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.
Eruvin 64
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
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:
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.
Ontario, Canada
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, 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 read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, 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
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Richmond, CA, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
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:
