Eruvin 64b — the Talmud in English

Rav Sheshet said: Even ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

one who has inherited property from his wife

must perform some mitzva with it so that it will remain in his possession, for also in this people regret, and the evil eye prevails over it.

Rava said: Even one who conducted a partnership and profited

[he profited in the partnership].

Rav Pappa said: Even one who found a lost object.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said:

that which we say, that he should purchase a Torah scroll with it, is not meant precisely.

Rather,

even if he wrote phylacteries with it,

the property remains in his possession.

And Rav Chanin said, and some say Rabbi Chanina: What is the verse

through which it is shown that through a mitzva the property remains in his possession?

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 shall proscribe [and consecrate] their cities.’” And through this their prayer was heard, and they fell into the hands of Israel.

Rami bar Abba said: A way,

walking a distance of

a mil, and sleep

even

the slightest amount—

each of them

dissipates the wine.

Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: They taught

that they dissipate it

only when he drank

only

the measure of a quarter-log

of wine,

but if he drank more than a quarter-log, all the more so walking troubles him, and sleep intoxicates him.

And we raise a difficulty against Rami bar Abba:

And

does

walking

that is no more than the walking of

a mil dissipate

the

wine?!

But it was taught

[we raise the difficulty from the latter clause of a beraita]:

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding on a donkey, and was traveling from Akko to Kziv, and Rabbi Ilaai was traveling behind him.

He found

Rabban Gamliel

a cake

a baked cake

on the road.

He said to him

Rabban Gamliel:

Ilaai! Take the cake from the road

because one does not pass over food [the Gemara below].

He found

afterward Rabban Gamliel

one gentile, and said to him: Mavgai

[this was the gentile’s name]

! Take this cake from Ilaai,

so that he would not eat it, as follows.

Rabbi Ilaai drew near

[came near]

to him

[to the gentile]

and said to him: Where are you from?

He said to him

the gentile

“From the villages of the burganei”

huts.

And what is your name?

And the gentile answered:

“Mavgai is my name”

[my name].

And Rabbi Ilaai asked him:

Did Rabban Gamliel ever know you at all?

He said to him

the gentile:

No.

At that time we learned: Rabban Gamliel had directed himself

to the gentile’s name

through divine inspiration.

And we learned three things at that time:

a.

We learned: One does not pass over food,

for one who finds food on the road is not permitted to pass over it and leave it there, because of the degradation of food, which is trampled.

b.

And we learned: One follows the majority of travelers,

who are gentiles, and therefore Rabban Gamliel assumed that the cake was gentile bread, and did not permit Rabbi Ilaai to eat it.

c.

And we learned: The leaven of a gentile is permitted for benefit after Passover,

for this incident took place after Passover, and he benefited from the cake through the benefit of possession when he gave it to the gentile.

When

Rabban Gamliel

reached Kziv, someone came to ask about his vow.

Rabban Gamliel said

to

the one who was with him

[Rabbi Ilaai]:

Did we drink a quarter-log of Italian wine?

He said to him

Rabbi Ilaai:

Yes!

And Rabban Gamliel said:

If so, let

this man

walk behind us until our wine dissipates.

And he walked behind them three mils, until

Rabban Gamliel

reached the ascent of Tyre

[steps of a high mountain in Tyre, by which one ascends to the Land of Israel—Rashi above, page 22].

When he reached the ascent of Tyre, Rabban Gamliel descended from the donkey, wrapped himself, sat down, and released his vow for him.

And we learned many things at that time!

a.

We learned: A quarter-log of Italian wine intoxicates.

b.

And we learned: An intoxicated person may not issue a ruling,

and therefore he did not wish to release the vow until his wine had dissipated.

c.

And we learned: Walking dissipates the wine.

d.

And we learned: Vows are not released while one is riding, nor while one is walking, nor while one is standing, but only while one is sitting.

And now we raise a difficulty from this beraita:

In any event, it teaches,

that Rabban Gamliel walked

three mils

to dissipate his wine, and he was not satisfied with a way of one mil; and this is a difficulty against Rami bar Abba, who said: Walking one mil dissipates the wine?!

