Sanhedrin 70
שֶׁהַכֹּל מְצוּיִין אֶצְלָהּ בַּעֲבֵירָה, אֶלָּא גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא: ״בֵּן״, וְלֹא בַּת.
The reason is that all are found frequently with her in sin, and in the end she will be a sinner and cause others to sin. But it is a Torah edict that the penalty for rebelliousness is imposed only upon a son, and not upon a daughter.
מַתְנִי׳ מֵאֵימָתַי חַיָּיב? מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל תַּרְטֵימָר בָּשָׂר, וְיִשְׁתֶּה חֲצִי לוֹג יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מָנֶה בָּשָׂר, וְלוֹג יַיִן.
MISHNA: From when is a stubborn and rebellious son liable? From when he eats a tarteimar of meat and drinks a half-log of Italian wine. Rabbi Yosei says: From when he eats a maneh of meat and drinks a log of wine.
אָכַל בַּחֲבוּרַת מִצְוָה, אָכַל בְּעִיבּוּר הַחֹדֶשׁ, אָכַל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, אָכַל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים (אָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ).
The mishna now lists a series of conditions concerning his eating and drinking. If he ate these items with a group assembled for the performance of a mitzva, or he ate them at a meal celebrating the intercalation of a month, or he ate the items when they had second tithe status, in Jerusalem, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son because each of these circumstances involves some aspect of a mitzva. If he ate the meat of unslaughtered animal carcasses or animals that had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months [tereifot] or repugnant creatures or creeping animals, or he ate untithed produce from which tithes and terumot were not separated, or first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, or second tithe outside Jerusalem or consecrated food that was not redeemed, each of which involves a transgression, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.
אָכַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה, וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא עֲבֵירָה, אָכַל כׇּל מַאֲכָל וְלֹא אָכַל בָּשָׂר, שָׁתָה כׇּל מַשְׁקֶה וְלֹא שָׁתָה יַיִן – אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר וְיִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא״. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תְּהִי בְסֹבְאֵי יָיִן בְּזֹלְלֵי בָשָׂר לָמוֹ״.
The mishna summarizes: If he ate an item that involves performing a mitzva or an item that involves committing a transgression, or if he ate any food in the world but did not eat meat, or if he drank any beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he actually eats meat and actually drinks wine, as it is stated: “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he does not listen to our voice; he…is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard [vesovei]” (Deuteronomy 21:20). One is not called a glutton and a drunkard unless he eats meat and drinks wine. And although there is no explicit proof to the matter that the reference in the Torah is to meat and wine, there is an allusion to the matter in another verse, as it is stated: “Be not among wine drinkers [besovei], among gluttonous eaters [bezolelei] of meat” (Proverbs 23:20).
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: תַּרְטֵימָר זֶה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ, אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁכָּפַל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּיַיִן, נִמְצָא כּוֹפֵל אַף בַּבָּשָׂר, וְנִמְצָא תַּרְטֵימָר חֲצִי מָנֶה.
GEMARA: Rabbi Zeira says: Concerning this tarteimar that is mentioned in the mishna, I do not know what its measure is. But since Rabbi Yosei is found to have doubled the measure of the wine, as the unattributed opinion in the mishna speaks of a half-log whereas Rabbi Yosei requires a log, he presumably is found to have doubled the measure of the meat as well. Therefore, it turns out that a tarteimar is equivalent to one-half of a maneh.
אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר מוֹלָדָה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּקַּח בָּשָׂר בְּזוֹל וְיֹאכַל, יַיִן בְּזוֹל וְיִשְׁתֶּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא״.
Rav Ḥanan bar Molada says that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he purchases inexpensive [bezol] meat and eats it, and he buys inexpensive wine and drinks it, as it is written: “He is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard.”
וְאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר מוֹלָדָה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר חַי וְיִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן חַי. אִינִי? וְהָא רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: אָכַל בָּשָׂר חַי וְשָׁתָה יַיִן חַי אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה! אָמַר רָבִינָא: יַיִן חַי – מְזִיג וְלָא מְזִיג, בָּשָׂר חַי – בְּשִׁיל וְלָא בְּשִׁיל, כִּבְשַׂר כִּיבָא דְּאָכְלִי גַּנָּבֵי.
