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: