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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Gemara raises an objection to this argument from the following baraita: With regard to one who is intoxicated, his acquisition is a binding acquisition; that is, he cannot retract the transaction when he is sober, and similarly, his sale is a binding sale. Moreover, if he committed a transgression for which he is liable to receive the death penalty, he is executed; and if the offense is punishable by lashes, he is flogged. The principle is that he is like a sober person in all matters, except that he is exempt from prayer. Therefore, even if the people of Israel are considered drunk, they are nonetheless responsible for their actions.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: They taught that an intoxicated person is responsible for all his actions only in a case where he did not reach the state of intoxication of Lot; however, if he reached the state of intoxication of Lot, so that he is altogether unaware of his actions, he is exempt from all liability.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: Whoever is appeased by his wine, i.e., whoever becomes more relaxed after drinking, has in him an element of the mind-set of his Creator, who acted in a similar fashion, as it is stated: “And the Lord smelled the sweet savor, and the Lord said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake” (Genesis 8:21). As it were, God acted more favorably toward His creatures after He was appeased with the smell of the burnt offerings. Smell can be as potent as drinking or eating itself.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said: Anyone who remains settled of mind after drinking wine, and does not become intoxicated, has an element of the mind-set of seventy Elders. The allusion is: Wine [yayin spelled yod, yod, nun] was given in seventy letters, as the numerological value of the letters comprising the word is seventy, as yod equals ten and nun equals fifty. Similarly, the word secret [sod spelled samekh, vav, dalet] was given in seventy letters, as samekh equals sixty, vav equals six, and dalet equals four. Typically, when wine entered the body, a secret emerged. Whoever does not reveal secrets when he drinks is clearly blessed with a firm mind, like that of seventy Elders.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to receiving, carrying, or sprinkling blood, if a non-priest, a mourner on his first day of mourning, a drunk priest, and a blemished priest, performed the rite, it is disqualified. And likewise if the priest was sitting, and likewise if he performed one of these rites with his left hand, it is disqualified. This statement contradicts the ruling of Rav Sheshet. The Gemara concludes: This is indeed a conclusive refutation, and Rav Sheshet’s opinion is rejected.

his eye on his cup, i.e., is habitually drunk, all the prohibitions of those with whom relations are forbidden seem to him like level [mishor] ground. He is unaware of the pitfalls of sin and continues walking along a twisted and dangerous path. And one said: Whoever casts his eye on his cup, the whole world seems to him like level [mishor] ground. Not only is such a person unconcerned by forbidden sexual relations, but all other prohibitions, e.g., monetary prohibitions, also seem permitted in his eyes.

The Gemara rejects this proof: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps here too it was eaten as anigron? The Gemara rejects this: Here that answer is insufficient because the verse writes “strong drink [sheikhar],” meaning something that intoxicates. Beverages that generally intoxicate do not do so when they are in a mixture. The Gemara asks: Perhaps sheikhar does not refer to wine but to a food that causes intoxication, such as a sweet dried fig from Keilah. As it was taught in a baraita: A priest who ate a sweet dried fig from Keilah or drank honey or milk, thereby becoming intoxicated, and entered the Temple to serve

The Gemara asks: And if so, why does the Bible call it wine and why does it call it tirosh? The Gemara explains: “Wine” suggests that it brings lament to the world because drunkenness causes most sins. There is a phonetic resemblance between the yayin, wine, and ta’aniya va’aniya, sorrow and howling, which Rashi (on Job 2:5) explains as lament. “Tirosh” shows that those who indulge in it become poor [rash].

Rav Kahana raised a contradiction: It is written as tirash but we read it tirosh. This should be understood as follows: If one merits and drinks appropriately, he is made a head [rosh]; if one does not merit and does not drink appropriately, he is made poor [rash]. The Gemara comments: This is the same as what Rava said, as Rava raised a contradiction: It is written: “And wine that makes glad [yishamaḥ] the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15) with a shin, but we read it yisamaḥ with a sin. This teaches: If one merits, wine makes him happy [same’aḥ]; if one does not merit, it makes him confounded [shamem]. This is the same as what Rava said: Wine and good scents make me wise, meaning that wine benefits one who deserves it.