And Rav Ḥanan bar Molada says that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he eats raw meat and drinks undiluted wine. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? But don’t Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: If he ate raw meat or drank undiluted wine he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son? Ravina said: The two conflicting statements can be reconciled. If he ate totally raw meat or drank totally undiluted wine, he is in fact exempt. The undiluted wine for which he is liable is wine that is diluted but not diluted properly. And the raw meat for which he is liable is meat that is cooked but not cooked properly, like the scorched meat that thieves are wont to eat, due to the hasty manner in which they must prepare their food.
רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: אָכַל בָּשָׂר מָלִיחַ וְשָׁתָה יַיִן מִגִּיתּוֹ, אֵין נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. תְּנַן הָתָם: עֶרֶב תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב לֹא יֹאכַל אָדָם שְׁנֵי תַבְשִׁילִין, וְלֹא יֹאכַל בָּשָׂר, וְלֹא יִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן. וְתָנָא: אֲבָל אוֹכֵל הוּא בָּשָׂר מָלִיחַ וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן מִגִּתּוֹ.
Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: If he ate heavily salted meat or drank wine from his winepress, i.e., wine that has not finished fermenting, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. And on a related topic we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Ta’anit 26b): On the eve of the Ninth of Av, a person may not eat two cooked dishes in one meal. And furthermore, he may neither eat meat nor drink wine. And a tanna taught in a baraita: But one may eat heavily salted meat, as it is not considered meat, and one many drink wine from his winepress before it has properly fermented.
בְּבָשָׂר מָלִיחַ, עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר כָּהֲנָא: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא כִּשְׁלָמִים.
The Gemara asks: With regard to salted meat on the eve of the Ninth of Av, how long must this meat remain in salt before it is permitted? Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana says: As long as it is like a peace-offering, which could be eaten for two days and one night after it was sacrificed. After this time has passed, it is no longer the type of meat that one may not eat during that meal. Therefore, if it was salted for longer than this, it may be eaten on the eve of the Ninth of Av.
וְיַיִן מִגִּיתּוֹ, עַד כַּמָּה? כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא תּוֹסֵס. וְהָתַנְיָא: יַיִן תּוֹסֵס אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי. וְכַמָּה תְּסִיסָתוֹ? שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים.
The Gemara inquires further: And with regard to wine from his press before it has properly fermented, until when is wine considered in this category? As long as it is still fermenting. And it is taught in a baraita: Fermenting wine is not subject to the prohibition of exposed liquids, as there is no concern that a snake will leave its venom in that wine. And how long is its initial fermenting period? Three days from the time the grapes were pressed.
הָכָא מַאי? הָתָם מִשּׁוּם שִׂמְחָה הוּא, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא כִּשְׁלָמִים נָמֵי אִית בֵּיהּ שִׂמְחָה. הָכָא מִשּׁוּם אִימְּשׁוֹכֵי הוּא, וּבְכָל שֶׁהוּא לָא מִימְּשִׁיךְ. וְיַיִן – עַד אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם.
The Gemara clarifies: These definitions of salty meat and wine from his winepress were stated with regard to the prohibitions applying on the eve of the Ninth of Av. Here, concerning a stubborn and rebellious son, what is considered salty meat and wine from his press? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the eve of the Ninth of Av, the prohibition is due to joy; as long as the meat is like a peace–offering, there is still joy. But here, with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son, it is due to the son becoming drawn to it, and if the taste of the meat is flawed only slightly he will not be drawn to it. And with regard to wine, there is no concern that he will be drawn to it until it is forty days old.
אָמַר רַב חָנָן: לֹא נִבְרָא יַיִן בָּעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לְנַחֵם אֲבֵלִים, וּלְשַׁלֵּם שָׂכָר לָרְשָׁעִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תְּנוּ שֵׁכָר לְאוֹבֵד וְיַיִן לְמָרֵי נָפֶשׁ״.
§ The Gemara’s discussion turns to wine in general. Rav Ḥanan says: Wine was created in the world only to comfort mourners in their distress, and to reward the wicked in this world so that they will have no reward left in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter of soul” (Proverbs 31:6). “Him that is ready to perish” is referring to the wicked, who will perish from this world, while “the bitter of soul” denotes mourners.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״אַל תֵּרֶא יַיִן כִּי יִתְאַדָּם״? אַל תֵּרֶא יַיִן שֶׁמַּאֲדִים פְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וּמַלְבִּין פְּנֵיהֶם לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. רָבָא אָמַר: ״אַל תֵּרֶא יַיִן כִּי יִתְאַדָּם״ – אַל תֵּרֶא יַיִן שֶׁאַחֲרִיתוֹ דָּם.
Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Look not upon wine when it is red” (Proverbs 23:31)? Look not upon wine that reddens the faces of the wicked in this world when they drink it, and whitens their faces, i.e., embarrasses them, in the World-to-Come. Rava says that this is how the verse should be understood: “Look not upon wine that reddens [yitaddam]” means: Look not upon wine, as it leads to bloodshed [dam], indicating that one who drinks wine will end up committing an act of killing or will be killed because of it.
רַב כָּהֲנָא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״תִּירָשׁ״ וְקָרֵינַן ״תִּירוֹשׁ״. זָכָה – נַעֲשֶׂה רֹאשׁ, לֹא זָכָה – נַעֲשֶׂה רָשׁ.
Rav Kahana raises a contradiction: The verse states: “Therefore, they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow to the bounty of the Lord, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd” (Jeremiah 31:12). The word for wine is written tirash, without the letter vav, but we read it as tirosh, with the letter vav. The matter can be explained as follows: If one merits and drinks a moderate amount he becomes a leader [rosh], whereas if he does not merit and drinks excessively he becomes poor [rash].
רָבָא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״יְשַׁמַּח״ וְקָרֵינַן ״יְשַׂמַּח״. זָכָה – מְשַׂמְּחוֹ, לֹא זָכָה – מְשַׁמְּמֵהוּ. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רָבָא: חַמְרָא וְרֵיחָנֵי פַּקַּחִין.
Rava raises a similar contradiction: It is written: “And wine that gladdens the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15). The word for gladdens could be read as yeshamaḥ, meaning that wine makes one crazy, but we read it as yesamaḥ, gladdens the heart. The matter can be explained as follows: If one merits and drinks a moderate amount the wine gladdens him [mesameḥo], whereas if he does not merit and drinks excessively it makes him crazy [meshamemehu]. And that is what Rava meant when he said: Wine and fragrant spices have made me wise; that is to say, the controlled drinking of wine is beneficial to the drinker.
אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״לְמִי אוֹי לְמִי אֲבוֹי לְמִי מְדָנִים לְמִי שִׂיחַ לְמִי פְּצָעִים חִנָּם לְמִי חַכְלִלוּת עֵינָיִם (וְגוֹ׳) לַמְאַחֲרִים עַל הַיָּיִן לַבָּאִים לַחְקֹר מִמְסָךְ״? כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר: אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא, הַאי קְרָא מַאן דְּדָרֵישׁ לֵיהּ מֵרֵישֵׁיהּ לְסֵיפֵיהּ – מִדְּרִישׁ, וּמִסֵּיפֵיהּ לְרֵישֵׁיהּ – מִדְּרִישׁ.
Rav Amram, son of Rabbi Shimon bar Abba, says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who cries, Woe? Who cries, Alas? Who has quarrels? Who has complaints? Who has causeless injuries? Who has redness of eyes? They who tarry long at the wine, they who go to seek mixed wine” (Proverbs 23:29–30)? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that one who interprets this verse from the beginning to the end interprets it in a way that has meaning and significance. And also one who interprets it from the end to the beginning interprets it in a meaningful manner. It is possible to interpret these verses from the beginning to the end and say: Woe and alas to one who drinks wine; and it is also possible to interpret them from the end to the beginning: Who drinks wine? He who has quarrels, complaints, and injuries.
דָּרֵישׁ עוֹבֵר גָּלִילָאָה: שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה וָוִין נֶאֱמַר בַּיַּיִן: ״וַיָּחֶל נֹחַ אִישׁ הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּטַּע כָּרֶם, וַיֵּשְׁתְּ מִן הַיַּיִן, וַיִּשְׁכָּר, וַיִּתְגַּל בְּתוֹךְ אׇהֳלוֹ, וַיַּרְא חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו, וַיַּגֵּד לִשְׁנֵי אֶחָיו בַּחוּץ, וַיִּקַּח שֵׁם וָיֶפֶת אֶת הַשִּׂמְלָה, וַיָּשִׂימוּ עַל שְׁכֶם שְׁנֵיהֶם, וַיֵּלְכוּ אֲחֹרַנִּית, וַיְכַסּוּ אֵת עֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם וּפְנֵיהֶם וְגוֹ׳״, ״וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ, וַיֵּדַע אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן״.
