Drunkenness in Tannaitic Texts (including Beraitot)

One who immersed himself in a river and then there was in front of him another river and he crossed it, the second [water] purifies the first [water].

If his friend pushed him in while drunk, or whether his beast [pushed him in], the second [water] purifies the first [water].

But if [he did it] out of playfulness, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.

If they mixed for him a cup of wine, and he said, “Behold, I am a nazirite in regard to it,” he becomes a nazirite.

There was an incident with one woman who was drunk and they mixed a cup for her and she said, “Behold, I am a naziritess in regard to it.”

The sages ruled that she only meant to forbid it to herself as a sacrifice.

(6) Five may not give terumah, but if they do, their terumah is terumah.A mute person; A drunken person; One who is naked; A blind person; Or one who has had a seminal emission. They may not give terumah, but if they do their terumah is valid.

(6) The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: One whose legs are crooked and bend inward, causing him to knock his ankles or his knees into each other as he walks, and a ba’al happikim, and the ikkel. What is the ikkel? It is anyone who places his feet together and his knees do not knock into each other, i.e., he is bowlegged. A priest with a protuberance emerging alongside the thumb of his hand or the big toe of his foot,or one whose heel emerges and protrudes back from his foot, or one whose feet are wide like those of a goose are all disqualified from performing the Temple service. A priest whose fingers or toes are configured one upon the other, or one whose fingers or toes are attached, is likewise disqualified. But if they were attached from above the palm of the hand or the bottom of the foot only until the middle joint, he is fit. If they were attached below the joint, higher up on the finger or toe, and he cut to separate them, he is fit. In a case where there was an extra finger or toe on his hand or foot and he cut it, if that extra appendage contains a bone, the priest is disqualified even after it was cut, and if there is no bone the priest is fit. If there was an extra appendage on his hands and on his feet, six on each for a total of twenty-four, Rabbi Yehuda deems the priest fit and the Rabbis deem him disqualified. With regard to one who is ambidextrous and has control of both of his hands, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the priest disqualified, as his halakhic status is like that of one who is left-handed, and the Rabbis deem him fit. Concerning the kushi, the giḥor, the lavkan, the kipe’aḥ, the dwarf, the deaf-mute, the imbecile, the drunk, and those with ritually pure marks, their conditions disqualify a person from performing the Temple service and are valid, i.e., they do not disqualify with regard to being sacrificed, in the case of an animal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: An imbecile among animals is not optimal for sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar says: Even with regard to those with flesh or skin that hangs from their body, that blemish disqualifies in the case of a person and is valid in the case of an animal.

(1) For what reason did they say (Ter. 1:6) that a mute cannot separate terumah? Because he cannot bless. For what reason did they say that a blind person cannot separate terumah? Because he cannot distinguish between good and bad [produce]. For what reason did they say that a drunk cannot separate terumah? Because he has no understanding. [However,] even though he is drunk, his purchases are [valid] purchases and his sales are [valid] sales, and his gifts are [valid] gifts, and his vows are [valid] vows, [and] his sanctified property is [valid] sanctified property, [and] his transgressions are [punishable] transgressions, [and] if he is held liable for sin-offering then he must bring a sin-offering, and [if he is] held liable for stoning he is stoned. The general rule of the matter is that a drunk -- behold -- he is like someone who is sober in every respect. For what reason did they say a ba'al keri (see Zavim 5:11) cannot separate terumah? Because he cannot bless. For what reason did they say one who is naked cannot separate terumah? Because he cannot bless. But he covers himself with straw or with stubble or with anything and he blesses.

One who has been drinking wine is invalid to perform service in the Temple and is obligated for death.

What is someone who "has been drinking wine"?

Any one who has drunk a quarter-log (about 1.5 eggs-worth of volume) of wine that is forty days old or older.
If he drank more than a quarter-log of wine from his winepress, he is exempt.
If he drank less than a quarter-log of wine four or five years old, he is liable, whether he mixed it and drank it in little sips.
Rabbi Eliezer says: "If he drank it in one gulp, he is liable.

