Our Gemara on Amud Beis quotes a series of verses (Vayikra 10:9–11) used as proof texts both to prohibit a cohen from performing the Temple service after drinking wine, and also to forbid a judge or rabbi from rendering a halachic ruling while under its influence:

“Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die. This is a law for all time throughout the ages, for you must distinguish between the sacred and the profane, and between the impure and the pure; and you must teach the Israelites all the laws which Hashem has imparted to them through Moses.”

The Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, Yeyn Nesech) understands the quality of wine in a particular light that informs a number of practices within Judaism. He explains that wine blurs boundaries and reduces the ability to see distinctions. It can lower inhibitions and also cause people to be friendly toward their enemies, which can of course be a double-edged sword depending on the degree of danger. This is why Jews may not drink wine with Gentiles, so as not to blur the distinct character and boundaries of Jewish spiritual and theological orientation, and on a more concrete level, to prevent intermarriage. So too, halachic or legal decisions depend on the ability to draw fine distinctions, which even a small amount of wine will blur. In terms of Temple service, holiness is dependent on distinction and boundaries, hence the myriad laws of purity and process.

Yet the function that wine has of blurring distinctions can also be a positive force, such as during celebration. It allows past feuds to be suspended, worries to be forgotten, and it may also boost access to spiritual ecstatic states, which is why we mark festivals with joy and ceremonial wine.

While it is forbidden to render a halachic ruling after drinking wine for the above reasons, it is fascinating to note that there is an opinion that this applies only to rulings of prohibited versus permitted matters, but not to rulings in civil monetary disputes (Shulchan Aruch, CM 7:5). If we are concerned about a lack of ability to see fine distinctions, monetary and civil law also require keen judgment, so how can we understand this?

Yismach Moshe (Shemini) explains that when seen from a certain perspective, wine’s quality of blurring differences and allowing blending may be an asset when it comes to monetary rulings.

Wine is the gematria of 70, which implies the totality of possible perspectives, such as the 70 judges of a Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 2a—actually 71, but the 71st is a tie-breaker to avoid a hung court), and the 70 nations and languages of the world (Yerushalmi Sotah 7:5). Monetary matters are considered more complex than straightforward rulings of ritual prohibitions (see Berachos 63b). Therefore, a mild amount of wine is required to attain divine inspiration to transcend the physical limits of the intellect, as Gemara Eruvin (64a) reports in the name of Rav Nachman: “As concerning myself, as long as I have not drunk a quarter-log of wine, my mind is not clear.” Yet, when it comes to capital matters, joy is not possible or at least not appropriate due to the impending pain and suffering, therefore wine cannot inspire.

As we see in many halachos, Judaism tends to avoid absolutes and instead seeks balance between competing values and considerations. The Torah’s relationship with wine’s powerful potential as both chaos and inspiration is one such example.