A visitor from the Galilee expounded: The conversive vav is stated thirteen times in the passage concerning wine, as it is stated: “And Noah began [vayyaḥel] to be a farmer, and he planted [vayyita] a vineyard, and he drank [vayyesht] of the wine, and was drunk [vayyishkar]; and he was uncovered [vayyitgal] within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw [vayyar] the nakedness of his father, and told [vayyagged] his two brothers outside. And Shem and Japheth took [vayyikaḥ] the garment, and laid it [vayyasimu] upon both their shoulders, and went [vayyelekhu] backward, and covered [vaykhassu] the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke [vayyiketz] from his wine, and knew [vayyeda] what his younger son had done to him” (Genesis 9:20–24). All thirteen instances of the conversive vav here are followed by the letter yod. Together they form the word vay, meaning woe, and allude to the suffering and misfortune caused by uncontrolled drinking.
רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר סֵרְסוֹ, וְחַד אָמַר רְבָעוֹ.
Having cited the passage discussing Noah, the Gemara enters into a discussion about what was actually done to him by his younger son, Ham. Rav and Shmuel disagreed: One says that Ham castrated Noah and one says that Ham sodomized him.
מַאן דְּאָמַר סֵרְסוֹ: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁקִּלְקְלוֹ בָּרְבִיעִי, קִלְּלוֹ בָּרְבִיעִי. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר רְבָעוֹ: גָּמַר ״וַיַּרְא״ ״וַיַּרְא״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וַיַּרְא חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַיַּרְא אוֹתָהּ שְׁכֶם בֶּן חֲמוֹר וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara explains: The one who says that Ham castrated Noah adduces the following proof: Since he injured Noah with respect to the possibility of conceiving a fourth son, which Noah wanted but could no longer have, therefore Noah cursed him by means of Ham’s fourth son. Ham’s sons were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan (see Genesis 10:6), and of all of these, it was Canaan whom Noah cursed (see Genesis 9:25–28). And the one who says that Ham sodomized Noah learned this from a verbal analogy between the words “and he saw” and “and he saw.” Here it is written: “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father”; and there it is written: “And Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, and he took her, and lay with her, and afflicted her” (Genesis 34:2). This indicates that the term “saw” alludes to sexual intercourse.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר סֵרְסוֹ, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קִלְּלוֹ בָּרְבִיעִי. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר רְבָעוֹ, מַאי שְׁנָא רְבִיעִי? נִלְטְיֵיהּ בְּהֶדְיָא! הָא וְהָא הֲוַאי.
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that Ham castrated Noah, it is due to that reason that Noah cursed Ham by means of Ham’s fourth son. But according to the one who says that Ham sodomized him, what is different about his fourth son? He should have cursed Ham directly. The Gemara answers: This Sage holds that both this offense and that offense were committed. All agree that Ham castrated Noah, and some say that Ham also sodomized him.
״וַיָּחֶל נֹחַ אִישׁ הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּטַּע כָּרֶם״. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מָר עוּקְבָא אָמַר רַבִּי זַכַּאי: אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְנֹחַ: נֹחַ, לֹא הָיָה לְךָ לִלְמוֹד מֵאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא גָּרַם לוֹ אֶלָּא יַיִן? כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אוֹתוֹ אִילָן שֶׁאָכַל מִמֶּנּוּ אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן – גֶּפֶן הָיָה.
The Gemara continues to analyze the passage relating to Noah. The verse states: “And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.” In explanation of this matter, Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Ukva says, and some say that Mar Ukva says that Rabbi Zakkai says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Noah: Noah, shouldn’t you have learned from Adam the first man, whose banishment from the Garden of Eden was caused only by wine? The Gemara notes: This is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the tree from which Adam the first man ate was a grapevine.
דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אוֹתוֹ אִילָן שֶׁאָכַל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִמֶּנּוּ – גֶּפֶן הָיָה,
As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: The tree from which Adam the first man ate was a grapevine,
שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁמֵּבִיא יְלָלָה לְאָדָם אֶלָּא יַיִן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חִטָּה הָיָה, שֶׁאֵין הַתִּינוֹק יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹא אַבָּא וְאִימָּא עַד שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם טַעַם דָּגָן. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: תְּאֵנָה הָיָה, שֶׁבַּדָּבָר שֶׁקִּלְקְלוּ בּוֹ נִתְקְנוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה״.
as, even today, nothing except wine brings wailing and trouble upon a person; most sins are caused by drunkenness. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Tree of Knowledge was the wheat plant. This is proven by the fact that, even today, an infant does not know how to call out to his father or mother until he tastes the taste of grain, and for this reason wheat is called “the Tree of Knowledge.” Rabbi Neḥemya says: The Tree of Knowledge was a fig tree, because it was with the matter with which they sinned that they were rehabilitated, as it is stated: “And they sewed together fig leaves, and made for themselves loincloths” (Genesis 3:7).