And we answer:

Italian wine is different, for it intoxicates more,

and walking three mils is required to dissipate it.

And we raise a difficulty against this:

But Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha

[above]:

They taught

that walking and sleep dissipate the wine

only when he drank a quarter-log.

But if he drank more than a quarter-log, all the more so walking troubles him and sleep intoxicates him.

And if so, with Italian wine, which intoxicates more, and its quarter-log is like more than a quarter-log of ordinary wine, how did walking dissipate Rabban Gamliel’s wine?!

And we answer:

Riding—

for it does not involve the exertion of the way as walking does—

is different,

and it does not trouble him, but only dissipates it.

Now that you have arrived at this

that riding is different from walking:

with regard to Rami bar Abba—

who says that walking one mil suffices to dissipate wine, and above the difficulty was raised from Rabban Gamliel, who required three mils—

there is also no difficulty.

For

riding,

which does not involve the exertion of the way,

is different,

and three mils are required, until walking dissipates his wine.

And we raise a difficulty concerning that which we say in the beraita, that vows are released only when he is sitting:

Is that so? But Rav Nachman said: Vows are released whether one is walking, whether one is standing, or whether one is riding!

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim.

That is to say: This matter depends on another dispute between tannaim.

For there is one who says: One may open with regret.

That is to say: When one comes to release his vow, it is not released for him through mere regret without an opening for his vow; rather, one must find for him an “opening,” so that he will have an opening of the mouth to regret and say: “Had I known this, I would not have vowed.” For if I had known the circumstances at the time of the vow, I would not have vowed, and it is found that the vow is uprooted on its own.

And according to this one who says that it is impossible to release the vow except while seated, because settledness of mind is required in order to consider what opening can be found for him, Rabban Gamliel held accordingly, and therefore descended from the donkey.

And there is one who says: One may not open with regret.

That is to say: It is not necessary to find an “opening” by which to say that he erred at the time of the vow; rather, it is enough that he regrets it and says that he is distressed that he vowed. And according to this one who says so, even riding or walking is entirely suitable, since settledness of mind is not required for this.

And likewise we say that Rabban Gamliel needed an opening:

For Rabbah bar bar Chana said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: What “opening” did Rabban Gamliel provide for that man?

He said to him what the Sages said concerning the verse in Proverbs:

“There is one who speaks rashly like the piercings of a sword, but the tongue of the wise is healing.”

Everyone who speaks rashly

[one who vows a vow and expresses it with his lips]

deserves to be pierced with a sword,

perhaps he will not fulfill his vow,

but the tongue of the Sages,

who release his vow,

is healing!

And you—had you known that it is forbidden to vow, and that you are liable to death for it, would you have vowed at all?!

The Master said, “And one does not pass over food”:

Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: They taught this only in the earlier generations, when the daughters of Israel were not promiscuous with sorcery.

But in the later generations, when the daughters of Israel are promiscuous with sorcery—

one passes over it,

for there is concern that they performed sorcery with it.

A tanna taught:

Even in the later generations, in which there is concern about sorcery, it is only over

whole

loaves that one

passes over

and does not take them. But over

pieces

[loaves that are not whole]

one does not pass over,

for they do not perform sorcery with them.

He said

and challenged

Rav Asi to Rav Ashi: And

does

“they do not perform”

sorcery with pieces?!

But it is written: “And you, son of man, set your face toward the daughters of your people who prophesy from their heart [false prophetesses, who perform an act of sorcery and say that this came to them through prophecy—Radak], and prophesy against them.”

“And profane Me”

“And they profane Me”—

for they would perform sorcery for the prophets of Baal.

“Among My people

[within My people, in order to mislead them],

with handfuls of barley and pieces of bread.”

Thus we see that they perform sorcery through pieces of bread?! And we answer: They did not perform their sorcery with the pieces of bread, but rather

they took them as their wages

[as their payment], and performed their sorcery with other things.

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