If he mixed it and drank it, or drank it in little sips, he is exempt."
Rabbi Yehudah says: "Those who transgress against the prohibition of drinking wine and serving in the Temple are subject to the death-penalty. Fermented beverages are subject to warning. Therefore, if he ate a fig from K'eilah or drank milk and honey, behold, this one is struck with forty stripes and transgresses a negative commandment."
And just as, if he was a priest, he is invalid for the Temple service and liable to the death penalty, so if he was a sage or a disciple of a sage, he is prohibited from teaching or from giving instruction.
Rabbi Yose, son of Yehudah, says: "If he was a sage, he is permitted to teach."

One who is drunk: his purchase is a purchase and his sale is a sale.

If he transgressed a transgression for which he should be put to death - they kill him; for one that he should be lashed - they lash him.

Here is the general principle: he is like a normally-functioning person in all matters except that he is exempt from prayer.

§ In connection with comforting mourners, Ulla said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: The Sages instituted ten cups of wine to be drunk in the house of the mourner: Three cups prior to the meal, in order to open his intestines, i.e., whet his appetite; three during the meal, to soak the food in his intestines in order to facilitate digestion; and four cups after the meal, each corresponding to a blessing in the Grace after Meals. One corresponds to the first blessing: Who feeds all; one corresponds to the second blessing, the blessing of the land; one corresponding to the third blessing: Who builds Jerusalem; and one corresponding to the fourth blessing: Who is good and does good.
Later, the Sages added to those four additional blessings: One, noting the actions of the attendants of the city [ḥazzanei ha’ir], who tend to burials and other communal needs; one, noting the actions of the leaders of the city, who would provide funding for the burial of the poor; one, noting the Temple, commemorating its destruction; and one, noting the actions of Rabban Gamliel. The people began observing this ordinance instituted by the Sages, and they would drink and become intoxicated. Therefore, the Sages restored the matter to its previous status and established that they drink no more than ten cups.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to receiving, carrying, or sprinkling blood, if a non-priest, a mourner on his first day of mourning, a drunk priest, and a blemished priest, performed the rite, it is disqualified. And likewise if the priest was sitting, and likewise if he performed one of these rites with his left hand, it is disqualified.

It was taught:

One cup is great for a woman;

two is a disgrace;

three she verbally requests sexual activity;

four - she requests sexual activity from even a donkey in the marketplace and she doesn't care.

taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding a donkey and traveling from Akko to Keziv, and his student Rabbi Elai was walking behind him. Rabban Gamliel found some fine loaves of bread on the road, and he said to his student: Elai, take the loaves from the road. Further along the way, Rabban Gamliel encountered a certain gentile and said to him: Mavgai, take these loaves from Elai.

Elai joined the gentile and said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From the nearby towns of guardsmen. He asked: And what is your name? The gentile replied: My name is Mavgai. He then inquired: Has Rabban Gamliel ever met you before, seeing as he knows your name? He said to him: No.

The Gemara interrupts the story in order to comment: At that time we learned that Rabban Gamliel divined the gentile’s name by way of divine inspiration that rested upon him. And at that time we also learned three matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel’s behavior: We learned that one may not pass by food, i.e., if a person sees food lying on the ground, he must stop and pick it up.

We also learned that we follow the majority of travelers. Since the area was populated mostly by gentiles, Rabban Gamliel assumed that the loaf belonged to a gentile, and was consequently prohibited to be eaten by a Jew. Therefore, he ordered that it be given to a gentile. And we further learned that with regard to leavened bread belonging to a gentile, it is permitted to benefit from this food after Passover.

The Gemara resumes the narrative: When Rabban Gamliel arrived in Keziv, a person came before him to request that he dissolve his vow. Rabban Gamliel said to the one who was with him, i.e., Rabbi Elai: Did we drink a quarter-log of Italian wine earlier? He said to him: Yes. Rabban Gamliel replied: If so, let him journey after us until the effect of our wine is dispelled, after which we may consider his issue.

And that person journeyed after them for three mil, until Rabban Gamliel arrived at the Ladder of Tyre. When he arrived at the Ladder of Tyre, Rabban Gamliel alighted from his donkey and wrapped himself in his shawl in the customary manner of a judge, who wraps himself in a shawl in order to sit in awe at the time of judgment, and he sat and dissolved his vow.

At that time we learned many matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel’s conduct. We learned that a quarter-log of Italian wine intoxicates, and we learned that one who is intoxicated may not issue a halakhic ruling, and we learned that walking on a path dispels the effect of wine, and lastly we learned that one may not annul vows when he is either mounted on an animal, or walking, or even standing, but only when he is sitting.

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.