Beer in the Babylonian Talmud🍺

coarse bread, made from coarse flour that has not been thoroughly sifted, new beer, and vegetables. This indicates that vegetables are harmful to one’s well-being. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement of Rav Huna is referring to garlic and leeks, which are beneficial; thatbaraita is referring to other vegetables, which are harmful. As it was taught in a baraita: Garlic is a healthy vegetable; leeks are a half-vegetable, meaning they are half as healthful. If radish has been seen, an elixir of life has been seen, as it is very beneficial to the body.

Having mentioned various places of residence, the Gemara cites what Rav Huna said: Any city that does not have vegetables, a Torah scholar is not permitted to dwell there for health reasons. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that vegetables are beneficial to a person’s health? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Three things increase one’s waste, bend his stature, and remove one five-hundredth of the light of a person’s eyes; and they are

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.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Whether one drinks date beer, or barley beer, or a beverage made from soaking pomace from the production of wine in water, known as tamad, one recites over them the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be. Aḥerim say: Over wine made from pomace that has the taste of wine one recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the vine. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim.

The Gemara notes that it was taught in a baraitain accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, who said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s opinion: “You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:20). The Sages taught: This verse comes to include Babylonian kutaḥ, Median beer, Edomite vinegar, and Egyptian zitom. I might have thought that one who eats any of these items will be punishable by karet. Therefore, the verse states: “For whoever eats leavened bread…that soul shall be cut off from Israel” (Exodus 12:15), from which the Sages derived: For eating full-fledged, leavened grain bread one is punished with karet, but for eating its mixture one is only in violation of a prohibition.

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.

The Gemara asks: In what way is that halakhadifferent from that which was taught in a baraita: One may begin brewing beer during the intermediate days of a Festival for the purpose of using it on the Festival. If it is not for the purpose of the Festival, it is prohibited. This is the halakhaboth with regard to date beer and with regard to barley beer. And even though they have old beer, one may employ artifice and say that he wishes to drink from the new, and that he is making beer on the intermediate days of the Festival for that purpose. Apparently, it is permitted to employ artifice even without actively demonstrating that one is performing the action for a permitted purpose. This contradicts the opinion of Rav Ashi.

The Sages taught: One may recite kiddush only over wine, and one may recite blessings only over wine. The Gemara expresses surprise: Is that to say that one does not say the blessing: By Whose word all things [shehakol] came to be, over beer and water? Abaye said: This is what the baraitais saying: One only says: Bring a cup of blessing to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals, over wine. The Rabbis taught in a baraita: One may not recite kiddush over beer. In the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, they said that one may recite kiddush over beer.

The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One may brew beer on the intermediate days of a Festival for the sake of the Festival, but if it is not for the sake of the Festival, it is prohibited. This applies both to date beer and to barley beer. And even though he has old beer, he may employ an artifice and drink from the new beer, i.e., he may say he prefers new beer and brew a new batch, although he has enough old beer for the Festival. This statement contradicts the previous baraita that prohibited circumventing the prohibition against labor through artifice. The Gemara answers: This matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One may not employ an artifice in this regard, i.e., to circumvent the prohibition against labor during the intermediate days of a Festival. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One may employ an artifice.

Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one may only supplementasparaguswith bread?

The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. Thisbaraita, in which it was taught that one supplements it with bread, refers to asparagus made of wine, while thatbaraita, in which it was taught that one supplements it with its own kind, refers to asparagus made of beer.

It was taught in onebaraita that asparagusis beneficial for L-E-T, heart, eyes, and spleen, and harmful for R-M-T, head, intestines, and hemorrhoids. And it was taught in anotherbaraita that asparagusis 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.

Thisbaraita, in which it was taught that asparagus is beneficial for L-E-T, refers to asparagus made of wine, while thatbaraita, 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 onebaraita that if he spit after drinking asparagus, he suffers an illness. And it was taught in anotherbaraita that if he did not spit after drinking asparagus, he suffers an illness.

The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. Thisbaraita, in which it was taught that if he spit after drinking it he suffers an illness, refers to asparagus made of wine, while thatbaraita, in which it was taught that if he did not spit he suffers an illness, refers to asparagus made of beer.

The baraita continues: One may brew beer on the intermediate days of a Festival for the sake of the Festival, but if it is not for the sake of the Festival, it is prohibited. And if he brewed beer for the sake of the Festival and left some over, it is permitted for use after the Festival provided that he does not employ an artifice, exploiting the allowance to work on a Festival by knowingly making more than was needed.

This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning second-tithe money brought to Jerusalem: The verse states: “And you shall give the money for anything [bekhol] your soul desires” (Deuteronomy 14:26), which is a generalization, followed by: “For oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink,” which is a detail, and concludes with: “Or for anything [uvkhol] your soul asks of you,” where it then generalized again.

The Gemara asks: But if something may not be bought with second-tithe money, is one permitted to buy it by including it in the payment for something which may be bought with second-tithe money? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so it was taught in the following baraita: Ben Bag Bag says in exposition of the verse: “And you shall bestow that money on all that your heart desires, on oxen, on sheep, on wine, on strong drink, on whatever your soul requests” (Deuteronomy 14:26): “On oxen” teaches that one may buy an ox and include in its price payment for its hide. Although the hide cannot be eaten, it may be bought together with the ox, and it does not acquire the sanctity of the second tithe. “On sheep” teaches that one may buy a sheep and include in its price payment for its fleece, which is used for purposes other than eating. “On wine” teaches that one may buy wine and include in its price payment for its jug. “On beer” teaches that one is permitted to buy not only actual wine, but one may buy even piquette, water in which grape seeds are soaked, once it has fermented and acquired the flavor of wine.

As it is taught in a baraita: “And you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires,” is a generalization, as no particular type of food is specified. “For oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink,” is a detail, as specific types of food are mentioned. When the verse concludes with “or for whatever your soul asks of you,” it has generalized again. Since the verse is formulated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. This indicates that just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as the produce of produce, i.e., they grow from a parent organism, e.g., agricultural produce or animals, and they are grown from the ground, i.e., their sustenance comes from the ground, so too the category of items one may purchase with second-tithe money includes all items that are the produce of produce and are grown from the ground.

The tanna who recited mishnayotbefore Rabbi Yoḥanan taught: One who sees any kind of drink in a dream it is a good omen, except for wine, as there is one who drinks it in a dream and it is a good omen for him, and there is one who drinks it in a dream and it is a bad omen for him. The Gemara elaborates: There is one who drinks wine and it is a good omen for him, as it is stated: “And wine that makes glad the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15), and there is one who drinks it in a dream and it is a bad omen for him, as it is stated: “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish and wine unto the bitter in soul” (Proverbs 31:6).

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: “In the Sanctuary you shall pour out a libation [hassekh nesekh] of strong drink to the Lord” (Numbers 28:7). The Torah states the term for libation twice, which indicates that the verse is speaking of two libations: One is the water libation and the other one is the wine libation. The Gemara asks: Why not say that both libations are of wine? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write either hassekh hessekh or nassekh nesekh, with the same prefix each time. What is the meaning of the varied formulation: “Hassekh nesekh”? Learn from this that one libation is of water and the other one is of wine.

