Eiruvin 64a, b

I did not comment on daf 63 because of Shabbat... however, I'll mention here that it was a delightful daf to learn.  It included arguments about how to show respect to one's teacher, and the consequences (immediate death; death by Heaven) if one is disrespectful. In particular, rabbis show great disrespect if they make rulings within their teacher's general area.  In fact, the rabbis suggest that this may have been one of the reasons that Aaron's two sons (who brought a strange fire) were killed: these students 'ruled' in the presence of Moshe Rabbeinu.  That in itself was a crime deserving of death.

But I digress.  Today's daf concerns drunkenness.  The drunkenness of rabbis, to be specific.  First we learn that the rabbis are delighted to get around an earlier ruling regarding a gentile who refuses to allow his home to be rented, thus preventing Jews from creating an eiruv in their shared courtyard.  The rabbis suggest that it may be halachically sound for the gentile's wife or labourer to rent his home without his knowledge.  Alternatively, they justify befriending the gentile and then placing an eiruv in his home, so that the Jewish neighbour is essentially a labourer.  Very sneaky, and not the type of relationship I would want to encourage between Jews and Gentiles.

Upon learning of this ruling, Rav Nachman states his pleasure:  how excellent is this ruling!  But Rav Nachman did not say such a thing regarding other rulings of Rav Yehuda.  In fact, one must be consistent with ones' official statements regarding rabbinical rulings.  The should only disagree with rulings based on reasoning.  Rav Nachman retracts his approval.

In using the example of drinking and prayer to explain this concept (one cannot pray when too drunk to speak in front of the king; consequences listed), the rabbis then change directions.  How much may a rabbi drink and still be allowed to make a ruling?  If a rabbi has drunk the agreed upon amount, what must he do before being allowed to rule?  What if he drank more than the prescribed amount?

Daf 64 offers us a few wonderful stories to illustrate the laws regarding rabbis and drink.  We learn of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elai, walking past bread and then past a gentile.  We learn that we are to pick up food if we find it.  Also, we are to give food to gentiles after Passover even if the food was to be destroyed.  We learn about Rabban Gamliel's psychic abilities, as he knew the gentile's name without having been introduced. 

When arriving in town, Rabban Gamilel is asked to absolve a vow.  He checks with Rabbi Elai who confirms that, indeed, they drank at least a quarter-log (approximately 2oz) of wine.  Thus he is intoxicated and they must ride/walk 3 mil further before absolving the vow.  Beyond these lessons, we also learn about sitting when ruling a vow that is complex (where one does not completely regret making it).  We also learn that people should not make vows, as we are likely to break them or ask them to be absolved. 

Daf 64 ends with the suggestion that women practice witchcraft and may put spells on bread.  The rabbis discuss whether these spells are only on whole loaves of bread or whether they are also put on pieces of bread.  Jewish women are specifically mentioned as users of witchcraft.  

Would that not be a form of idolatry, one of the most heinous sins in Jewish law?  How can the rabbis calmly suggest that Jewish women practice witchcraft, putting spells on food?  It would seem that the modern world understands very differently the fundamental concepts of religion, religious practice, idolatry, and what hold spiritual power.  I am assuming that we will continue with this line of questioning with tomorrow's daf.