״דִּבְרֵי לְמוּאֵל מֶלֶךְ מַשָּׂא אֲשֶׁר יִסְּרַתּוּ אִמּוֹ״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכְּפָאַתּוּ אִמּוֹ עַל הָעַמּוּד וְאָמְרָה לוֹ, ״מַה בְּרִי וּמַה בַּר בִּטְנִי וּמֶה בַּר נְדָרָי״. ״מַה בְּרִי״ – הַכֹּל יוֹדְעִים שֶׁאָבִיךְ יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם הֲוָה, עַכְשָׁיו יֹאמְרוּ אִמּוֹ גָּרְמָה לוֹ.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of wine. Referring to the verse that states: “The words of King Lemuel, the burden with which his mother corrected him” (Proverbs 31:1), Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: This teaches that when Solomon’s mother Bathsheba saw Solomon engaged in excessive drinking, she bound him to a pillar to have him flogged. And she said to him: “What, my son? And what, son of my womb? And what, son of my vows?” (Proverbs 31:2). She meant: “What, my son?” Everyone knows that your father, David, was a God-fearing man, and now, when they see you sin, they will all say that his mother caused him to drink, i.e., that you engage in these behaviors because you are my son.
״וּמַה בַּר בִּטְנִי״ – כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁל בֵּית אָבִיךָ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּתְעַבְּרוֹת, שׁוּב אֵינָן רוֹאוֹת פְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ. וַאֲנִי דָּחַקְתִּי וְנִכְנַסְתִּי, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא לִי בֵּן מְזוֹרָז וּמְלוּבָּן.
“And what, son of my womb?” That is to say: With regard to all of the women of your father’s house, once they conceive they no longer see the face of the king, but I pushed myself in and entered the king’s chamber while I was pregnant, so that I might have a son who is strong and fair-skinned. There are times during a woman’s pregnancy when intercourse is beneficial for the development of the fetus. Bathsheba was telling Solomon: I did my utmost to ensure that you have extra strength and beauty, and now you use that strength and appeal to pursue drink.
״וּמָה בַּר נְדָרָי״ – כָּל נָשִׁים שֶׁל בֵּית אָבִיךָ הָיוּ נוֹדְרוֹת: ״יְהֵא לִי בֵּן הָגוּן לַמַּלְכוּת״, וַאֲנִי נָדַרְתִּי וְאָמַרְתִּי: ״יְהֵא לִי בֵּן זָרִיז וּמְמוּלָּא בַּתּוֹרָה וְהָגוּן לִנְבִיאוּת״.
“And what, son of my vows?” That is to say: With regard to all of the women of your father’s house, they would take vows while they were pregnant, saying: Let me have a son who is fit to be king. But I, by contrast, took a vow and said: Let me have a son who is diligent and filled with knowledge of the Torah and fit for prophecy.
״אַל לַמְלָכִים לְמוֹאֵל, אַל לַמְלָכִים שְׁתוֹ יָיִן״. ״אַל לַמְלָכִים״ – אָמְרָה לוֹ: מָה לְךָ אֵצֶל מְלָכִים שֶׁשּׁוֹתִים יַיִן וּמִשְׁתַּכְּרִים וְאוֹמְרִים לָמָּה לָנוּ אֵל? ״וּלְרוֹזְנִים אֵי שֵׁכָר״ – מִי שֶׁכׇּל רָזֵי עוֹלָם גְּלוּיִים לוֹ יִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן וְיִשְׁתַּכֵּר? אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִי שֶׁכׇּל רוֹזְנֵי עוֹלָם מַשְׁכִּימִין לְפִתְחוֹ יִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן וְיִשְׁתַּכֵּר?
It is further stated there: “It is not for kings, O Lemoel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes to say: Where is strong drink?” (Proverbs 31:4). The Gemara provides an explanation of the meaning of each part of this verse. “It is not for kings”: Bathsheba said to her son Solomon: What have you to do with kings who drink wine and become intoxicated and say: Why [lamma] do we need God [El]? The Gemara continues to explain the verse. “Nor for princes [rozenim] to say: Where is strong drink?” This means that one like Solomon, to whom all the secrets [razei] of the world are revealed, should he drink wine and become intoxicated? Alternatively, there are those who say that this part of the verse should be understood as follows: One like Solomon, to whom all the princes of the world rise early to come to his door, should he drink wine and become intoxicated?