The baraita comments: Up to this point is the attribute of middling people, who merely exclude themselves from the suffering of the community. However, with regard to the attribute of wicked people, what is written about those who hope for more of these days? “Come, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and tomorrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant” (Isaiah 56:12). And what is written afterward? “The righteous perishes, and no man lays it to heart, and godly men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come” (Isaiah 57:1). This verse teaches that righteous people suffer early death to prevent them from witnessing the harm that will befall these evil people.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar says: If one interrupted his drinking of the quarter-log of wine, or if he placed any amount of water into the wine, he is exempt. The Sages taught in a baraita: When the Torah instructs Aaron the High Priest: “Drink no wine nor intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, that you shall not die” (Leviticus 10:9), one might have thought that this applies even if he drank any amount, and even if he drank wine from its press, i.e., wine that has not finished fermenting. Therefore, the verse states: “Nor intoxicating drink,” indicating that only the consumption of a quantity of wine sufficient to intoxicate is prohibited. And how much wine is sufficient to intoxicate? It is a minimum of a quarter-log of wine that is forty days old, which has already fermented. If so, why must the verse state “wine,” when the term “intoxicating drink” would have sufficed? It is to tell you that although one is not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven for it, it is prohibited to drink any amount of it, even less than a quarter-log, and then enter the Temple; and similarly, it is prohibited to drink it from its press and then enter the Temple, and one who does so is liable to be flogged, as is the case with any other prohibition by Torah law. Rabbi Yehuda says: From the word “wine” I have derived only that wine is forbidden; from where is it derived that other intoxicating beverages are forbidden as well? The verse states: “Nor intoxicating drink.” If so, why must the verse state “wine”? This comes to teach that for entering the Temple after drinking wine one is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, but for entering after drinking other intoxicating drinks, one violates only a regular prohibition.Rabbi Elazar says that the verse is interpreted to mean: Wine you shall not drink, and intoxicating drink, meaning that you shall not drink it in the manner of its being intoxicating. But if one interrupted his drinking, or placed any amount of water into it and drank it, he is exempt. The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? The first tanna holds: We learn by verbal analogy that the term “intoxicating drink” is referring to wine, from the term “intoxicating drink” mentioned with regard to a nazirite in the verse: “He shall abstain from wine and intoxicating drink” (Numbers 6:3). There it is referring only to wine (see Nazir 4a). But Rabbi Yehuda does not derive that the term “intoxicating drink” refers only to wine by the verbal analogy from the term “intoxicating drink” stated with regard to a nazirite. Consequently, he interprets the word as referring to an intoxicating drink that is not wine. And Rabbi Elazar holds: What is the meaning of the phrase: “Wine and intoxicating drink”? It is not referring to two separate items, but rather to wine in the manner that it intoxicates.

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: "There was a small gap between the ramp and the altar west of the ramp, and once in seventy years young priests would descend there and gather from there the congealed wine left over from the libations that set over time, which resembled round cakes of dried and pressed figs. They would then come and burn it in sanctity in the Temple courtyard, as it is stated: 'In sanctity shall you pour a libation of beer unto the Lord' (Numbers 28:7)."

The Gemara asks: But is this halakhaderived from here? It is derived from there, as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that if those who drank wine performed sacrificial rites they have desecrated the service? The verse states with regard to the priests: “Drink no wine or strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, so that you not die; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. That you may put difference between the holy and the common” (Leviticus 10:9–10). The baraita continues: With regard to one lacking the requisite vestments and one whose hands and feet are not washed, from where is it derived that their rites are disqualified as well?

The baraita continues: And the punishment for priests who performed the Temple service while intoxicated with wine is death at the hand of Heaven, as it is written: “Drink no wine nor strong drink, you and your sons with you, when you come into the Tent of Meeting, that you shall not die” (Leviticus 10:9).

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok says: There was a small gap between the ramp and the altar west of the ramp. Once in seventy years young priests would descend there to the drainpipes built into the altar and bring out from there the congealed wine left over from the libations that had accumulated over time, which resembled round cakes of dried and pressed figs. And they would burn it in sanctity in the Temple courtyard, as it is stated: “In sanctity shall you pour a libation of strong drink to the Lord” (Numbers 28:7). This teaches that just as its pouring is in sanctity, so too, its burning must be in sanctity.

With regard to Hannah’s explanation that “I have drunk neither wine nor beer,” Rabbi Elazar said: From here the halakha is derived that one who is suspected of something of which he is not guilty cannot suffice merely with the personal knowledge of his innocence, but must inform the one who suspects him that he is innocent and clear himself of suspicion.

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?

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.

Incidentally, the Gemara inquires: From what does this defect arise? What is its cause? The Gemara answers: It results from his mother baking bread at noon and drinking strong beer [shikhra marka] while pregnant. The excessive heating of the mother’s body causes her child to be born with defective reproductive organs. Rav Yosef said: This is the meaning of that which I heard Rabbi Ami say: Anyone who is impaired from his mother’s womb, and at the time I did not know what he was referring to. Now I understand that he was speaking about a man who was infertile from birth.

As a remedy for hemorrhoids, let him bring acacia [akika], and aloe [ilava], and mercury, and silver dross, and a bundle [ḥumreta] of fragrant herbs [defilon], and feces of pigeons [ḥamimta]. And let him take it in linen bags in the summer, or cotton bags in the winter, and place them on the afflicted area. And if he is not able to do that, let him drink diluted beer.

As a remedy for an internal fever, let him bring seven handfuls of beet leaves from seven furrows. And let him cook them with their dirt and eat them. And let him drink from eder leaves mixed with beer or

grapes grown by trellising the vine on a palm tree soaked in water.

The Master said: If the blood comes from the lungs then it has a remedy. The Gemara asks: What is its remedy? The Gemara answers: Let him bring seven fistfuls of sliced beets, and seven fistfuls of sliced leek, and five fistfuls of perida grass, and three fistfuls of lentils, and a fistful of cumin, and a fistful of ropes, and a corresponding amount of the intestines of a firstborn animal. And let him cook all of it together and let him eat everything and afterward let him drink good, strong beer.

Ameimar said: "And the elders of Pumbedita said to me: 'The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.'"

The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda permitted uprooting flax, cutting hops, and uprooting sesame plants on the intermediate days of a Festival. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, this is reasonable in the case of flax, which is suitable for use as a cover [ḥafifa] for various objects and therefore has a use even during the Festival, and so too hops, which are suitable for making beer, but for what are sesame plants suitable, since the sesame seeds require a long drying period before oil can be extracted from them? Rav Yosef said to him: They are suitable for the seeds [nazyei] on them, which can be consumed immediately.

Rav Pappa said: My tacit interest arrangement that I offer customers, where I sell my beer at the times when the market price is low and agree to have the buyer pay me for it later on when the market price is higher, is permitted. What is the reason for this? My beer would not be lost were I to store it for a while, and I do not need money at the present time. I could therefore simply hold it to sell at a higher price later. I sell it early because it is I who am performing a beneficial matter for the customer, by selling it to him earlier without demanding immediate payment, and this is not interest.

The Gemara relates that the Mar Yanuka, the younger Mar, and Mar Kashisha, the elder Mar, both sons of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: Once Ameimar happened to come to our place and we did not have wine for havdala. We brought him beer and he did not recite havdala, and he passed the night fasting, as it is prohibited to eat before havdala. The next day we exerted ourselves and brought him wine, and he recited havdala and tasted some food. The next year he again happened to come to our place. Once again we did not have wine and we brought him beer. He said: If so, if it is so difficult to obtain wine in your place, beer is the wine of the province. He recited havdala over the beer and tasted some food.

In the above story, Ameimar refused to recite havdala over beer. The Gemara addresses this issue at greater length. Rav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to recite kiddush over date beer? He said: Now, if with regard to barley beer, fig beer, and beer produced from berries, I raised a dilemma before Rav as to whether or not they may be used for kiddush, and Rav had previously raised this dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya had inquired of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he did not resolve it for him, as he could not find a source that clearly permits it, is it necessary to say that date beer, which is inferior to those other types of beer, may not be used for kiddush?

