Beer Sources for Helena

These must be removed on Pesah:Babylonian kutah, Medean beer, Idumean vinegar, Egyptian zitom, The dyer’s pulp, cook’s dough, and the scribes’ paste. Rabbi Eliezer says: women’s ornaments too. This is the general rule: whatever is of a species of grain must be removed on Pesah. These are subject to a warning but they do not involve karet.

The Gemara returns to its discussion of the details mentioned in the mishna. Why is Median beer prohibited during Passover? It is because the Medians place barley water into it.

We learned in the mishna: Where the Sages said to recite a long blessing, one may not shorten it, and vice-versa. The Gemara proceeds to address a particular problem arising from conclusions drawn from this mishna. Before addressing the primary problem, however, a simpler, secondary issue is raised: Obviously, in a case where one took a cup of wine in his hand and thought it was beer, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was beer, i.e., he intended to recite the appropriate blessing on beer: By Whose word all things came to be, and upon realizing that it was wine, he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine, he fulfilled his obligation. In that case, even had he recited: By Whose word all things came to be, as he originally intended, he would have fulfilled his obligation, as we learned in a mishna: If one recited the general blessing: By Whose word all things came to be, over all food items, he fulfilled his obligation after the fact, even if ab initio another blessing was instituted to recite before eating that food. Therefore, if he reconsidered and concluded the blessing with the ending of the blessing over wine, he fulfilled his obligation.

However in a case where one took a cup of beer in his hand and thought it was wine, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was wine, meaning he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, and upon realizing that it was beer he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over beer: By Whose word all things came to be, what is the halakha?

Ostensibly, this blessing is comprised of two sections. The first section, during which he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, cannot fulfill his obligation as it is an inappropriate blessing to recite over beer. However, in the second section he recited: By Whose word all things came to be, the appropriate blessing. The dilemma, then, is: Do we follow the essence of the blessing, the first section, or do we follow the conclusion of the blessing?

Tangential to the laws concerning wine that the Gemara cited earlier, the Sages taught: Asparagus, wine or other alcoholic beverages that they were accustomed to drink early in the morning before eating, is agreeable for the heart and beneficial for the eyes, and all the more so for the intestines. And in extolling the virtues of this drink, the Gemara says: One who is accustomed to drink it, it is agreeable for his entire body. However, one must be careful, as one who drinks excessively and becomes drunk, it is harmful for his entire body.

The Gemara discusses this: From the fact that it was taught that asparagus is agreeable for the heart, it may be inferred that we are dealing with asparagus made from wine, which is known to be agreeable for the heart. And we learned: And all the more so, asparagus is beneficial for the intestines. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: For L-E-T, which is an acronym for lev, heart; einayim, eyes; teḥol, spleen, it is beneficial, but for R-M-T, rosh, head; me’ayim, intestines; taḥtoniot, hemorrhoids, it is harmful. Apparently, asparagus is harmful for one’s intestines.

The Gemara responds: That baraita, in which it was taught that asparagus is beneficial to one’s intestines, refers to asparagus made with old wine. As we learned in the mishna concerning the laws of vows that one who vowed: Wine is konam for me to taste because it is harmful to the intestines, and those who heard him said to him: But isn’t old wine beneficial to the intestines? If he was silent and did not argue the point, he is forbidden to drink new wine because of his vow, but he is permitted to drink old wine. Conclude from this that old wine is beneficial for the intestines.

The Sages taught: Six things were said with regard to asparagus: One only drinks it undiluted and from a full cup; he receives it from the attendant in his right hand and drinks it with his left hand; one should not converse after drinking it and one does not stop while drinking it, but should drink it all at once; one only returns it to the one who gave it to him; and he spits after drinking it; and one may only supplement it with its own kind, meaning that after drinking asparagus, one should only eat something that is used to make similar beverages, e.g., dates after date beer, etc.

The Gemara challenges: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one may only supplement asparagus with bread? The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. This baraita, in which it was taught that one supplements it with bread, refers to asparagus made of wine, while that baraita, in which it was taught that one supplements it, refers to asparagus made of beer.

It was taught in one baraita that asparagus is beneficial for L-E-T, heart, eyes, and spleen, and harmful for R-M-T, head, intestines, and hemorrhoids. And it was taught in another baraita that asparagus is beneficial for R-M-T, head, intestines, and hemorrhoids, and harmful for L-E-T, heart, eyes, and spleen. The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. This baraita, in which it was taught that asparagus is beneficial for L-E-T, refers to asparagus made of wine, while that baraita, in which it was taught that asparagus is harmful for L-E-T, refers to asparagus made of beer.

The Gemara resolves a contradiction between two other baraitot in the same manner. It was taught in one baraita that if he spit after drinking asparagus, he suffers an illness. And it was taught in another baraita that if he did not spit after drinking asparagus, he suffers an illness. The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. This baraita, in which it was taught that if he spit after drinking it he suffers an illness, refers to asparagus made of wine, while that baraita, in which it was taught that if he did not spit he suffers an illness, refers to asparagus made of beer.