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִין שֶׁחָזַר שְׁלֹמֹה וְהוֹדָה לְאִמּוֹ? דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי בַעַר אָנֹכִי מֵאִישׁ וְלֹא בִינַת אָדָם לִי״. ״כִּי בַעַר אָנֹכִי מֵאִישׁ״ – מִנֹּחַ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּחֶל נֹחַ אִישׁ הָאֲדָמָה״. ״וְלֹא בִינַת אָדָם לִי״ – זֶה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן.
Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where can it be learned that Solomon repented and admitted to his mother that she was justified in her rebukes? As it is written: “For I am more foolish than a man, and have not the understanding of a man” (Proverbs 30:2). This should be understood as follows: “For I am more foolish than a man [ish]”; that is, I am more foolish than Noah, who sinned with wine and is called “a man,” as it is written: “And Noah began to be a farmer [ish ha’adama]” (Genesis 9:20). “And have not the understanding of a man [adam]”; this is a reference to Adam the first man, who also sinned with wine, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that the Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine.
אָכַל בַּחֲבוּרַת מִצְוָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל בַּחֲבוּרָה שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ סְרִיקִין.
§ The mishna teaches that if the son ate and drank the requisite amounts of meat and wine with a group assembled for the performance of a mitzva, he does not become liable as a stubborn and rebellious son. Rabbi Abbahu says: He is not liable unless he eats with a group that is entirely made up of idlers. This seems to indicate that if he eats and drinks in the company of decent people, even if he consumes the required amounts that would otherwise make him liable, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: אָכַל בַּחֲבוּרַת מִצְוָה – אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. טַעְמָא דְּמִצְוָה, הָא לָאו מִצְוָה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָאו כּוּלָּהּ סְרִיקִין? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּכוּלָּהּ סְרִיקִין, כֵּיוָן דִּבְמִצְוָה קָא עָסֵיק – לָא מִימְּשִׁיךְ.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: If the son ate and drank the requisite amounts of meat and wine with a group assembled for the performance of a mitzva he does not become liable as a stubborn and rebellious son? A precise reading of the mishna indicates that the reason that he does not become liable is that he ate and drank with a group assembled for the performance of a mitzva. But if they were not assembled for the performance of a mitzva he would be liable even if the group is not entirely made up of idlers. The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction between the mishna and the statement of Rabbi Abbahu. In fact, the son is liable only if he eats with a group of whom all are idlers. And the mishna teaches us this: That even if the group is entirely composed of idlers, since they are occupied with a mitzva, there is no concern that he will be drawn to sin.
אָכַל בְּעִיבּוּר הַחוֹדֶשׁ. לְמֵימְרָא דְּבָשָׂר וְיַיִן מַסְּקוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין עוֹלִין לָהּ אֶלָּא בְּפַת דָּגָן וְקִטְנִית בִּלְבַד! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אַף עַל גַּב דְּאֵין עוֹלִין לָהּ אֶלָּא בְּפַת וְקִטְנִית, וְאִיהוּ אַסֵּיק בָּשָׂר וְיַיִן וַאֲכַל, כֵּיוָן דִּבְמִצְוָה קָא עָסֵיק – לָא מִמְּשִׁיךְ.
The mishna teaches that if the son ate and drank the requisite amounts of meat and wine at a meal celebrating the intercalation of the month he does not become liable as a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that meat and wine are brought up to the upper chamber where the month is intercalated? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: They ascend to intercalate the month only with a meal consisting of bread made of grain and legumes? The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches us this: Even though they ordinarily ascend to the upper chamber only with bread and legumes, and he brought up meat and wine and ate them, since they are occupied with a mitzva, there is no concern that he will be drawn to sin.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין עוֹלִין בְּעִיבּוּר הַחוֹדֶשׁ פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם, וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהּ אֶלָּא בְּפַת דָּגָן וְקִטְנִית, וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהּ אֶלָּא לְאוֹר עִיבּוּרוֹ, וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהּ בַּיּוֹם אֶלָּא בַּלַּיְלָה. וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין עוֹלִין לָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם! כְּדַאֲמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לִבְנֵיהּ: אַחְרִיפוּ וְעוּלוּ, אַחְרִיפוּ וּפוּקוּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִישְׁמְעוּ בְּכוּ אִינָשֵׁי.