Those who heard this response understood from it that it is kiddush that one may not recite over it, but one may recite havdala over date beer. Rav Ḥisda said to them that Rav said as follows: Just as one may not recite kiddush over date beer, so one may not recite havdala over it. It was also stated that Rav Taḥalifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: Just as one may not recite kiddush over date beer, so one may not recite havdala over it.

The Gemara relates that Levi sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a beer of thirteen soakings, i.e., thirteen batches of dates had been soaked in water until it had thoroughly absorbed the taste of the dates. This was considered a high-quality beer. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi tasted it and it was especially pleasant. He said: A beer like this is fit to recite kiddush over and to say upon it all the songs and praises in the world, as it is as good as wine. At night, it disrupted his digestion and caused him pain. He said: It pains on the one hand and soothes on the other.

With regard to the discomfort caused by beer, the Gemara cites related statements of amora’im. Rav Yosef said: I will take a vow in public, which cannot be nullified, that I will not drink beer due to its negative effects, despite the fact that beer was a popular beverage in Babylonia. Rava said: I would rather drink water used for soaking flax, and I will not drink beer.

And Rava said: "One who recites kiddush over beer, his regular drink should be beer."Rav was found by Rav Huna reciting kiddush over beer. He said to him: "Abba, Rav’s first name, has started to acquire coins with beer."

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain brewer [sarseya] who was making date beer for someone, who betrothed a woman with sediment [bifruma] from the beer. The owner of the beer came and found him. The owner said to him: Why don’t you give her the betrothal from this, the sharp sediments that are of better quality than the kind you chose? The brewer came before Rava to ask whether the owner’s comment indicated that he had relinquished his rights to the sediment, which would mean the woman is betrothed. Rava said to him: The Sages said that if the owner discovers that someone has taken something of his without permission and says: Go to and take the item of better quality, that it is a sign he agrees with the man’s action only with regard to teruma alone, and you did not have the right to use the sediment.

The continuation of the verse: “You shall bring forth the old from before the new,” teaches that there will be storehouses full of old produce and threshing floors full of new produce, and the Jewish people will say: How will we manage to take out this produce from the storehouse before that produce is brought in? Rav Pappa said: Everything that is old is superior in quality to the new, except for dates, beer, and small fish, which are better when they are fresh.

We learned in the mishna: They would graft palm trees the entire day of the fourteenth of Nisan. The Gemara asks: How did they perform this grafting? Rabbi Yehuda said: They brought fresh myrtle, strong beer made from the fruit of the laurel tree, and barley flour that was cast into a vessel, and forty days has not passed since it was ground. They boiled them together and poured the mixture into the core of the palm tree. And for any tree standing within four cubits of that tree, if they did not perform this treatment with it, it would immediately wither because the tree that received the treatment would grow faster at the expense of the surrounding trees. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said: They placed a branch of a male palm tree on the female, and by doing so the female tree would yield fruit.

And with regard to drinking also, we only said it is prohibited to drink after nightfall before havdalawith regard to wine and beer, which are significant beverages; but with regard to water, we have no problem with it. One may begin drinking water even after Shabbat has concluded and before he has recited havdala.

And even if a minor borrowed it, we said this poses a danger only if it occurred in a field, where water is not found. However, in a city, where water can be found, we have no problem with it. And even in a field, we said there is cause for concern only in a case of borrowed water; however, with regard to wine and beer, we have no problem with it.

§ The Gemara recounts an incident involving a certain mouse that fell into a barrel of beer. Rav deemed that barrel of beer forbidden. The Sages said before Rav Sheshet: Shall we say that Rav maintains that even in a case where the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is forbidden? Presumably, the mouse imparted flavor to the detriment of the beer.

Rava said: The halakha is that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted. But with regard to a mouse that fell into a barrel of beer, I do not know what the reason was that Rav deemed it forbidden. I do not know whether it was because he maintains that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture it is forbidden, and if so, the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, or whether it was because although he maintains that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture it is permitted, a mouse that falls into beer enhances its flavor.

Rav Aḥai calculated the amount of vinegar necessary to nullify the flavor of the mouse at fifty times its volume. Although forbidden food in a mixture usually requires the presence of sixty times its volume of permitted food to be nullified, vinegar has a sharp enough flavor that it nullifies the mouse with less. Rav Shmuel, son of Rav Ika, calculated the amount of beer necessary for nullifying the mouse at sixty times the volume of the mouse. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that this and that, both vinegar and beer, nullify the mouse with sixty times its volume, and so is the ruling for all prohibitions in the Torah.

§ Rav Huna says: A person should not pour beer into a vessel through straw to filter it at night, lest a creeping animal emerge from the beer above the straw and then fall into the cup. Since the drinker poured the beer through a filter, he will assume that all creatures found in the vessel originated there and are permitted despite lacking fins and scales. He will therefore drink the beer along with the creature, and in doing so, he violates the prohibition: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).

The Gemara notes: The treatment for catarrh caused by the foam of wine is beer; the treatment for catarrh caused by the foam of beer is water; and for catarrh caused by the foam of water there is no remedy. And this is in accordance with the adage that people say: Poverty follows the poor. Not only does a pauper have nothing to drink other than water, but there also is no treatment for the disease caused by his beverage.

And if one has liver worms but does not have any potnak handy, or if one has taken potnak and it did not help, he should swallow white cress. And if he does not have that or if it did not help him, he should sit in fast, and take fatty meat and place it on coals and suck the bone and swallow vinegar. And some say: One should not drink vinegar because it is harmful to the liver. And if none of those options are available, let one take the sawdust that was scraped from the shell of a thorn bush from top to bottom, and not from bottom to top, as perhaps then the worms will come out through his mouth. And let one then boil the scrapings in beer at twilight and the next day close his nostrils and drink it. And when he defecates, he should defecate on the trunk of a palm tree.

We learned the mishna: And one may drink abuvro’e on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is abuvro’e? The Gemara answers: It is the plant known as ḥumtareya. The Gemara asks: What is ḥumtareya? It is that which is called the lonely staff. The Gemara asks: For what purpose is it used? It is used for one who drank exposed water from which we suspect a snake drank and left behind its venom. And if one does not have the lonely staff, or if it was ineffective, let him take five roses and five cups of beer and cook them together until there is a quarter of a log of liquid and then drink it.

The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami’s mother made this remedy for a certain man who had drunk exposed water suspected of having venom in it. She took one rose and one cup of beer and she boiled them. She gave it to him to drink, and lit the oven, and swept out the coals, and placed a brick inside it on which he could sit and not get burned. And something that appeared like a green leaf emerged, i.e., he vomited the venom.

Ravina said in the name of Rava: If one is in doubt as to whether he has drunk in pairs, he should be stringent and drink another cup. And some say that one who is uncertain with regard to pairs should be lenient and not drink an additional cup, lest the additional cup be the even number. Rav Yosef said: Two cups of wine and one cup of beer do not combine; two cups of beer and one cup of wine do combine.

The students asked of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: What is the halakha with regard to sealing a barrel of beer during the intermediate days of the Festival? If it is not properly sealed, the beer will leak out through the sides of the barrel.

He said to them: Sinai, i.e., Rav Yosef, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

They asked: Say that Rabbi Yosei said that one may be lenient about wine, but about beer does he say the same thing? Beer is much cheaper than wine, and the loss would be much less significant.

The Gemara explains why no distinction should be made: With regard to wine, what is the reason that Rabbi Yosei was lenient? It is because the loss involved is considerable; with beer as well, there is a loss if the barrel is not properly sealed, as Abaye said: My foster mother told me: It is better to have a barrel of six se’a that is sealed than a barrel of eightse’athat is not sealed, as in the end more beer will remain in the smaller sealed barrel than in the larger unsealed one.

