Intoxication, Temple Service, and Irrevocable Vows

How Tosafot harmonizes Temple disqualifications and clarifies the halachic mechanisms that prevent the dissolution of vows.

Intoxication and Temple Disqualification

The Mishnah lists priests who are disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara asks why a drunkard is included here rather than in the earlier chapter among those who profane the Temple service after the fact.

The Gemara answers that our Mishnah deals with one intoxicated by substances other than wine. Wine intoxication invalidates the service, whereas other intoxicants do not profane it according to the Rabbis. Rashi explains that this excludes Rabbi Yehuda, who equates all intoxicating foods and drinks to wine.

The Drunkard of Tractate Zevachim

Tosafot raises a difficulty from a baraita in Tractate Zevachim. That baraita lists a שיכור (drunkard) among those who disqualify the sacrificial service. Tosafot asks why the baraita did not specify שתויי יין (those who drank wine) rather than a general term.

Rabbi Chaim Cohen explains that the baraita in Zevachim specifically refers to substances other than wine. That baraita follows Rabbi Yehuda's strict opinion, which holds that any intoxicating substance profanes the sacrificial rites.

דמיירי בשאר דברים המשכרים וכר' יהודה דמחיל עבודה

that it deals with other intoxicating substances and follows Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that it profanes the service. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 45b:10:1)

Specifying a Vow to a Sage

The Gemara discusses a priest discovered during the service to have married a forbidden woman. He must vow not to derive benefit from her before continuing the service. The Gemara asks how we trust him, as he might find a Sage to dissolve the vow. The Gemara replies that one must specify the vow's reason to the Sage.

Tosafot notes that whether one must specify a vow is debated in Tractate Gittin. Tosafot decides that one must specify the vow, because Rav Pappa is a בתראה (later authority). Even if Rav Sheshet held otherwise against Rav Nachman, vows concern איסורא (ritual prohibitions), where Rav Nachman's authority in civil law does not decide the ruling.

ונראה דהלכתא כר"פ דצריך לפרט דבתראה הוא

And it appears that the halakhah follows Rav Pappa that one must specify, as he is a later authority. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 45b:18:1)

Public Vows and Annulment

To prevent dissolution even according to the view that one need not specify a vow, the Gemara suggests administering the vow על דעת רבים (with the consent of the public). Such a vow cannot be dissolved by a Sage.

Tosafot asks why Rav Huna in Gittin ruled that a bet din cannot administer a vow to a remarried widow, because her new husband could annul it. Why not administer it with public consent? Tosafot answers that regarding a husband's power, public consent cannot block annulment. Alternatively, Rav Huna simply rejects Amemar's principle.

Temple disqualifications depend on precise categories of intoxicants, while the binding power of vows relies on mandatory disclosure to Sages and public consent.

Learn Bekhorot 45 on Super Daf