We begin at the top of the page, with the subject of pairs. The phrase “the act of intimacy” refers to marital relations, and a person should not engage in the act of intimacy twice. The Gemara asks: what does “afterward” mean?
The Gemara suggests that the phrase could also refer to going to the bathroom. Either way, the word means that after a person has finished one activity, his mind is no longer focused on it, and he then does it again. This is not considered a pair, just as we learned at the end of yesterday’s page that each of the four cups is considered a separate entity. Accordingly, the four cups are not considered pairs.
The question, therefore, is why the act of intimacy is being considered a pair. Abaye answers that a person should not eat two of something, drink two of something, and then engage in the act of intimacy even once. The issue is not that the act itself is performed twice. Rather, one should not engage in it after becoming involved with pairs.
The reason is that the person may become weakened through the act, and his fortune may be adversely affected, causing something to happen to him. As the Rashbam explains, a person who has eaten or drunk pairs should be cautious about engaging in marital relations afterward, until a significant amount of time has passed. He may become weakened through the act, and because the act follows pairs, his fortune may be harmed.
The Sages taught: one who drinks pairs of cups places his blood on his head. The Rashbam explains that the evil spirits may come upon him and harm him; alternatively, he is bringing the danger upon himself. The Gemara then quotes Rav Yehudah: when does this concern apply? It applies when a person has not seen the face of the marketplace between one cup and the next.
However, if he did see the face of the marketplace between the cups, he has a solution in his hand, and it is no longer considered a problem of pairs. In other words, if he did not see the marketplace between one cup and the next, the cups may combine as a pair, but if he went outside between them, they do not.
Rav Ashi said that he saw Rav Hananya bar Bibi drink each cup separately and go out to the marketplace between the cups. The Gemara adds that this applies only when a person goes out onto the road. If he merely gets up inside his house, it is not considered going out on the road.
The Rashbam explains that there is no concern about pairs when a person remains in his house. The concern arises only when he intends to leave the house and go out onto the road. If he drinks pairs and then leaves the house, he must be concerned; if he drinks pairs and remains at home, the pairs cannot harm him.
Rabbi Zeira says that sleeping is comparable to going out on the road. Therefore, a person should not sleep after drinking pairs. Rav Pappa adds that going to the bathroom is also comparable to going out on the road. Thus, although there is no concern about pairs when one remains in the house, going to sleep or going to the bathroom is treated like leaving the house.
The Gemara then says that Rava would count the beams in the house. Why would he count the beams? The Rashbam explains that after drinking the first cup, Rava would look at the first beam; after drinking the second cup, he would look at the next beam. According to the number of beams, he would know whether he was drinking an even or odd number of cups. He did this each time, even though he was not leaving the house.
This shows that there is still a concern about pairs inside the house. Rava was keeping track because he understood that the concern could apply even when he remained at home.
The Gemara answers that an important person is different. Such a person must be careful even in private because the harmful spirits seek out important and righteous people. Wherever there is holiness, the harmful forces attempt to cause damage. This is similar to the idea that the clothing of Torah scholars wears out more quickly, because the harmful spirits and destructive forces pursue whatever is associated with holiness. Therefore, an important person must be cautious about pairs even inside his house.
Ulla says that ten cups are not subject to the concern of pairs. According to Ulla, the concern ends at ten, or beyond ten.
The Gemara explains that the Sages instituted that a person should drink ten cups of wine at a house of mourning. The wine was apparently intended to alleviate the mourners’ pain. If ten cups were still subject to the concern of pairs, how could the Sages institute something that could lead to danger? This proves that ten cups are not subject to the concern of pairs. The Gemara nevertheless asks whether eight cups may still be subject to that concern.
Rav Chisda and Rava explain that the number seven is not counted as contributing to harm. The word “peace” is the seventh word of the third verse of the Priestly Blessing: “May Hashem turn His face toward you and grant you peace.” Therefore, the seventh cup can combine for good, but it cannot combine for harm.
If a person drinks seven cups, the seventh cup removes him from the status of pairs. If he drinks eight cups, the seventh cup does not count toward harm, and the eighth cup therefore does not create a pair with it. The seventh cup can combine with the sixth cup for good, but it cannot combine with the sixth cup for harm.