It was stated: For what reason did the Sages prohibit the beer of gentiles? Rami bar Ḥama says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: It is due to the concern that Jews will befriend gentiles while drinking with them, which might lead to marriage with gentiles. Rav Naḥman said: It is due to the concern of exposure. The Gemara asks: With regard to what form of exposure is there a concern? If we say that the concern is with regard to exposure of the vat, we too expose the vat, and there is no reason to prohibit gentiles’ beer more than that of Jews. And if you say: Rather, the concern is for exposure of the barrel, we also expose barrels. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to prohibit the beer in a place where the water used to brew it is allowed to settle. The Gemara asks: If that is so, aged beer should be permitted, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A substance that might contain exposed water but has aged is permitted, since the poison does not allow it to age, as it goes bad before it grows old. Similarly, if it soured it is permitted, because the poison impairs the taste but does not allow it to sour. Why, then, is all beer prohibited? The Gemara answers: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree with regard to aged beer due to the concern with regard to new beer.

§ The Gemara cites the opinions of various Sages with regard to beer. Rav Pappa had them bring out the beer belonging to gentiles from the store to the entrance of the store, and he would drink it outside the store. Rav Aḥai had them bring the beer to his house, and he would drink it there. And both of them drank the beer away from the presence of gentiles due to concern about marriage with gentiles. The Gemara notes that Rav Aḥai established an extreme preventive measure for himself beyond what is required by halakha. The Gemara relates that Rav Shmuel bar Bisna happened to come to Marguan, and they brought him wine but he did not drink it. Next they brought him beer but he did not drink it. The Gemara asks: Granted, he did not drink the wine due to the trace [shimtza] of libations, but due to what reason did he refrain from drinking beer? It was due to concern for the trace of a trace, i.e., he did not drink beer due to concern about drinking wine. Rav says: This Aramean beer is permitted, but my son Ḥiyya does not drink from it. The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at this matter, Rav’s statement is difficult: If the beer is permitted, then it is permitted to everyone, and there is no reason for his son to refrain from drinking it. And if it is prohibited, it is prohibited to everyone, and why would Rav say it is permitted? The Gemara explains: Rather, Rav holds that the prohibition is due to exposure, but the bitterness of the hops in the beer goes and impairs the snake’s venom, so that it is safe for an average person to drink. But a person of weak constitution is weakened further by the impaired venom, and Rav was saying: In the case of my son Ḥiyya, since he is weak, he does not drink from it.Shmuel says: All creeping animals possess venom; that of a snake kills, whereas the venom of other creeping animals does not kill. Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of a lion! Come and I will say to you a superior matter that your father, Rav, said. This is what your father said: These Arameans are swollen [zukanei] because they drink exposed liquids, but they did not die from doing so since they eat repugnant creatures and creeping animals, which heat their bodies and thereby render them less susceptible to the venom.

This vinegar made of Aramean beer is prohibited, as they mix in it yeast of wine used for a libation. Rav Ashi said: But vinegar from a storeroom is permitted, since if another substance is mixed with it, it would spoil over time.

This dispute between Abaye and Rava applies to another case as well. With regard to the case of wine vinegar and malt vinegar that became mixed together, and one is permitted and the other is forbidden, and also the case of leaven of wheat flour and leaven of barley flour that became mixed together, and one is permitted and the other is forbidden, Abaye says: The forbidden substance renders the mixture forbidden in a case where it imparts flavor to the mixture, because we follow the flavor, and this flavor is discrete and that flavor is discrete, and therefore it becomes a mixture of a type of food mixed with food not of its own type. And a type of food mixed with food not of its own type is forbidden in a case where the forbidden food imparts flavor to the mixture.

The Gemara cites another statement of Abaye in the name of his foster mother. Abaye said: My mother told me that a six-year-old child who is stung by a scorpion on the day that he completes six years will not live without emergency treatment. What is his cure? The bile of a white vulture in beer. One should rub him with this mixture and make him drink it. She further said to him: A one-year-old child who is stung by a hornet on the day that he completes a year will not live without emergency treatment. What is his cure? Palm-tree fiber in water. Again, one should rub him with it and make him drink it.

Rav Yosef ruled in an actual case in accordance with the opinion of Rav, in which beer spoiled shortly after it was sold, and in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel in a similar case involving wine. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

This remedy is beneficial for several ailments, and the Gemara presents each of these in turn: For curing the heart, the above combination should be taken with wine, and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “And wine that makes glad the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15). For curing an ailment that arises due to the wind [ruḥa], one drinks the mixture in water, and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “And the spirit [ruaḥ] of God hovered over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). For childbirth [lekhuda], a woman in labor drinks the mixture with beer [shikhra], and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “With her pitcher [vekhadah] upon her shoulder [shikhmah]” (Genesis 24:15).

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, ground all of these together and took a handful of the mixture and drank it. Rav Ashi ground each and every one of the herbs separately and he took all that he could hold between his large finger and his small finger and drank it.

Rav Pappa said: "I tried all these remedies and I was not healed until a certain Arab said to me: 'Bring a new jug and fill it with water and place in it a ladle of honey that is suspended among the starsand drink it on the next day.'I did this and I was healed."

It was taught slightly differently in the Tosefta: Water that stabs [mei dekarim]. The Gemara explains: The one who taught water that stabs means that the waters pierce the gall bladder; and the one who said palm tree water means that they come from two palm trees. In order to explain what palm tree water is,

Rabba bar Beruna said: "There are two palm trees in Eretz Yisrael, and a spring of water emerges from between them. The first cuploosens, anothercauses diarrhea, and another,just as it entered as water, so too it emerges."

Ulla said: "For me, I drink Babylonian beer, and it is more effective than it."

And this ishas not become accustomed to beer for forty days."

And we also learned about a kos ikarin in the mishna. The Gemara asks: What is a kos ikarin? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Let one bring the weight of a zuz of Alexandrian gum, and a weight of a zuz of alum, and a weight of a zuz of garden saffron, and let one grind them together. The procedure for treating a zava is that she should drink these three ingredients with wine, and she will be cured of her emission and will not become barren. For treating jaundice one should drink two of these ingredients with beer; however, one will become sterile from it. It was said that for treating a zava, she should drink these three ingredients with wine and she will be healed from her emission and will not become barren. And if it is not effective, let one bring three

Rav Yosef said: "Egyptian zitom, which is made from one-third barley, and one-third saffron, and one-third salt."

Rav Pappa said: "It is one-third wheat, and one-third saffron, and one-third salt and cumin."

And this is your mnemonic to remember which said zitom is made from barley: A basket which is called sisanei, a word with two samekhs. This word alludes to the fact that Rav Yosef, who has a samekh in his name, is the one who says that Egyptian zitom is made from barley [se’orim], which has the letter sin. Sin is interchangeable with samekh. And one should drink it between Passover and Shavuot. For one whose intestines are blocked, it will loosen his intestines and cure him; and for one whose bowels are loose, it will block him and cure him as well.

The Gemara states: For jaundice, one should drink two of the three ingredients mentioned together with beer, and one becomes sterile from it. The Gemara continues to discuss this remedy: And if one does not have these ingredients, i.e., Alexandrian gum, saffron, and alum, or if the remedy did not work, let one bring the head of a salted shibuta fish and boil it in beer and drink it. And if this is not effective, let one bring grasshopper brine and drink it. And if one does not have grasshopper brine, let one bring brine of small birds, and enter the bathhouse, and smear himself with it. And if there is no bathhouse, have him stand between the oven and the wall and sweat out his disease. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who seeks to warm this patient up should wrap him tightly in his sheet. Rav Aḥa bar Yosef was sick with this disease, and Rav Kahana performed this remedy for him and he was healed.