Rav Kahana raised a contradiction: It is written as tirash but we read it tirosh. This should be understood as follows: If one merits and drinks appropriately, he is made a head [rosh]; if one does not merit and does not drink appropriately, he is made poor [rash]. The Gemara comments: This is the same as what Rava said, as Rava raised a contradiction: It is written: “And wine that makes glad [yishamaḥ] the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15) with a shin, but we read it yisamaḥ with a sin. This teaches: If one merits, wine makes him happy [same’aḥ]; if one does not merit, it makes him confounded [shamem]. This is the same as what Rava said: Wine and good scents make me wise, meaning that wine benefits one who deserves it.

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to those who have drunk wine too, it is possible for him to sleep a little and then enter, in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar Abba, as Rami bar Abba said: Walking a distance of a mil, and similarly, sleeping even a minimal amount, will dispel the effect of wine that one has drunk. The Gemara rejects this proof: Wasn’t it stated about this halakha that Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They taught this only with regard to one who has drunk the measure of a quarter-log of wine, but with regard to one who has drunk more than a quarter-log, walking this distance will preoccupy and exhaust him all the more, and a small amount of sleep will further intoxicate him. For this reason, it is prohibited for priests to drink wine, lest no suitable priest will be ready for the Temple service.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Meir maintains: What is the reason that priests do not spread their hands to bless the people every day in the afternoon prayer? It is due to potential drunkenness, as people occasionally become intoxicated during their lunch, and it is prohibited for an inebriated priest to bless. However, now, on a fast day, there is no concern about drunkenness, and therefore the priests may recite the Priestly Benediction even in the afternoon prayer.

Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that with regard to the morning prayer and the additional prayer, when drunkenness is not common on every ordinary day, the Sages did not issue a decree that the Priestly Benediction be omitted during them. However, with regard to the afternoon prayer and ne’ila, when drunkenness is common on every day, the Sages issued a decree that the Priestly Benediction should not be recited during them, despite the fact that intoxication is not a concern on a fast day.

In any event, based on the above, everyone agrees that it is prohibited for a drunken priest to raise his hands and recite the Priestly Benediction. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Why is the portion of the priest who recites the benediction (see Numbers 6:22–27) juxtaposed with the portion of the nazirite (see Numbers 6:1–21)? They are juxtaposed to say that just as it is prohibited for a nazirite to drink wine, so too, it is prohibited for a priest who recites the benediction to drink wine.

Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until he is so intoxicated that he does not know how to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai.

The Gemara relates that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, and they became intoxicated to the point that Rabba arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, when he became sober and realized what he had done, Rabba asked God for mercy, and revived him. The next year, Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and let us prepare the Purim feast with each other. He said to him: Miracles do not happen each and every hour, and I do not want to undergo that experience again.

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.

And Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said: Dates warm and satiate, loosen the bowels, strengthen, but do not pamper. Rav said: If one ate dates he should not issue halakhic rulings, as dates are intoxicating. The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to dates, in the morning and evening they have a positive effect on one who eats them; in the afternoon, they have a negative effect on one who eats them. At noon, their positive effect is unparalleled, and they negate three matters: A troubling thought, intestinal illness, and hemorrhoids. Apparently, the effect of dates is primarily a positive one.

The Gemara answers that there is no contradiction. Did we say that they are not exemplary? They are exemplary, and at the same time cause temporary distraction and intoxication, just as it is in the case of wine, as the Master said: One who drinks a quarter-log of wine should not issue halakhic rulings. And if you wish, say instead: This apparent contradiction is not difficult. This statement, which prohibits issuing a ruling under the influence of dates, is referring to one eating dates before he eats bread, when eating them can lead to intoxication. That statement, which enumerates the salutary effects of dates, is referring to one eating dates after he eats bread. As Abaye said: My mother told me that dates eaten before eating bread are destructive like an ax to a palm tree; dates eaten after eating bread they are beneficial like a bolt to a door, which provides support.

It was taught in a baraita: One cup of wine is good for a woman; two cups is a disgrace, as she will start to become drunk; after three cups, she will become lustful and verbally request sexual intercourse, which is unseemly; after four cups of wine, she will even request intercourse from a donkey in the marketplace, as at this stage she is so drunk that she is not particular about with whom she has relations. Rava said: They taught that a woman should not drink much wine only if her husband is not with her. However, if her husband is with her, we have no problem with it. If she feels an urge for intercourse her husband is available.