The Gemara asks whether six cups are therefore subject to the concern of pairs. Rabbah and Rav Yosef explain that the number five is also not counted for harm. The second verse of the Priestly Blessing contains five words, ending with the word “and be gracious to you.” Accordingly, the fifth cup can combine for good but not for harm.
Thus, if a person drinks six cups, the fifth cup does not combine with the sixth cup to create a harmful pair. The same principle applies to eight cups because the seventh cup cannot combine for harm. The Gemara then asks about four cups.
Abaye and Rava explain that the number three is also not counted for harm. The third word of the first verse of the Priestly Blessing is “and safeguard you.” Therefore, three can combine for good but not for harm. If a person drinks four cups, the third cup does not combine with the fourth cup to create a harmful pair.
Rava followed this principle when he gave the Sages four cups before they left. The Rashbam explains that sometimes he gave them four cups before they departed, and sometimes he gave them four cups without letting them leave. The third cup does not combine for harm, and therefore four cups do not create a harmful pair in this situation.
The Gemara asks why this principle was needed in connection with the four cups on Passover. Earlier in the discussion, the Gemara had asked how the Sages could institute four cups on Passover if four is an even number. The answer given there was that the cup of the Grace After Meals does not combine with the other cups. The Gemara now says that perhaps the simple answer should have been that the third cup does not combine for harm.
The Gemara answers that there are different types of danger. Even if the third cup does not combine for the type of harm caused by the pairs, it may still combine in connection with sorcery. The Sages were not willing to institute a practice that could lead even to that danger. Therefore, the earlier answer was that the cup of the Grace After Meals does not combine with the others.
The discussion then returns to the matter of seeing the marketplace. One explanation is that a person must actually see the marketplace between the cups. Merely opening the door is not enough, because the language of the Gemara is that he must see the face of the marketplace. The Rashbam explains that the person must go out and see the marketplace; remaining inside the house does not suffice.
The Gemara records that Rabbah bar Livai did not pay attention to this matter. He continued giving four cups even though one of the Rabbis was harmed on one occasion. The Gemara explains that the harm did not result from the four cups. Rather, that Rabbi was harmed because he would challenge Rabbah during the public lesson and embarrass him.
Instead of asking his questions privately after the lesson, he would interrupt Rabbah in front of everyone: “What about this?” and “What about that?” The harm resulted from his conduct during the lesson, not from the four cups. The proper practice would have been to ask the questions afterward, privately, rather than embarrass the teacher in public.
Rav Yosef said that a spirit had told him that Ashmedai was the king of the spirits and that he controlled the entire matter of pairs. The king himself, however, is not a damaging force. It is beneath a king to become involved in punishing people, and therefore one need not be concerned about the pairs controlled by Ashmedai.
Another version reverses the explanation. On the contrary, a king is powerful and angry. “The king breaks through a fence to make a path for himself, and no one can protest.” If Ashmedai is the one in charge of pairs, he can do whatever he wants, and no one can stop him. According to this version, one must be concerned precisely because Ashmedai is the king.
Rav Pappa said that Yosef, the spirit, told him that with two cups, they kill; with four cups, they do not kill, although they can cause damage. With two cups, the result is the same whether the person drank them accidentally or intentionally. With four cups, however, the danger applies only when the person drank them intentionally, not when he did so accidentally.
The Gemara asks what a person should do if he drank a pair of cups and then realized what he had done. Is there a way to undo the potential damage? The answer is that he should take the thumb of his right hand in his left hand and the thumb of his left hand in his right hand. He should then say, “You and I are three.”
If he hears a voice say, “You and I are four,” he should respond, “You and I are five.” If he then hears a voice say, “You and I are six,” he should respond, “You and I are seven.” In this manner, he continually moves the count away from an even number and toward an odd number.
The Gemara records an incident in which they continued this exchange until they reached 101. Finally, the spirit became enraged and exploded. The purpose of the formula is to move the person out of the pairs: whenever the voice brings him to an even number, he responds with the next odd number.