The Gemara continues: And if this remedy is not effective, let one bring three vessels of Persian dates, and three vessels of dripping wax [kira], and three vessels of red aloe, and boil them in beer and drink it. And if this remedy is not effective, let one bring a donkey foal, and shave the middle of its head, and let blood from the donkey’s forehead, and place it on his own head. And he should take care not to let the blood enter his eyes lest it blind him. And if this is not effective, let one bring a pickled ram’s head and boil it in beer and drink it. And if this is not effective, let him bring a striped something else, i.e., a pig, and tear it open and place it on his heart. And if this is not effective, let him bring leeks from the middle of the row, which are very sharp.

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.

And if the Torah had also written “on wine,” indicating that one may even buy wine together with its jug with second-tithe money, I might still have said that this is because the jug is needed for the wine’s preservation, as there is no way to carry wine without some sort of container. But as for mead that has fermented, which is mere acidity, you might say no, it should not be included among the items that may be bought with second-tithe money. Therefore, the Torah wrote: “On strong drink.”

The necessity of each word much be proven in the opposite order as well. And if the Torah had only written “on strong drink,” I might have said: What is meant by strong drink? Dried figs from the town of Ke’ila, which are choice and juicy figs that can have an intoxicating effect. They are therefore considered produce and not merely mead. But as for buying wine together with its jug, you might say no, this may not be done with second-tithe money, and therefore it was necessary to state “on wine.”

Rabbi Yehuda ben Gadish and Rabbi Eliezer expound the verse based on the principle of amplifications and restrictions. When the verse states: “And you shall bestow the money on all that your heart desires” (Deuteronomy 14:26), it has amplified. When it then states: “On oxen, on sheep, on wine, and on strong drink,” it has restricted its discussion to certain specific items. When it concludes with the phrase: “On whatever your soul requests,” it has once again amplified. According to this exegetical approach, we conclude that since it amplified and restricted and once again amplified, it has amplified the general category to include everything. What has it amplified the category to include? It has amplified the category to include everything. And what has it restricted from inclusion in the category? Only one thing: According to Rabbi Eliezer, it restricted brine from inclusion because brine is not at all similar to the items listed in the verse; according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Gadish, it restricted water and salt.

And these other tanna’im expound the verse according to the principle of generalizations and details, as it was taught in a baraita: The phrase: “And you shall bestow the money on all that your heart desires” is a generalization, as no particular type of food is specified. The phrase: “On cattle, on sheep, on wine, and on strong drink” is a detail, as specific types of food are mentioned. When the verse concludes: “On whatever your soul requests,” it has generalized again, as no specific type of food is mentioned. Since the verse is formulated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as the produce of produce, i.e., not only the produce itself but also things that come from it, such as the calf that comes from a cow or grapes from a seed, and they are also things grown from the ground, as all of these items grow from the ground or receive their main sustenance from it, so it includes all things that are the produce of produce and are grown from the ground.

The baraita elaborates: The phrase “And you shall bestow the money on all that your heart desires” is a generalization, as no particular type of food is specified. The phrase “on cattle, on sheep, on wine, and on strong drink” is a detail, as specific foods are mentioned. And when the verse concludes: “On whatever your soul requests,” it then generalized again, as no specific type of food is stated.

Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: From here there is a proof as the verse states: “And you shall spend that money on all that your soul desires, on oxen, or on sheep, or on wine, or on strong drink [sheikhar] or whatever your soul desires, and you shall eat” (Deuteronomy 14:26). Strong drink is a drink, but the Merciful One calls its consumption eating, in the phrase “and you shall eat.”

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: Perhapssheikhar 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

Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Cite from here, a verse written with regard to money with which one has redeemed second tithe: “And you shall bestow the money for whatsoever your soul desires, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine [uvayyayin], or for strong drink, or for whatsoever your soul asks of you; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26). The Hebrew word yayin mentioned in the verse is wine, and it is written: “And you shall eat.”

The Gemara rejects this: “Strong drink” is written in the verse, referring to something intoxicating, and wine mixed into a stew is not intoxicating.

Rather, one derives the meaning of “strong drink” in this verse by means of a verbal analogy from the verse about a nazirite: “He shall abstain from wine and beer: He shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of beer, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried” (Numbers 6:3). Just as there, the strong drink that is forbidden to the nazirite is referring to a type of wine, so too here, the verse is referring to wine.

The attribute of justice said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, how do these people, who possess these qualities, differ from those who engage in Torah study but lack these qualities? God said to the attribute of justice that those others do not receive the crown and diadem because: “These also reel through wine, and stagger through strong drink…they stumble [paku] in judgment [peliliyya]” (Isaiah 28:7). And puka in this context is referring to nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “That this shall not be a cause of stumbling [puka] for you” (I Samuel 25:31). And the term of pelila in the verse in Isaiah is referring to nothing other than judges, as it is stated: “And he shall pay as the judges [biflilim] determine” (Exodus 21:22). Those who lack the qualities listed in the previous verses are not worthy of the aforementioned reward.

The Attribute of Justice said to Him: “These also reel through wine, and stagger through strong drink; the priest and the prophet reel through strong drink, they are confused because of wine, they stagger because of strong drink; they reel in vision, they stumble [paku] in judgment [peliliyya]” (Isaiah 28:7). The word paku in this context is referring only to Gehenna, as it is stated: “That this shall not be a cause of stumbling [puka] to you” (I Samuel 25:31), and the word peliliyya here is referring only to judges, as it is stated: “And he shall pay as the judges determine [bifelilim]” (Exodus 21:22). The response of the Attribute of Justice was essentially that the Jewish people have also sinned and are consequently liable to receive punishment.

Rabbi Ḥanin said: Wine was created only in order to comfort mourners in their distress, and to reward the wicked in this world so they will have no reward left in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter of soul. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more” (Proverbs 31:6). “Him that is ready to perish” refers to the wicked, who will perish from the world, while “the bitter of soul” denotes mourners.

§ The Gemara’s discussion turns to wine in general. Rav Ḥanan says: Wine was created in the world only to comfort mourners in their distress, and to reward the wicked in this world so that they will have no reward left in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter of soul” (Proverbs 31:6). “Him that is ready to perish” is referring to the wicked, who will perish from this world, while “the bitter of soul” denotes mourners.

And furthermore, another question is raised along similar lines: With regard to that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav Ḥisda says: The court gives one who is being led out to be killed a grain [koret] of frankincense in a cup of wine in order to confuse his mind and thereby minimize his suffering from the fear of his impending death, as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul” (Proverbs 31:6). And it is taught in a baraita: The prominent women of Jerusalem would donate this drink and bring it to those being led out to be killed. The question is: If these prominent women did not donate this drink, from whom is it taken? The Gemara answers: With regard to this question, it is certainly reasonable that this drink should be taken from the community, as it is written: “Give [tenu] strong drink,” in the plural, indicating that it should come from them, the community.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who drinks wine with the accompaniment of four types of instruments brings five types of retribution to the world, as it is stated: “Woe to them who rise early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; who tarry late into the night, until wine inflames them. And the harp and the psaltery, the drum and the pipe and wine, are at their feasts, but they do not regard the work of the Lord” (Isaiah 5:11–12).

The Gemara suggests additional reasons for the destruction of Jerusalem. Rabbi Abbahu said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because its citizens intentionally omitted recitation of Shema morning and evening, as it is stated: “Woe to those who rise early in the morning and pursue beer and are aflame from wine until late in the evening” (Isaiah 5:11). And it is written in the continuation of that passage: “And their drinking parties have lyre and lute, drum and flute and wine, and they do not look upon the actions of God, and they do not see His hands’ creations” (Isaiah 5:12). This means that in the morning and evening, when the Jews should have been reciting Shema, they were drinking wine and beer. And it is written in that passage: “Therefore My nation is being exiled for its ignorance; its honor will die of hunger and its multitudes will be parched with thirst” (Isaiah 5:13).

