין האיטלקי דמשכר טפי

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.

והאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא ששתה רביעית אבל שתה יותר מרביעית כל שכן דרך טורדתו ושינה משכרתו

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?

רכוב שאני השתא דאתית להכי לרמי בר אבא נמי לא קשיא רכוב שאני

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.

איני והאמר רב נחמן מפירין נדרים בין מהלך בין עומד ובין רכוב

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?

תנאי היא דאיכא למאן דאמר פותחין בחרטה

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.

ואיכא למאן דאמר אין פותחין בחרטה

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).

דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי פתח ליה רבן גמליאל לההוא גברא יש בוטה כמדקרות חרב ולשון חכמים מרפא כל הבוטה ראוי לדוקרו בחרב אלא שלשון חכמים מרפא

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.

אמר מר ואין מעבירין על האוכלין אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי לא שנו אלא בדורות הראשונים שאין בנות ישראל פרוצות בכשפים אבל בדורות האחרונים שבנות ישראל פרוצות בכשפים מעבירין

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.

תנא שלימין מעבירין פתיתין אין מעבירין אמר ליה רב אסי לרב אשי ואפתיתין לא עבדן והכתיב ותחללנה אותי אל עמי בשעלי שעורים ובפתותי לחם דשקלי באגרייהו

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.

אמר רב ששת משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה

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

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top