The Gemara then discusses a formula to be recited when one encounters female sorceresses. The formula begins by addressing the sorceresses and instructing them to take their magic instruments, herbs, spices, and other materials and scatter them. The wind should blow away whatever they use for sorcery, so that their power will disappear.
The Rashbam explains the imagery of the formula. It refers to baskets containing excrement, with openings and holes, and says that the sorceresses should place these materials in their mouths. It then refers to their hair and instructs them to cut it away, and to the crumbs or spices they use for sorcery, instructing the wind to scatter them. The precise language may refer either to crumbs or to an instrument used for sorcery, but the point is the same: the materials and instruments of the sorcery should be destroyed or carried away.
Another version of the formula says that the sorceresses should not come until the heavens have shown mercy. The speaker explains that while the heavens had shown mercy to him, he had not shown mercy to himself by walking among the sorceresses. Now that he had encountered them, he recognized that mercy had been aroused against him and that he should not have placed himself in that situation.
The Gemara then says that the sorceresses’ materials should be scattered and that the spices they use should be carried away. The formula concludes by saying that as long as the clouds cover the speaker from heaven, he is protected from the sorceresses, and they should not come against him.
The Gemara states a general principle: with regard to matters of pairs, a person who is particular about them is affected, while one who is not particular is not affected in the same way. Rav Dimi came to the Land of Israel and said that he saw that the people there were careful about pairs. Even when measuring wine, they would mark the containers carefully so that they would not end with two measures.
He was particular even about the markings on the containers. If the markings indicated two measures, he would not allow them to remain that way; he would arrange the measurements so that they came out to one or three. An incident occurred in which a container was marked as containing two measures and it burst.
The general rule is that when a person is particular about these matters, the concern affects him, whereas when he is not particular, the concern does not affect him in the same way. The Gemara asks: if the person’s fear itself is what brings about the harm, why does the matter have any power at all?
The explanation is that the harmful forces have power when a person gives them importance. When someone says, “I am afraid of this; it is going to harm me,” that fear gives the matter strength. If, however, a person treats it as meaningless and says that it has no power, he removes its strength. At the same time, this does not mean that a person should ignore the matter entirely. He should be aware of it, but he should not become frightened or obsessed with it.
The Sages themselves were not particular about these matters, but they did not tell people simply to disregard them. Even when a person is not particular, the concern remains a reality that must be treated with some awareness. The person’s attitude matters: excessive fear gives the matter power, while complete disregard is also not necessarily appropriate.
Rav Dimi said that two eggs, two nuts, two cucumbers, and another item are subject to the concern of pairs. The Gemara asks what the “other item” is. Some say that it is a particular food or pastry; another explanation says that the matter is a tradition transmitted to Moses at Sinai.
The Gemara then asks whether the Sages instituted a concern with regard to every type of food. If so, one would have to be careful never to eat two of anything. The practical discussion reflects the difficulty of applying the rule: one does not want to serve customers two portions and thereby place them in danger, but one must also determine whether the concern applies only up to ten or continues beyond ten.
The Gemara relates a story about a man who divorced his wife. She later married someone else and came to the shop where he drank. The man would go there every day and drink. The woman was involved in sorcery, and she attempted to use sorcery against him. It did not work at first because he was careful about pairs. He would keep track of how many cups he drank and would drink only an odd number.
One day, however, he lost track of the number of cups he had consumed. He had been able to count up to sixteen, but after that he no longer knew how many he had drunk. Once he lost count, he entered the status of pairs. The woman’s sorcery then affected him.
When he left the shop, someone saw him and said that he was a dead man. The man understood that he was in danger. He leaned against a tree, weakened, became distressed, and died. The tree itself dried up as a result of the sorcery. This story demonstrates the danger attributed in the Gemara to sorcery, as well as the way the concern over pairs was understood in that setting.
Rav Avira said that two plates and two portions are not necessarily subject to the concern of pairs. The general principle is that anything completed by human beings is not subject to the concern in the same way, whereas something completed by Heaven is subject to it.
The Rashbam explains that food prepared by a person is considered completed by human beings. Fruit, however, is completed by Heaven. Accordingly, foods that are prepared and processed by people are not treated in the same way as natural foods that grow on a tree. The Gemara nevertheless limits this principle to food items.