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.

And some say a different version of this exchange. Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, then the wine that collected between the ramp and the altar remains in its sanctity, as it must be burned, and the prohibition against misuse would still apply. The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, there is no item whose mitzva has been performed with which one can violate the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property. Reish Lakish said: When they pour wine onto the altar, they plug the top of the drainpipes so that the wine does not descend to the depths, in order to fulfill that which is stated: “In sanctity shall you pour a libation of strong drink [shekhar] unto the Lord” (Numbers 28:7).

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this is referring to plugging the drainpipes? Rav Pappa said: Shekhar is an expression of drinking, of satiation, of intoxication. In order to underscore all three aspects of the libations, the space between the altar and the ramp would fill with wine. Rav Pappa said: Conclude from this that when a person is satiated from drinking wine, it is from his throat being filled with wine that he is satiated. Unlike food, wine does not satiate a person when it fills his stomach. Rava said: Therefore, let a young Torah scholar, who does not have much wine, swallow his wine in large swigs, filling his throat each time, as he will thereby maximize his enjoyment. And Rava himself, when drinking a cup of blessing, would swallow large swigs so as to drink the wine accompanying the mitzva in an optimal manner.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: For what reason are there no people afflicted with ra’atan in Babylonia? Because the Babylonians eat beets [teradin] and drink beer made from the hizmei plant. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For what reason are there no lepers in Babylonia? Because they eat beets, drink beer, and bathe in the waters of the Euphrates, all of which are good for the body.

The Gemara discusses the halakha with regard to beer kept in a prohibited vessel. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to putting beer in it? Rav Naḥman and Rav Yehuda prohibited this, and Rava permitted it. The Gemara notes that Ravina permitted Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Yitzḥak, to pour beer into such a jug, but he went and poured wine into it instead. And even so, Ravina was not concerned over the matter, as he said to himself: It is merely an incidental occurrence. The fact that Rav Ḥiyya mistakenly poured wine into the jug instead of beer is not a reason to prohibit filling it with beer in general.

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a nazirite: “All the days of his naziriteship he shall not eat from anything that is made of the grapevine, from pits to grape skin” (Numbers 6:4), which indicates that his vow of naziriteship must include all the prohibitions of a nazirite. The Gemara continues to clarify: And according to the Rabbis, what is the reason that he becomes a nazirite even if he specified only one of the prohibitions of a nazirite? The verse states: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” (Numbers 6:3). This implies that even if one vows to abstain only from wine and strong drink, all of the halakhot of a nazirite take effect. The Gemara asks: And also according to Rabbi Shimon, isn’t it written “he shall abstain from wine and strong drink”? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon requires that verse to prohibit a nazirite from drinking wine that is consumed for a mitzva just as he is prohibited from drinking wine whose consumption is optional.

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis also, isn’t the verse needed to prohibit to a nazirite wine that is consumed as a mitzva, just like wine whose consumption is optional? The Gemara answers: If that is so, let the verse say only “he shall abstain from wine” (Numbers 6:3). What is the purpose of the additional phrase “and strong drink”? Learn from it that the verse teaches twohalakhot, that one is a full-fledged nazirite even if he accepted only one of the prohibitions of naziriteship, and that a nazirite is prohibited from drinking wine even when its consumption is a mitzva. The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Shimon could respond to this argument as follows: This is the reason that the verse writes “strong drink”: It is to teach a verbal analogy between “strong drink” written here and “strong drink” written with regard to entering and performing service in the Temple, as it is written that Aaron the priest was commanded: “Do not drink wine or strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 10:9). This teaches: Just as with a nazirite, it is wine alone that is forbidden but other beverages are not forbidden, so too, with regard to the Temple, it is wine that is forbidden to priests, but other intoxicating beverages are not forbidden to them.

The Gemara asks: And let him send them a response from here: “They do not drink wine with a song; strong drink is bitter to them who drink it” (Isaiah 24:9), indicating that song is no longer allowed. The Gemara answers: If he had answered by citing that verse, I would say that this matter applies only to instrumental music, in accordance with the previous verse: “The mirth of tabrets ceases, the noise of them who rejoice ends, the joy of the harp ceases” (Isaiah 24:8); however, vocal song is permitted. Therefore, Mar Ukva teaches us that all types of song are forbidden.

When Ashmedai came he checked his seal, opened the pit, and found it to be filled with wine. He said that it is written: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is riotous; and whosoever wallows in it is not wise” (Proverbs 20:1), and it is written: “Harlotry, wine, and new wine take away the heart” (Hosea 4:11). He concluded: I will not drink this wine. Eventually, when he became thirsty, he was unable to resist the wine and he drank, became intoxicated, and fell asleep.

The mishna teaches that if the court found it fit to acquit the defendant during the deliberations, as all or a majority of them agree to acquit him, they excuse him. The mishna further teaches that the judges would not drink wine all day. The Gemara asks: What is the reason they did not drink wine? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that it is because the verse states: “It is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes [rozenim] to say: Where is strong drink” (Proverbs 31:4). Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina explains: This is a directive to those who deal with the secret of the world [berazo shel olam], i.e., such stringent matters: Do not become drunk.

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: An incident occurred involving a certain gentile woman who was very ill. She said: If that woman, referring to herself, recovers from her illness, she will go and worship every object of idol worship in the world. She recovered from her illness and subsequently worshipped every object of idol worship in the world. When she arrived at Peor she asked the priests: How does one worship this idol? They said to her: One eats spinach, which causes diarrhea, and drinks beer, which also causes diarrhea, and defecates before it. The woman said: Better for that woman, referring to herself, to return to her illness, and not worship an idol in such a manner.

It is further stated there: “It is not for kings, O Lemoel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes to say: Where is strong drink?” (Proverbs 31:4). The Gemara provides an explanation of the meaning of each part of this verse. “It is not for kings”: Bathsheba said to her son Solomon: What have you to do with kings who drink wine and become intoxicated and say: Why [lamma] do we need God [El]? The Gemara continues to explain the verse. “Nor for princes [rozenim] to say: Where is strong drink?” This means that one like Solomon, to whom all the secrets [razei] of the world are revealed, should he drink wine and become intoxicated? Alternatively, there are those who say that this part of the verse should be understood as follows: One like Solomon, to whom all the princes of the world rise early to come to his door, should he drink wine and become intoxicated?

Rav Yosef says: Even though there are passages in the book that are inappropriate, we teach the superior matters that are in it even in public. A good wife is a good gift; she will be given into the bosom of a God-fearing man (Ben Sira 26:3). A bad wife is leprosy for her husband. What is his remedy? He shall chase her from his house and will be healed from his leprosy (Ben Sira 25:30). A beautiful wife, happy is her husband; the number of his days is doubled (Ben Sira 26:1). Due to his happiness, it is as though his life is twice as long. We also teach what it states there: Avert your eyes from a woman of grace, lest you be trapped in her snare. Turn not to her husband to mix wine and strong drink with him, as many have been corrupted by the beauty of the beautiful woman, and mighty are all her fatalities (Ben Sira 9:9–11). Many are the wounds of a peddler (Ben Sira 11:36), which in this context is referring to those who accustom others to matters of forbidden sexual relations. Like a spark ignites a coal (Ben Sira 11:43), like a cage full of birds, so too, their houses are filled with deceit (Ben Sira 11:36–37). Prevent the multitudes from inside your house, and do not bring everyone into your house (Ben Sira 11:37). Let many be those who greet you; reveal your secrets to one in a thousand. From she who lies in your bosom guard the openings of your mouth, i.e., do not tell her everything. Grieve not about tomorrow’s trouble, because you know not what a day may bring; perhaps tomorrow you will no longer be, and one will have worried about a world that is not his.

