Eiruvin 65a, b

What a fun daf!  In 65a, the rabbis tell us about what distracts them from Talmud study (including louse bites, the smell of a certain fish, etc.).  In 65b, we are told about the intricacies of renting from a gentile in a courtyard shared with a Jew when another Jew is living in an attached courtyard (inner and/or outer).

Drunkenness is a large topic of conversation. As a side note, we are reminded that alcohol is known to lead to sin, and so time is spent on the benefits of alcohol - there must be benefits, as it G-d 'intended' to create alcohol and its effects.  The rabbis agree that when one is as drunk as Lot, s/he is considered to have the status of an imbecile, ie. s/he is not culpable for his/her actions.  However, other than that unusual degree of drunkenness, people who are drunk are responsible for all of their actions as if they were sober.  Some rabbis note that alcohol can enhance concentration or kindness or other positive behaviours.  Other rabbis state that inebriation can impede concentration and encourage anger or other unwanted behaviours.  Interestingly, the rabbis are clear that we are not allowed to pray when we are at all drunk.

In 65b, the rabbis begin with a wonderful addage: we know about one's character through three things: his cup (ie. his behaviour when he drinks), his pocket (his behaviour when wealthy or alternately his financial dealings), and his anger.

As a therapist who focused on substance abuse-related issues for many years, I find this idea fascinating.  All of these factors continue to be critical for us in modern times; however, we do not necessarily measure each others' character through behaviour when drunk, when spending/saving money, and/or when angry.  Is character a measure of morality?  Or is it something different; a measure of personality, values, traits?  I would love to delve further into the rabbis' understandings of substance use, anger, and financial management - how we manage power and control over ourselves and others via these factors.

The remainder of 65b focuses on the courtyard issues as described above.  An interesting focus is on the possibility that the gentile might kill his neighbour, the Jew.  The fact that this was an undisputed possibility suggests a degree of hostility between Jews and their neighbours where the gentile is the one more likely to harm his neighbour.  I wonder about the reality of hostilities across religious lines in living circumstances in antiquity.