And since the Hebrew word tirosh mentioned in the verse is wine, and it is written with regard to it: “And you shall eat,” this indicates that drinking is an activity included in eating.

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse is referring to consuming wine by means of an anigeron, as Rabba bar Shmuel says: Anigeron is a stew of beet greens and wine, and aksigeron is a stew of all types of cooked vegetables. If so, the wine in the verse is not drunk but eaten.

Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Cite from here, a verse written with regard to money with which one has redeemed second tithe: “And you shall bestow the money for whatsoever your soul desires, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine [uvayyayin], or for strong drink, or for whatsoever your soul asks of you; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26). The Hebrew word yayin mentioned in the verse is wine, and it is written: “And you shall eat.”

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps here this verse is also referring to consuming wine by means of an anigeron.

The Gemara rejects this: “Strong drink” is written in the verse, referring to something intoxicating, and wine mixed into a stew is not intoxicating.

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the intoxicating substance referred to in the verse is pressed figs from Ke’ila, as it is taught in a baraita: A priest who ate pressed figs from Ke’ila or drank honey or milk and then entered the Temple and performed the sacrificial rites is liable for violating the prohibition against conducting the Temple service while intoxicated.

Rather, one derives the meaning of “strong drink” in this verse by means of a verbal analogy from the verse about a nazirite: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink: He shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried” (Numbers 6:3). Just as there, the strong drink that is forbidden to the nazirite is referring to a type of wine, so too here, the verse is referring to wine.

§ Rava said: We learn in the mishna as well that drinking is included in eating. The mishna teaches: If one said: On my oath I will not eat, and then he ate and drank, he is liable to bring only one offering. Granted, if you say that drinking is included in eating, that is why it was necessary for the tanna to teach us that he is liable to bring only one offering. But if you say that drinking is not included in eating, there is no reason for the tanna to teach that it is only one violation. If one says: On my oath I will not eat, and he ate and performed some kind of labor, would it be necessary to teach us that the person is liable to bring only one offering? He never took an oath prohibiting labor.

Abaye said to him: What, rather, is your conclusion; that drinking is included in eating? Say the latter clause of the mishna: If he said: On my oath I will not eat and I will not drink, and then he ate and drank, he is liable to bring two offerings. According to you, Rava, once he said: I will not eat, drinking became forbidden to him, so when he said: I will not drink, why is he rendered liable to bring a separate offering? If he had said: I will not drink, two times, would he be liable to bring two offerings?

Rava said to him: There, in the mishna, it is actually a case where he said: I will not drink, and then said: I will not eat. Although it is so that drinking is included in eating, it is not so that eating is included in drinking, and the oath not to drink went into effect independently of the oath not to eat. Therefore, he is liable to bring two offerings.

The Gemara asks: But according to this, if he said: On my oath I will not eat and I will not drink, and he then ate and drank, what is the halakha? Is it that he is liable to bring only one offering? If that is so, rather than teaching in the first clause of the mishna that one who said: On my oath I will not eat, and then ate and drank, is liable to bring only one offering, let the tanna teach the following: If one says: On my oath I will not eat and I will not drink, and he ate and drank, he is liable to bring only one offering. From that ruling it could be concluded that when one takes an oath: I will not eat, alone, all the more so is he liable to bring only one offering.

Rather, the mishna actually is as it is taught, that one who took an oath not to eat and drink, and then ate and drank, is liable to bring two offerings, even though drinking is included in eating. And here it is different. Since he said: I will not eat, and then said: I will not drink, he revealed his intention that the eating that he stated first is eating alone and does not include drinking.

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely formulated in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that drinking is included in eating. It teaches: If he said: On my oath I will not eat, and he ate foods that are inedible or drank liquids that are not potable, he is exempt. But if those liquids were fit for consumption, he would be liable. And why? The mishna teaches that he took an oath saying: On my oath I will not eat, without mentioning drinking, which indicates that drinking is included in eating.

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where he said both: On my oath I will not eat and: On my oath I will not drink. The mishna did not spell out the second oath because its primary interest was in teaching that eating or drinking that which is inedible or not potable is not considered eating or drinking.

§ The mishna teaches that if one said: On my oath I will not eat, and then he ate wheat bread and barley bread and spelt bread, he is liable to bring only one offering. If he said: On my oath I will not eat wheat bread or barley bread or spelt bread, and then he ate all of them, he is liable to bring an offering for each one. The Gemara challenges: But perhaps when he details each type of bread it comes to ensure that he exempts himself from having other foods included in the oath, not to indicate that each type of bread is a separate oath.

The Gemara answers: If that was his intention, then he could have just said: Wheat, barley, and spelt, without mentioning bread each time. From the fact that he mentioned bread each time, it can be understood that his intention was that each be considered a separate oath. The Gemara rejects this: But if he did not mention bread, perhaps his oath could be interpreted to prohibit chewing [lakhos] whole kernels of these grains, and he consequently mentioned bread to limit the oath to bread.

The Gemara suggests: If his intention was to ensure that his oath does not extend to other foods, he could have just said: Bread made from wheat, or barley, or spelt, and in that way his oath would be limited to just bread. The Gemara rejects this: If he had said it that way, perhaps his oath could be interpreted to prohibit him from eating wheat bread and from chewing whole kernels of barley or spelt.

The Gemara suggests: If his intention was to ensure that his oath does not extend to other foods, he could have just said: Bread made from wheat, and from barley, and from spelt, thereby limiting his oath to types of bread.