Turn your eyes from a graceful woman who is married to another man, lest you be caught in her trap. Do not turn to her husband to mix wine and strong drink with him, which can lead to temptation. For on account of the countenance of a beautiful woman many have been destroyed, and her slain is a mighty host. Furthermore, many have been the wounded peddlers. This is referring to men who travel from place to place to sell women’s jewelry. Their frequent dealings with women lead their husbands to harm the peddlers. Those who accustom themselves to licentious matters are like a spark that ignites a coal. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: And these are the transgressors who are punished by death at the hand of Heaven: Priests who enter the Temple to serve who have drunk wine, and those priests who have long hair while they serve. The Gemara asks: Granted, those who have drunk wine are punished by death, as it is explicitly written: “Drink no wine nor strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you should not die” (Leviticus 10:9). However, with regard to those priests who have long hair, from where do we derive that they are punishable by death?

The Gemara comments: Granted, priests entering the Temple drunk on wine are liable for death, as it is written: “Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, that you not die; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations” (Leviticus 10:9). But as for priests with long hair, from where do we derive that they are punished with death at the hand of Heaven?

The Gemara answers: Rav Mattana could have said to you: That word is needed for a specific exposition. The words: “He shall abstain [yazir] from wine and strong drink” (Numbers 6:3), comes to prohibit a nazirite from drinking wine that is consumed for a mitzva just as he is prohibited from drinking wine whose consumption is optional. Likewise, the words: “When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself” (Numbers 6:2), teach that one vow of naziriteship takes effect where another vow of naziriteship already exists. For example, if one takes a vow by stating: I will be a nazirite today, and then repeats the vow, he must observe two periods of naziriteship. Consequently, since sometimes the word nazirite, in its different forms, appears in order to serve as the source of a particular exposition, the number of times it occurs does not indicate the length of an unspecified term of naziriteship.

The Gemara suggests: If so, one can make the reverse argument. And let wine be exempted from its general prohibition due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of impurity: If impurity, which negates naziriteship, is exempted from its general prohibition; with regard to wine, which does not negate naziriteship, is it not logical that it should be exempted from its general prohibition for the sake of a mitzva, e.g., for one who took an oath to drink wine? The Gemara answers: It is for this reason that the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” (Numbers 6:3). The emphasis on the words “wine and strong drink” comes to prohibit obligatory wine like optional wine.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis disagree; what is the basis of their dispute? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Elazar interprets the verses employing the hermeneutical principle of amplifications and restrictions, while the Rabbis interpret them employing the hermeneutical principle of generalizations and details. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Elazar interprets the verses employing the principle of amplifications and restrictions, as the phrase: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” (Numbers 6:3), restricts the prohibition to wine and strong drink, and the subsequent phrase: “Anything that is made of the grapevine” (Numbers 6:4), amplifies the prohibition.

And conversely, the Rabbis interpret the verses employing the principle of generalizations and details, as the phrase “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” (Numbers 6:3) is an example of a detail, the phrase “anything that is made of the grapevine” (Numbers 6:4) is a generalization, and when the verse continues: “From pits to grape skin,” it has given an example of a detail again. This is a detail, and a generalization, and a detail. According to this exegetical method, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a fruit or fruit waste, i.e., grape seeds or skins, so too, everything forbidden by the generalization is a fruit or fruit waste, but not leaves or tendrils, as maintained by Rabbi Elazar.

Rabbi Simai said to him: You can learn from your father’s house, i.e., you can derive this halakha from the case of priests, being a priest yourself. As the Torah states: “Drink no wine nor strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you come into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 10:9). Doesn’t a straightforward reading of this verse lead to the conclusion that it is only when you come into the Sanctuary that it is prohibited, whereas to drink wine and then enter is permitted?

When the angel spoke to Samson’s mother, he said: “Now therefore beware, I pray of you, and drink no wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing” (Judges 13:4). The Gemara asks, what is the meaning of “any unclean thing”? That term usually means non-kosher foods, but obviously she would not eat them anyway. And what’s more, until now was she eating unclean things, that she should have to be warned not to continue doing so? Rabbi Yitzḥak of the school of Rabbi Ami says: The angel was not referring to foods that are actually unclean, but rather items that are forbidden to a nazirite.

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, what loss is there? But doesn’t the bailee profit in this case? Let the bailee give the owner beer equal to the value of the hops that he took from the deposit and no one loses. Rav Sama, son of Rava, said: The Gemara is referring to a case where the beer ferments and becomes vinegar. Therefore, it is impossible to take the value of the hops from the beer. Rav Ashi said: It is referring to a case where the hops were mixed with thorns and did not enhance the beer.

The Gemara asks: And is there really a case like this? The Gemara answers: Yes, as a certain ox that was at the house of Rav Pappa had a toothache. It went inside, and broke the lid of a utensil, and drank the beer inside and was cured. Evidently there are oxen with this level of intelligence.

Rav Pappa says: With regard to this asmakhta, sometimes it effects acquisition and sometimes it does not effect acquisition. How so? If the lender encountered the borrower while the borrower was drinking beer, it effects acquisition, as, if the borrower agreed to transfer ownership of his field when he did not appear to be in financial stress, such as when he was enjoying a drink, he assumedly did so with full acceptance of the consequences, and therefore the transaction is valid. By contrast, if the lender encountered the borrower when he was searching for money with which to repay the loan, his agreement does not effect acquisition, as it is clear the borrower made the statement under duress.

The Rabbis said to Rav Pappa: Why did you deem them liable to pay? This is akin to a case of negligence by a bailee while he is with the owners, as the owner of the cloak was baking for them at the time the cloak was stolen due to their negligence. Rav Pappa was embarrassed over his apparent mistake. Ultimately, it was discovered that at that time, when the cloak was stolen, the cloak owner was drinking beer and not baking. Since he was not doing work for them, this was not a case of safeguarding with the owner, and therefore Rav Pappa’s ruling was vindicated.

Before he came back it was stolen. They came before Rav Pappa, who deemed them liable to pay. The Sages said to Rav Pappa: This is a case of safeguarding with the owners. Rav Pappa was embarrassed. Ultimately it was discovered that at that time the cloak owner was drinking beer and not baking, and therefore this was not a case of safeguarding with the owners.

Now that we have said that half of the capital is viewed as a loan, it would appear that the manager may use the money in any way he chooses: If he wants to drink alcohol with it, he may well do so, regardless of any objection on the part of the investor. Rava disagreed and said: It is for this reason that it is called a joint venture, as the investor can say to the manager: When I gave the money to you it was to use it for business and not to drink alcohol with it.

Rav Kahana was in possession of beer that belonged to Rav Mesharshiyya bar Ḥilkai, who was an orphan. He delayed selling it until the Festival. He explained the rationale for his actions and said: Although it is possible that it may deteriorate [itzatzta] and sour a little, it nevertheless brings in money at the time of the Festival, as it will sell for a higher price and for money, not credit. Consequently, it is in the best interests of Rav Mesharshiyya bar Ḥilkai to hold off and sell the beer at the next Festival.