The Gemara then says that drinking in a shop is not subject to the concern of pairs in the same way. One explanation is that a person who drinks in a shop is not in a settled, permanent setting. The drinking is incidental rather than established. Drinking two cups in a house may be different because the setting is fixed, whereas drinking in a shop is temporary.
The Gemara mentions a person who drank in a shop, but clarifies that the harm in that incident came from sorcery, not from pairs. The discussion of the shop concerns the nature of the setting in which the drinking takes place.
The word “afterward” also affects whether cups combine. If a person finishes one cup and decides that he will not drink any more, and then later drinks another cup, the two cups are not considered a pair. This is similar to the four cups on Passover, where each cup is treated as a separate act because the person had finished one stage before beginning the next.
The Gemara contrasts this with a person drinking in a setting where he does not know whether another cup will be brought. In such a case, each cup may be considered part of the same sequence because the person has not decided to stop. In a house, however, a person controls what will be brought to him. After finishing one cup, he can decide that he is done, and a later cup can therefore be considered a new act.
The Gemara discusses an unusual drink made from cabbage, which was apparently prepared regularly. Since this was not an ordinary drink for everyone, each drink could be treated as a separate act. The Gemara states that a certain drink is counted only for good and not for harm. Thus, if a person drinks two cups, the additional cup prevents the concern of pairs; if he drinks three, the drink can combine for good.
Ravina, quoting Rava, states that when there is uncertainty about the number of cups, one should apply the stricter approach in a way that ultimately provides relief. If a person does not know whether he has drunk a pair, he should drink another cup. If he had already drunk a pair, the additional cup makes the number odd and removes him from the status of pairs. If he had not yet drunk a pair, the additional cup may create a new pair, but in that case it is treated as a separate cup and does not combine with the earlier ones.
The Gemara offers another version of the discussion. Perhaps drinking another cup is not a solution, because the very attempt to correct the situation demonstrates that the person is particular about pairs. By trying to repair the problem, he gives the concern more importance and may thereby strengthen it. There are therefore two ways to understand the matter: one version says that drinking another cup solves the problem, while the other says that doing so may increase the person’s anxiety and concern.
Rabbi Yosef discusses a mixture of drinks: two cups of wine and one cup of beer, or two cups of beer followed by one cup of wine. Two cups of wine remain a pair, but two cups of beer followed by wine can combine to make three and therefore remove the concern.
The principle used to remember this is that the more significant item can combine with the less significant item. The wine is considered more significant than the beer, so the wine can join the beer in a way that changes the status of the sequence. This principle is compared to the laws of ritual impurity, where a more stringent item can combine with a less stringent one, but a less stringent item cannot elevate a more stringent one.
The Gemara then discusses drinking at different tables. Rav Nachman, quoting Rav, says that two cups drunk at one table and one cup drunk at another table can combine. However, one cup drunk before the meal and two cups drunk during the meal do not combine in the same way.
The reason is that the cups drunk during the meal belong to the established meal, which is the primary framework. A cup drunk before the meal may serve as an appetizer and can therefore be connected to the meal. A cup drunk after the meal, however, is not connected to the meal in the same way.
The Gemara challenges this distinction: if the concern is merely to correct the number of cups, why not simply give the person a third cup? The answer is that the table and the meal are significant. The cup drunk after the meal does not combine with the two cups drunk during the meal because it is no longer part of that established drinking session.
The Gemara brings the incident of Rabbah bar Nachmani. When a royal emissary came to apprehend him, he was staying at an inn. He drank two cups, and the table was removed. As a result of having drunk pairs, his face turned backward and his head became twisted.
He told the innkeeper to bring the table back and serve him another cup of wine. Simply drinking another cup without returning the table would not have solved the problem. The table had to be restored so that the new cup would be part of the same drinking session. Once the table was returned, the third cup could combine with the first two and remove him from the status of pairs.
This incident demonstrates why the cup drunk after the meal does not combine with the cups drunk during the meal. The two cups consumed during the meal belong to the established meal, while the cup after the meal is a separate act. Conversely, a cup consumed before the meal may be considered part of the meal because it serves as an appetizer and is connected to the meal that follows.