Eruvin 64b (סד:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Sheshet said: Even

one who gained wealth through his wife’s property

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

Rava said: Even one who entered into a business partnership and profited [

the profit he earned from the partnership].

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

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

When we say that he should purchase a Torah scroll with the money, this is not meant specifically.

Rather,

even if he wrote phylacteries with it,

the property will remain in his possession.

And Rav Ḥanin said—and some say Rabbi Ḥanina: What is the verse

that indicates that through a mitzva property remains in one’s possession?

As it is written: “And Israel vowed a vow”

to the Lord, saying: “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: Walking

a distance of

a mil, and sleeping

even

for any amount—

each of these

diminishes the effect of wine.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: They taught

that these activities diminish the effect of wine

only when he drank

no more than

a quarter-log

of wine.

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

And we raise an objection against Rami bar Abba:

A

s

walking

no more than the distance of

a mil diminish

the effect of

wine?!

But it was taught [

we raise the objection from the latter clause of a beraita]:

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding on a donkey and traveling from Akko to Kuziv, with Rabbi Ila’ai traveling behind him.

He found

Rabban Gamliel

a cake

a baked pastry

on the road.

He said to

Rabban Gamliel:

“Ila’ai! Take the cake from the road,”

because one may not pass by food [as the Gemara will explain below].

Rabban Gamliel later found

a

gentile, and said to him: “Mavגai” [

this was the gentile’s name]

“take these cakes from me,”

so that he would not eat them, as will be explained below.

Rabbi Ila’ai approached [

drew near]

him [

the gentile] and

said to him: “Where are you from?”

He said to him,

the gentile:

“From the villages of the burganin,”

huts.

“And what is your name?”

the gentile answered:

“Mavגai is my name” [

my name].

Rabbi Ila’ai asked him:

“Did Rabban Gamliel ever know you?”

He said to him,

the gentile:

“No.”

At that moment we learned that Rabban Gamliel had known

the gentile’s name

through divine inspiration.

And we learned three things at that moment:

a.

We learned that one may not pass by food,

for one who finds food on the road may not pass by it and leave it there, because this constitutes contempt for food, which will be trampled.

b.

And we learned that one follows the majority of travelers,

who are gentiles. Therefore, Rabban Gamliel assumed that the cakes were gentile bread and did not permit Rabbi Ila’ai to eat them.

c.

And we learned that a gentile’s leavened property is permitted for benefit after Pesaḥ,

for this incident occurred after Pesaḥ, and Rabban Gamliel derived benefit from the cakes by giving them to the gentile.

When

Rabban Gamliel

reached Kuziv, a man came to ask about his vow.

Rabban Gamliel said

to

the one who was with him [

Rabbi Ila’ai]:

“Did we both drink a quarter-log of Italian wine?”

He said to him,

Rabbi Ila’ai:

“Yes!”

And Rabban Gamliel said:

“If so, let

this man

walk behind us until the effect of our wine diminishes.”

And he walked behind them for three mil, until

Rabban Gamliel

reached the ladder of Tyre [

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

When he reached the ladder of Tyre, Rabban Gamliel descended from the donkey, wrapped himself, sat down, and permitted the man’s vow.

And we learned many things at that moment!

a.

We learned that a quarter-log of Italian wine is intoxicating.

b.

And we learned that an intoxicated person may not issue a ruling,

and therefore he did not wish to permit the vow until the effect of his wine had diminished.

c.

And we learned that walking diminishes the effect of wine.

d.

And we learned that vows may be annulled neither while one is riding, nor while one is walking, nor while one is standing, but only while one is sitting.

And now we raise an objection from this beraita:

In any event, it teaches

that Rabban Gamliel walked

three mil

to diminish the effect of his wine, and was not satisfied with walking one mil. This is difficult for Rami bar Abba, who said: Walking one mil diminishes the effect of wine?!

We answer:

Italian wine is different, as it is more intoxicating,

and walking three mil is required to diminish its effect.

And we raise a difficulty against this:

But Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said [

above]:

They taught

that walking and sleeping diminish the effect of 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 sleeping intoxicates him.

If so, since Italian wine is more intoxicating, and its quarter-log is equivalent to more than a quarter-log of ordinary wine, how did walking diminish the effect of Rabban Gamliel’s wine?!

We answer:

Riding—

which does not involve the exertion of walking

is different,

and it does not trouble him; rather, it diminishes the effect of the wine.

Now that you have arrived at this

distinction, that riding differs from walking:

with regard to Rami bar Abba—

who said that walking one mil is sufficient to diminish the effect of wine, and whose statement was challenged above from the case of Rabban Gamliel, who required three mil—

there is also no difficulty.

For

riding,

which does not involve the exertion of walking,

is different,

and three mil are required before walking diminishes the effect of his wine.

And we raise a difficulty concerning what we said in the beraita, that vows may be annulled only when he is sitting:

Is that so? But Rav Naḥman said: Vows may be annulled whether one is walking, standing, or riding!

We answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim.

That is, this matter depends on another dispute between tannaim.

For there is one who says: One may introduce a basis for regret.

That is: When one comes to permit his vow, it may not be permitted on the basis of regret alone, without a basis concerning the vow. Rather, one must find a “basis” that will give him an opening to regret it and say: “Had I known this, I would not have vowed.” For had I known the circumstances at the time of the vow, I would not have vowed, and the vow is consequently uprooted by itself.

According to this view, a vow can be permitted only while one is sitting, because settled concentration is required in order to consider what basis can be found for him. Rabban Gamliel held this view, and therefore he descended from the donkey.

And there is one who says: One may not introduce a basis for regret.

That is: It is unnecessary to find a “basis” by which to say that he erred at the time of the vow; it is sufficient for him to regret it and say that he regrets having vowed. According to this view, it is acceptable even if he is riding or walking, since no settled concentration is required for this.

And likewise, we say that Rabban Gamliel needed a basis:

For Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What “basis” 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 thrusts of a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.”

Anyone who speaks rashly [

one who vows and gives expression to it with his lips]

deserves to be stabbed with a sword,

perhaps he will not fulfill his vow,

but the tongue of the Sages,

who permit his vow,

brings healing!

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

The Master said: And one may not pass by food:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: They taught this only with regard to the earlier generations, when Jewish women were not promiscuous with witchcraft.

But with regard to the later generations, when Jewish women were promiscuous with witchcraft—

one may pass by it,

because there is concern that they performed witchcraft with the food.

A tanna taught:

Even in the later generations, when there is concern about witchcraft, it is only with regard to

whole

loaves that one

may pass by

and not take them. But with regard to

pieces [

loaves that are not whole],

one may not pass by them,

because women do not perform witchcraft with them.

He said

and Rav Asi raised the following difficulty to Rav Ashi:

B

ut

do they not perform witchcraft with pieces

of bread?!

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

“And profane Me”

—

for they performed witchcraft for the prophets of the Baal.

“Among My people [

within My people, in order to mislead them],

for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread.”

Thus we see that they perform witchcraft through pieces of bread?! We answer: They did not perform their witchcraft with the pieces of bread; rather,

they took them as their wages [

as payment], and performed their witchcraft with other objects.

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