The Gemara cites other possible consequences of a mother’s behavior that could affect her children: A woman who engages in intercourse in a mill will have epileptic children; one who engages in intercourse on the ground will have long-necked children; one who steps on a donkey’s dung when pregnant will have bald children; one who eats mustard during pregnancy will have gluttonous children; one who eats garden cress [taḥlei] will have tearful children; one who eats fish brine [moninei] will have children with blinking eyes; one who eats soil will have ugly children; one who drinks beer will have black children; one who eats meat and drinks wine during pregnancy will have children who are

§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Arza and Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai were sitting and drinking wine. A certain man came and they said to him: Come, serve us drinks. After he poured the wine into the cup, it was revealed that the person was a gentile. One of those Sages prohibited one from even deriving benefit from the wine, and one of them permitted the wine even for drinking. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The one who prohibited the wine properly deemed it prohibited, and the one who permitted it properly deemed it permitted, as both opinions are viable. The one who prohibited the wine holds that

the gentile says to himself: Can it enter your mind that great Sages like these are drinking beer? Rather, this is certainly wine that they are drinking, and therefore the gentile may have poured it as a libation. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi continues to explain that the one who deemed the wine permitted properly deemed it permitted, as he holds that the gentile says to himself: Can it enter your mind that great Rabbis like these are drinking wine and they say to me, a gentile: Come, serve us drinks? Rather, it is certainly beer that they are drinking, and therefore he did not pour it as a libation.

The Gemara presents a question: Which tree is assumed to be an ashera, even without specific knowledge that it was worshipped? Rav says: Any tree that gentile priests sit beneath and do not taste of its fruits, as they apparently consider the fruits consecrated to the idol. And Shmuel says: Even if they so much as say: These dates are for the house of Natzrefei, a house of idol worship, the tree is forbidden. This is because the idol worshippers would throw the dates into beer and drink it on their festival day. Ameimar says: The elders of Pumbedita said to me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

And in addition Rav said: Adda the fisherman told me: After eating fish, cress, and milk, let the body carry them and let not the bed carry them, i.e., it is advisable to go for a walk after eating them, rather than immediately going to sleep. And Rav said: Adda the fisherman told me: After eating fish, cress, and milk, it is better to drink water and not beer, and if he has no water, he should drink beer and not wine, in order to avoid harming his body.

The students asked of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: What is the halakha with regard to sealing a barrel of beer during the intermediate days of the Festival? If it is not properly sealed, the beer will leak out through the sides of the barrel. He said to them: Sinai, i.e., Rav Yosef, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. They asked: Say that Rabbi Yosei said that one may be lenient about wine, but about beer does he say the same thing? Beer is much cheaper than wine, and the loss would be much less significant.

The Gemara explains why no distinction should be made: With regard to wine, what is the reason that Rabbi Yosei was lenient? It is because the loss involved is considerable; with beer as well, there is a loss if the barrel is not properly sealed, as Abaye said: My foster mother told me: It is better to have a barrel of six se’a that is sealed than a barrel of eightse’athat is not sealed, as in the end more beer will remain in the smaller sealed barrel than in the larger unsealed one.

to drink beer with the proceeds seems well and is permitted. The seven representatives have the authority to annul the sanctity of the synagogue, and therefore the proceeds of its sale do not retain any sanctity.

to drink beer with the proceeds seems well and is permitted. The seven representatives have the authority to annul the sanctity of the synagogue, and therefore the proceeds of its sale do not retain any sanctity.

Rav continued: If there are dates in your storeroom, run to the brewery to sell them. If you wait, there is a good chance the dates will go bad. The Gemara asks: And how many dates should one keep for himself? Rava said: Up to three se’a. Rav Pappa said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy. Some say that it was Rav Ḥisda who said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word sudana, the Aramaic term for a brewer? Rav Ḥisda said: A pleasant secret [sod na’e] and acts of loving kindness, as brewing is a good way to make money and also enables one to perform good deeds.

Rav Pappa said: We only stated this concern about eating onion leaves in a case where one did not drink beer afterward; however, if he drank beer afterward, we have no problem with it.

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 logof 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 baraitawas 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.

The Gemara relates that Shmuel’s father, when he would return home from his journey, would not pray for three days, as he would have to rest from his journey. Shmuel himself would not pray in a house that contained an alcoholic beverage, as the scent of the alcohol would disturb his concentration during prayer. Similarly, Rav Pappa would not pray in a house that contained small fried fish, due to their smell.

It was related that Rav Beivai had a daughter, and he spread lime on her limb by limb, which caused her hair to fall out and her skin to whiten. She became so beautiful that when marrying her off, he took four hundred dinars for her. There was a certain gentile in his neighborhood who also had a daughter and wanted to do this as well. He spread her entire body with lime all at once, and she died. That gentile said: Beivai killed my daughter. Rav Naḥman said: Rav Beivai, who regularly drinks beer, his daughters require that they be smeared with lime, as beer causes hair growth, but we who do not drink beer, our daughters do not require that they be smeared with lime, as they have little hair even without this treatment.

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.

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.

After citing Rav Ḥisda’s recommendations to students, the Gemara cites his advice to his daughters. Rav Ḥisda said to his daughters: Be modest before your husbands; do not eat bread before your husbands, lest you eat too much and be demeaned in their eyes. Similarly, he advised: Do not eat vegetables at night, as vegetables cause bad breath. Do not eat dates at night and do not drink beer at night, as these loosen the bowels. And do not relieve yourself in the place where your husbands relieve themselves, so that they will not be revolted by you. And when a person calls at the door seeking to enter, do not say: Who is it, in the masculine form, but rather: Who is it, in the feminine form. Avoid creating the impression that you have dealings with other men.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar says: If one interrupted his drinking of the quarter-log of wine, or if he placed any amount of water into the wine, he is exempt. The Sages taught in a baraita: When the Torah instructs Aaron the High Priest: “Drink no wine nor intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, that you shall not die” (Leviticus 10:9), one might have thought that this applies even if he drank any amount, and even if he drank wine from its press, i.e., wine that has not finished fermenting. Therefore, the verse states: “Nor intoxicating drink,” indicating that only the consumption of a quantity of wine sufficient to intoxicate is prohibited. And how much wine is sufficient to intoxicate? It is a minimum of a quarter-log of wine that is forty days old, which has already fermented. If so, why must the verse state “wine,” when the term “intoxicating drink” would have sufficed? It is to tell you that although one is not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven for it, it is prohibited to drink any amount of it, even less than a quarter-log, and then enter the Temple; and similarly, it is prohibited to drink it from its press and then enter the Temple, and one who does so is liable to be flogged, as is the case with any other prohibition by Torah law. Rabbi Yehuda says: From the word “wine” I have derived only that wine is forbidden; from where is it derived that other intoxicating beverages are forbidden as well? The verse states: “Nor intoxicating drink.” If so, why must the verse state “wine”? This comes to teach that for entering the Temple after drinking wine one is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, but for entering after drinking other intoxicating drinks, one violates only a regular prohibition.Rabbi Elazar says that the verse is interpreted to mean: Wine you shall not drink, and intoxicating drink, meaning that you shall not drink it in the manner of its being intoxicating. But if one interrupted his drinking, or placed any amount of water into it and drank it, he is exempt. The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? The first tanna holds: We learn by verbal analogy that the term “intoxicating drink” is referring to wine, from the term “intoxicating drink” mentioned with regard to a nazirite in the verse: “He shall abstain from wine and intoxicating drink” (Numbers 6:3). There it is referring only to wine (see Nazir 4a). But Rabbi Yehuda does not derive that the term “intoxicating drink” refers only to wine by the verbal analogy from the term “intoxicating drink” stated with regard to a nazirite. Consequently, he interprets the word as referring to an intoxicating drink that is not wine. And Rabbi Elazar holds: What is the meaning of the phrase: “Wine and intoxicating drink”? It is not referring to two separate items, but rather to wine in the manner that it intoxicates.

On the topic of foods, the Gemara cites what the Sages taught in a baraita: A small salted fish sometimes kills, specifically seven days, seventeen days, and twenty-seven days after it was salted. And some say: Twenty-three. And we only said this when it is roasted and not roasted well, but when it is roasted well, we need not be concerned. And when it is not roasted well, we only said this when one does not drink beer thereafter; however, when one drinks beer thereafter, we need not be concerned.