Rav Ashi said: Now that you said that if he did not spit after drinking it he suffers an illness, its water, the saliva in his mouth after drinking asparagus, may be expelled even when standing before the king, as failure to do so will endanger him.

Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: Suriel, the heavenly ministering angel of the Divine Presence, told me three things from on high: Do not take your cloak in the morning from the hand of your servant and wear it; do not ritually wash your hands from one who has not ritually washed his own hands; and only return a cup of asparagus to the one who gave it to you. Why is this? Because a band of demons and some say a band of angels of destruction lie in wait for a person and say: When will a person encounter one of these circumstances and be captured?

Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The Angel of Death told me three things: Do not take your cloak in the morning from the hand of your servant and wear it; do not ritually wash your hands from one who has not ritually washed his own hands; and do not stand before the women when they return from the burial of the deceased, because I dance and come before them and my sword is in hand, and I have license to destroy.

The Gemara asks: And if one encounters women returning from a funeral, what is his remedy? The Gemara answers: Let him jump four cubits from where he stands; if there is a river, let him cross it; if there is another path, let him go down it; if there is a wall, let him stand behind it; and if not, he should turn his face around and recite the verse: “And the Lord said to the Satan: The Lord rebukes you, Satan, the Lord that has chosen Jerusalem rebukes you; is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?” (Zechariah 3:2), until they pass him.

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out lime is equivalent to that which is used to spread as a depilatory on the smallest of girls. A tanna taught in a Tosefta: In a measure equivalent to that which is used to spread on the finger of the smallest of girls, who would use lime to soften and pamper the skin. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that initially, lime was used for a different purpose. It was used for daughters of Israel who reached physical maturity, but had not yet reached the age of maturity, and women who sought to remove hair for cosmetic purposes. They would smear daughters of the poor with lime; they would smear daughters of the wealthy with fine flour; they would smear daughters of kings with shemen hamor, as it was stated: “For so were the days of their anointing filled, six months with shemen hamor” (Esther 2:12). The Gemara asks: What is shemen hamor? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said: Setaket. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: It is olive oil extracted from an olive that has not yet reached a third of its growth; the acidic oil is effective as a depilatory. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that anfiknon is olive oil from an olive that has not reached a third of its growth. And why is it spread on the body? Because it removes the hair and pampers the skin.

With regard to lime, the Gemara relates: Rav Beivai had a daughter. He smeared her with lime limb by limb and, as a result, she became so beautiful that when marrying her off, he received four hundred zuz in gifts for her beyond her dowry. There was a certain gentile in Rav Beivai’s neighborhood. He had a daughter and wanted to do the same. He smeared her entire body with lime at one time and she died. He said: Rav Beivai killed my daughter. Rav Naḥman said: Rav Beivai, who drinks beer, his daughters require that they be smeared with lime, as beer causes hair growth; we, who do not drink beer, our daughters do not require that they be smeared with lime.

Ultimately, Shmuel brought him into his house. He fed him barley bread and small fried fish, and gave him beer to drink, and he did not show him the lavatory so he would suffer from diarrhea. Shmuel was a doctor and he wanted to relieve Rav’s intestinal suffering by feeding him food that would relieve him. Since Rav was unaware of Shmuel’s intention, he became angry at him. Rav cursed Shmuel and said: Whoever causes me suffering, let his children not survive. Although Rav eventually discovered Shmuel’s good intentions, his curse was fulfilled, and so it was that Shmuel’s children did not survive long.

Apropos Rabbi Mona’s statement with regard to healing, the text cites what he would say about other matters that require special attention: A hand that touches the eye should be severed because it harms the eye. A hand that touches the nose should be severed. A hand that touches the mouth should be severed. A hand that touches the ear should be severed. A hand that touches one’s wound should be severed. A hand that touches one’s member should be severed, lest one arouse himself. A hand that touches one’s anus should be severed, lest one make himself ill.

A hand that is placed into a barrel of beer should be severed because the beer will not ferment. A hand that frequently touches the eye causes blindness. A hand that frequently touches the ear causes deafness. A hand that touches the nose or mouth causes polyps [polypus]. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: She is a liberated entity, this evil spirit that rests on one’s hands before they are washed in the morning, and she refuses to leave until one washes his hands three times. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When eye shadow is placed on the eyes it causes the evil spirit called the Daughter of the King to pass, and it stops tears and causes eyelashes to grow. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Eye shadow causes the Daughter of the King to pass, and stops tears and causes eyelashes to grow.

The Gemara discussed the remedy for jaundice, saying that one should drink two of the ingredients mentioned together with beer, and one becomes sterile from it. The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to cause sterility? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that castration of a man is prohibited? The verse states: “Those whose testicles are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, shall not be offered to the Lord, and you shall not do this in your land” (Leviticus 22:24), meaning that you shall not do it to yourselves; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina. Apparently, it is prohibited to castrate a man. The Gemara answers: This prohibition applies only in a case where one intends to castrate. Here, in the cure for jaundice, the sterility happens on its own, incidental to the treatment. Proof is cited from that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who seeks to castrate a rooster should remove its comb and it will become castrated on its own. Incidental castration is permitted. The Gemara rejects the proof. Didn’t Rav Ashi say: It is arrogance that it assumes when it has its comb, and when the comb is removed it becomes depressed and no longer procreates. However, it is not actually castrated. Rather, apparently this remedy for jaundice is permitted only for one who is castrated and for whom causing sterility is not a concern.