The Sages taught in a baraita: No fewer than ten men ascend to the upper chamber for the intercalation of the month; and they ascend to intercalate the month only with bread made of grain and legumes; and they ascend only on the night of the month’s intercalation; and they ascend not by day, but only at night. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in another baraita: They ascend not at night, but only by day? The Gemara explains: As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to his sons: When you come to intercalate the month, ascend early and leave early so that people should hear your comings and goings, and thereby know that you have been addressing this matter. The proper time for this is at daybreak, between night and day.
אָכַל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. כֵּיוָן דְּכִי אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא קָא אָכֵיל לֵיהּ, לָא מִמְּשִׁיךְ.
§ The mishna teaches that if he ate second tithe in Jerusalem he is not liable as a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara explains: Since he eats the second tithe in the normal way, i.e., as he is commanded, in Jerusalem, he will not be drawn to sin.
אָכַל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים. אָמַר רָבָא: אָכַל בְּשַׂר עוֹף – אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה.
The mishna teaches that if he ate the meat of unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot or repugnant creatures or creeping animals, he is not liable as a stubborn and rebellious son. Rava says: If the boy ate the meat of fowl, even if he ate the required amount, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.
וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: אָכַל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים – אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. הָא טְהוֹרִין – נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה? כִּי תְּנַן נָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין – לְהַשְׁלִים.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if the boy ate the meat of unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot or repugnant creatures or creeping animals, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son? A precise reading of the mishna indicates that it is only if he ate the meat of such animals that he is not liable; but if he ate the meat of kosher animals, which includes the meat of fowl, he would become a stubborn and rebellious son, counter to the ruling of Rava. The Gemara resolves this difficulty: When we learned this in the mishna as well, it was in reference to completing the measure of meat. Rava was speaking of the primary consumption of meat.
אָכַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה, וּדְבַר עֲבֵירָה. דְּבַר מִצְוָה – תַּנְחוּמֵי אֲבֵלִים, דְּבַר עֲבֵירָה – תַּעֲנִית צִיבּוּר.
The mishna teaches that if he ate an item that involves performing a mitzva or an item that involves committing a transgression, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara explains: This ruling concerning an item that involves performing a mitzva includes mitzvot by rabbinic law, such as comforting mourners. And the ruling concerning an item that involves committing a transgression includes transgressing prohibitions by rabbinic law, such as eating on a communal fast.
וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ״ – בְּקוֹלֵנוּ, וְלֹא בְּקוֹלוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם.
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that eating an item involving a mitzva or a transgression does not render him a stubborn and rebellious son? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices” (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that the halakha applies to a boy who does not obey “our voices,” i.e., the voice of his parents, but not to one who also does not obey the voice of God.
אָכַל כׇּל מַאֲכָל וְלֹא אָכַל בָּשָׂר, שָׁתָה כׇּל מַשְׁקֶה וְלֹא שָׁתָה יַיִן וְכוּ׳. אָכַל כׇּל מַאֲכָל וְלֹא אָכַל בָּשָׂר – לְאֵיתוֹיֵי דְּבֵילָה קְעִילִית. שָׁתָה כׇּל מַשְׁקֶה וְלֹא שָׁתָה יַיִן – לְאֵיתוֹיֵי דְּבַשׁ וְחָלָב.
The mishna teaches that if the rebellious boy ate any other food but did not eat meat, or if he drank any beverage but did not drink wine, he is not liable as a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara clarifies. That which the mishna teaches: The statement: If he ate any other food but did not eat meat, comes to include pressed figs from the town of Ke’ila, the eating of which is as satisfying as eating meat, but for which one is not liable. And that which the mishna teaches: The statement: If he drank any beverage but did not drink wine, comes to include honey and milk, which, though they can have a slightly intoxicating effect, do not render him liable as a stubborn and rebellious son.
דְּתַנְיָא: אָכַל דְּבֵילָה קְעִילִית, וְשָׁתָה דְּבַשׁ וְחָלָב, וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ –
From where is it learned that honey and milk are intoxicating? As it is taught in a baraita: If a priest ate pressed figs from Ke’ila, or drank honey or milk, thereby becoming intoxicated, and he then entered the Temple to perform the Temple service,