The Gemara cites a similar statement. The Holy One, Blessed be He, loves three people: One who does not get angry; one who does not get drunk; and one who is forgiving. The Holy One, Blessed be He, hates three people: One who says one statement with his mouth and means another in his heart, i.e., a hypocrite; one who knows testimony about another person and does not testify on his behalf; and one who observes a licentious matter performed by another person and testifies against him alone. His testimony is meaningless, as he is the only witness; consequently, he merely gives the individual a bad reputation.

The Gemara responds: Here it is possible for him to cut his hair and enter the Temple immediately. The Gemara objects: There too, it is possible for him to sleep a little and go in, as Rav Aḥa says: Walking the distance of a mil or sleeping even a minimal amount will dispel the effect of wine that one has drunk. The Gemara responds: But wasn’t it stated with regard to Rav Aḥa’s statement: Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught that the wine’s effect is dispelled in such a way only when he drank a quarter-log, at most, but if he drank more than a quarter-log, all the more so that walking that distance disturbs him and sleep makes him more drunk, unless he sleeps for a long time.

Having mentioned the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, the Gemara relates: Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, were sitting at a meal before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they were not saying anything. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his servants: Add more wine for the young men, so that they will say something. Once they were inebriated, they loosened their tongues and said: The son of David, i.e., the Messiah, will not come until two fathers’ houses are destroyed from Israel, as those two families are preventing the redemption. And they are the head of the exile who is in Babylonia, i.e., the family of the Exilarch, and the Nasi who is in Eretz Yisrael, i.e., the family of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (see 5a), as it is stated in reference to the Messiah: “And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel” (Isaiah 8:14).

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: My children, do you throw thorns in my eyes? How can you say this in the presence of the Nasi himself? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: My teacher, do not view their behavior in a negative light. Wine [yayin] is given in letters of seventy, i.e., the numerical value of the letters in the word yayin is seventy, and secret [sod ] is given in letters of seventy, i.e., the numerical value of the letters in the word sod is seventy. When wine enters, secrets emerge.

Rav Kahana raises a contradiction: The verse states: “Therefore, they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow to the bounty of the Lord, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd” (Jeremiah 31:11). The word for wine is written tirash, without the letter vav, but we read it as tirosh, with the letter vav. The matter can explained as follows: If one merits and drinks a moderate amount he becomes a leader [rosh], whereas if he does not merit and drinks excessively he becomes poor [rash].

Rava raises a similar contradiction: It is written: “And wine that gladdens the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15). The word for gladdens could be read as yeshamaḥ, meaning that wine makes one crazy, but we read it as yesamaḥ, gladdens the heart. The matter can be explained as follows: If one merits and drinks a moderate amount the wine gladdens him [mesameḥo], whereas if he does not merit and drinks excessively it makes him crazy [meshamemehu]. And that is what Rava meant when he said: Wine and fragrant spices have made me wise; that is to say, the controlled drinking of wine is beneficial to the drinker.

And although there is no explicit proof to the matter, there is an allusion to the matter in another verse, as it is stated: “Be not among wine drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat” (Proverbs 23:20). And the verse states: “For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags” (Proverbs 23:21). That is to say, a person who is a glutton and a drunkard, and sleeps a lot due to his excessive eating and drinking, will end up poor and dressed in rags. Rabbi Zeira expounds the same verse and says: With regard to anyone who sleeps in the study hall, his Torah shall become tattered, as it is stated: “And drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.”

And although there is no explicit proof to the matter, there is an allusion to the matter in another verse, as it is stated: “Be not among wine drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat” (Proverbs 23:20). And the verse states: “For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags” (Proverbs 23:21). That is to say, a person who is a glutton and a drunkard, and sleeps a lot due to his excessive eating and drinking, will end up poor and dressed in rags. Rabbi Zeira expounds the same verse and says: With regard to anyone who sleeps in the study hall, his Torah shall become tattered, as it is stated: “And drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.”