The Gemara relates: The members of Rav Pappa’s household would carefully pour beer from one vessel to another so that the dregs from one vessel would not pass to the other. Rav Aḥa from Difti said to Ravina: But there are the final drops, which remain when one pours the beer into another vessel. When pouring the final drops from the dregs left in the vessel, one is in violation of the prohibition of selecting. He replied: In Rav Pappa’s house they would leave the final drops in the first vessel together with the dregs. They would not attempt to separate them, as the last drops were not significant to the household of Rav Pappa, because beer was always readily available in his house.

And Rav Ḥisda also said: One who is able to eat barley bread and nevertheless eats wheat bread violates the prohibition against wanton destruction. One who wastes resources is comparable to one who destroys items of value. And Rav Pappa said: One who is able to drink beer and nevertheless drinks wine violates the prohibition against wanton destruction. The Gemara comments: And this is not a correct matter, as the prohibition against destruction of one’s body takes precedence. It is preferable for one to care for his body by eating higher quality food than to conserve his money.

Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: One may establish an eiruv with beer, and it invalidates a ritual bath with a measure of three log, similar to drawn water. Rav Kahana strongly objects to this: This is obvious, for what is the difference between this and dye-water? As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: Dye-water invalidates a ritual bath with a measure of three log, like regular drawn water. They said: There is a difference between the two cases, as there, the liquid is called dye-water; here, it is called beer. Therefore, it might have been possible to argue that beer is not considered like water at all, in which case it would only invalidate a ritual bath if it changed the color of the water, and so Shmuel’s novel teaching was necessary.

The Gemara asks: And how much beer is needed to establish an eiruv? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, thought to say before Rav Yosef as follows: Two-quarters of a log of beer. Rav Aḥa’s reasoning is now spelled out in detail. As we learned in a mishna: If one carries out wine on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain, he is liable if he carries out enough wine for diluting a cup, i.e., enough undiluted wine to fill a cup after it has been diluted with water. And a baraita was taught about this mishna: Enough wine for diluting a fine cup. They inquired: What is meant by a fine cup? They answered: A cup of blessing. And Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: A cup of blessing must contain a quarter of a quarter-log of wine, so that after one dilutes the wine with water, it amounts to a full quarter-log. And this measure is in accordance with the statement of Rava with regard to the strength of wine, as Rava said: Any wine that is not strong enough to require that it be diluted with three parts water to one part wine is not proper wine.

And we learned in the latter clause of the aforementioned mishna: And one is liable for carrying out all other liquids, and similarly all waste water, in the measure of a quarter-log. Now, Rav Aḥa argues as follows: Since there, with respect to liability for carrying on Shabbat, the ratio is one to four, as one is liable for carrying out a quarter of a quarter-log of wine, and one is only liable for carrying out other liquids if one carries out a quarter-log; here, too, with respect to making an eiruv, the ratio of one to four should be maintained. Therefore, since Rav said that two-quarters of a log of wine are required for an eiruv, the minimum amount of beer one may use should be two full log.

The Gemara rejects this argument: And this is not so. There, with regard to carrying on Shabbat, we require four times as much beer as wine because less than that amount, i.e., less than a quarter-log of beer, is insignificant. However, here, with regard to establishing an eiruv, this is not relevant, as it is common for people to drink a cup of beer in the morning and a cup of beer in the evening, and they rely on them as their meals, as beer is satisfying even in such quantities. Therefore, we should require only two-quarters of a log of beer for an eiruv.

And Shmuel said: For example, if they say: These dates are for the beer of the temple of Nitzrefei, which they drink on the day of their festival, then this is enough to establish the tree as an asheira. Ameimar said: And the elders of Pumbedita said to me with regard to this issue: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: The Sages rendered the legal status of the beer storages in Babylonia like that of wine storages in Eretz Yisrael, with regard to one who supplies wine from the storage during the meal. Any storage from which one replenishes his supply during the meal requires searching for leaven.

After mentioning this baraita, the Gemara continues to discuss the nutritional effects of other foods. The Sages taught: Three things increase one’s waste, lower one’s stature, and take one five-hundredth of a person’s vision if he eats them regularly. And they are: Bread from coarse flour, new beer, and raw vegetables. Similarly, the Sages taught in another baraita: Three things decrease one’s waste, straighten one’s stature, and improve one’s vision, and they are: Bread from fine flour, fatty meat, and aged wine. The Gemara explains: Fine bread is made from refined flour; fatty meat refers to meat from a goat that has not yet given birth; and aged wine refers to wine that has been aged significantly, for at least three years. The Gemara states a general principle: Any food or medical treatment that is effective in healing this sickness or this limb is deleterious for that one. And any food or treatment that is deleterious for this one is effective in healing that one, except for moist ginger, long peppers, and bread made of refined flour, and fatty meat, and aged wine, which are effective to heal all limbs of the body.