and the milk of a woman who is a zava transmit impurity of liquids where there is a quarter-log. The saliva, gonorrhea-like discharge of a zav, and urine transmit severe impurity in any amount.

And if you say in accordance with the opinion of Rava that the location from which the milk emerges is considered a spring, then milk also should transmit severe impurity in any amount, like the gonorrhea-like discharge of a zav and his saliva. Rather, conclude from it that the location from which the milk of a woman emerges is not considered to be a spring, and the milk must be rendered susceptible to impurity in order to become impure or transmit impurity.

The Gemara objects: If so, this mishna in Makhshirin cited earlier (13a), which Rava said supports his opinion, is difficult, as it states that a woman’s milk renders food susceptible to impurity whether it emerged to the satisfaction of the infant or not to his satisfaction. The mishna is difficult, as food is generally rendered susceptible to impurity only when the liquid comes into contact with it to the owner’s satisfaction.

The Gemara explains: Do you maintain that the term: Not to their satisfaction, that the mishna states, means that the emergence of the milk is not amenable to him? No; rather, what is the meaning of the expression: Not to his satisfaction, that the mishna states? It means that the child did not indicate whether he desires the milk or not, but as a child’s mind is close to milk, i.e., he generally enjoys the milk, an explicit indication of interest or satisfaction is unnecessary in order for the milk to be susceptible to ritual impurity or to render other food items impure. But if he says, i.e., indicates, explictly that the milk is not amenable to him, then the milk is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and it remains pure.

The mishna teaches that if one ate one quarter-loaf of ritually impure foods or drank a quarter-log of ritually impure liquids, or if one drank a quarter-log of wine, and he entered the Temple and remained there for the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, he is liable. The Gemara objects: Why do I need him to remain in the Temple in order to be liable, such that it teaches: And remained there? Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is teaching: In the case of one who ate a quarter-loaf of ritually impure foods or drank a quarter-log of impure liquids, or drank a quarter-log of wine, and remained involved in eating them or drinking them for no more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, and then entered the Temple, he is liable.

§ 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.

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in the following baraita: In the case of one who ate a sweet dried fig from Ke’ila, or drank honey or milk, all of which can have an intoxicating effect, and he entered the Temple and performed the Temple service, he is flogged. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that any item which intoxicates is included in the prohibition. Rav Yehuda bar Aḥotai says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and Rav referred to Rabbi Elazar as the most gratified of the Sages, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.

The Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa of the city of Huzal had taken a vow not to derive benefit from his wife. He came before Rav Ashi to request that he dissolve the vow. Rav Ashi said to him: Go now and come back tomorrow, as I have just drunk wine, and it is prohibited for me to issue a halakhic ruling, as Rav would not place a disseminator before him to communicate his lectures to the masses from the meal of one Festival day until the other, i.e., the next morning, due to drunkenness. Since it was customary to drink wine during Festival meals, Rav would not deliver public lectures on Festival days, as one who has consumed wine may not issue halakhic rulings.

Rav Aḥa said to him: But doesn’t Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that if one diluted the wine he drank with water and entered the Temple he is exempt; and the Master is one who puts water into his wine? Rav Ashi said to him: That is not difficult; that ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies in a case where one drank precisely a quarter-log of wine, whereas in this case I drank more than a quarter-log of wine. In such a case one does not maintain a clear mind even if he mixed in a small amount of water.

§ In the continuation of the passage in which the Torah prohibits a priest from entering the Temple after drinking wine, the verse states: “And that you may differentiate between the sacred and the common, and between the impure and the pure; and that you may instruct the children of Israel in all the statutes which the Lord has spoken to them by the hand of Moses” (Leviticus 10:10–11). The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And that you may differentiate between the sacred and the common.” These terms are referring to the halakhot of values and valuations, dedications and consecrations, and the verse is teaching that it is prohibited to issue a ruling concerning these matters after drinking wine.

“Between the impure and the pure”; these terms indicate that it is prohibited for one who drank wine to render decisions with regard to ritually impure items and ritually pure items. “And that you may instruct”; this is referring to issuing a ruling about what is permitted or prohibited. “All the statutes”; this is referring to the halakhic expositions of the Torah. “Which the Lord has spoken”; this is referring to halakha transmitted orally to Moses from Sinai. “By the hand of Moses”; this is referring to the Talmud, the deliberations on the Oral Law, from which halakhic conclusions are derived. It is prohibited to teach any of these subjects after drinking wine.

One might have thought that it is prohibited to teach even Mishna after drinking wine. Therefore, the verse states: “And that you may instruct,” indicating that the prohibition is limited to material that provides practical halakhic instruction, whereas one does not derive practical rulings from the Mishna. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One might have thought that even teaching Talmud is prohibited. Therefore, the verse states: “And that you may instruct,” indicating that the prohibition is limited to issuing halakhic rulings, but it does not include teaching material such as Talmud, although halakhic conclusions may be derived from it.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: The rulings that a carcass of a creeping animal is ritually impure and that a carcass of a frog is pure are excluded from this principle, as those who have drunk wine may issue a halakhic ruling about these matters. Let us say that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says it is permitted to teach Talmud, and these conclusions are obvious from the Talmud, and that it is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara responds: You may even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that this case is different, as it is a topic that one could go learn in a children’s school, and teaching is not considered issuing a halakhic ruling.

Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that it is permitted to teach material from which halakha may be derived, but it is prohibited to issue halakhic rulings. The Gemara objects: But Rav himself would not place a disseminator before him to communicate his lectures to the masses from the meal of one Festival day until the other, i.e., the next morning, due to drunkenness. The Gemara explains: Rav is different, as he would issue halakhic rulings during his lectures. The Gemara further objects: And let him place a disseminator and deliver a lecture but not issue halakhic rulings. The Gemara explains: Wherever Rav sits and delivers a lecture, it is not possible for him to do so without issuing a halakhic ruling.

MISHNA: There is a case where one can perform a single act of eating an olive-bulk of food and be liable to bring four sin offerings and one guilt offering for it. How so? This halakha applies to one who is ritually impure who ate forbidden fat, and it was left over from a consecrated offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar], on Yom Kippur. He is liable to bring sin offerings for eating forbidden fat and notar, for eating the meat of an offering while impure, and for eating on Yom Kippur. He is also liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property.

Rabbi Meir says: If it was Shabbat and he carried it out from a private domain to a public domain while eating it, he would be liable to bring an additional sin offering for performing prohibited labor on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to him: That liability is not from the same type of prohibition, as it is not due to the act of eating, and therefore, it should not be counted.