Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 24, 2017 | 讚壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sanhedrin 70

Why is a daughter not killed for being a wayward child? 聽In order to be killed for being a wayward son, one needs to eat a certain amount of meat and drink a certain amount of wine. 聽However, there are various conditions set by the rabbis as to what type of meat/wine, what kind of meal, in what company, etc. 聽The dangers of wine are discussed through the lens of various stories/texts in the Tanach, including Adam, Noah, and King Solomon and additionally, 聽a debate about what type of tree the tree of knowledge was. 聽Details regarding exceptions brought in the mishna are discussed and compared to other sources that seem to contradict.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

砖讛讻诇 诪爪讜讬讬谉 讗爪诇讛 讘注讘讬专讛 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专转 讛讻转讜讘 讛讬讗 壮讘谉壮 讜诇讗 讘转

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讗讬诪转讬 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讬讗讻诇 转专讟讬诪专 讘砖专 讜讬砖转讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛 讘砖专 讜诇讜讙 讬讬谉

MISHNA: From when is a stubborn and rebel-lious 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.

讗讻诇 讘讞讘讜专转 诪爪讜讛 讗讻诇 讘注讬讘讜专 讛讞讚砖 讗讻诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 (讗讻诇 讟讘诇 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜)

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.

讗讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪爪讜讛 讜讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 注讘讬专讛 讗讻诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讘砖专 砖转讛 讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 砖转讛 讬讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讝讜诇诇 讜住讘讗 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转讛讬 讘住讘讗讬 讬讬谉 讘讝诇诇讬 讘砖专 诇诪讜

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: 鈥淭his son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he does not listen to our voice; he鈥is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard [vesovei]鈥 (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: 鈥淏e not among wine drinkers [besovei], among gluttonous eaters [bezolelei] of meat鈥 (Proverbs 23:20).

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转专讟讬诪专 讝讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛讜 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖讻驻诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讬讬谉 谞诪爪讗 讻讜驻诇 讗祝 讘讘砖专 讜谞诪爪讗 转专讟讬诪专 讞爪讬 诪谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 诪讜诇讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽讞 讘砖专 讘讝讜诇 讜讬讗讻诇 讬讬谉 讘讝讜诇 讜讬砖转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讝讜诇诇 讜住讘讗

Rav 岣nan bar Molada says that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he purchases inexpen-sive [bezol] meat and eats it, and he buys inexpensive wine and drinks it, as it is written: 鈥淗e is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard.鈥

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 诪讜诇讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讞讬 讜讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 讞讬 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讗讻诇 讘砖专 讞讬 讜砖转讛 讬讬谉 讞讬 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讬讬谉 讞讬 诪讝讬讙 讜诇讗 诪讝讬讙 讘砖专 讞讬 讘砖讬诇 讜诇讗 讘砖讬诇 讻讘砖专 讻讬讘讗 讚讗讻诇讬 讙谞讘讬

And Rav 岣nan 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鈥檛 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.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讗讻诇 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 讜砖转讛 讬讬谉 诪讙讬转讜 讗讬谉 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 转谞谉 讛转诐 注专讘 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讚诐 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜诇讗 讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜转谞讗 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 讜砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 诪讙转讜

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鈥檃nit 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.

讘讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讻砖诇诪讬诐

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 岣nina 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.

讜讬讬谉 诪讙讬转讜 注讚 讻诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 转讜住住 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讬谉 转讜住住 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 讜讻诪讛 转住讬住转讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐

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.

讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讞讛 讛讜讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讻砖诇诪讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖诪讞讛 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬诪砖讜讻讬 讛讜讗 讜讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讬诪砖讬讱 讜讬讬谉 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讜诐

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 peaceoffering, 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗 谞讘专讗 讬讬谉 讘注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 诇谞讞诐 讗讘诇讬诐 讜诇砖诇诐 砖讻专 诇专砖注讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 转谞讜 砖讻专 诇讗讜讘讚 讜讬讬谉 诇诪专讬 谞驻砖

搂 The Gemara鈥檚 discussion turns to wine in general. Rav 岣nan 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: 鈥淕ive strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter of soul鈥 (Proverbs 31:6). 鈥淗im that is ready to perish鈥 is referring to the wicked, who will perish from this world, while 鈥渢he bitter of soul鈥 denotes mourners.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 转专讗 讬讬谉 讻讬 讬转讗讚诐 讗诇 转专讗 讬讬谉 砖诪讗讚讬诐 驻谞讬讛诐 砖诇 专砖注讬诐 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜诪诇讘讬谉 驻谞讬讛诐 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诇 转专讗 讬讬谉 讻讬 讬转讗讚诐 讗诇 转专讗 讬讬谉 砖讗讞专讬转讜 讚诐

Rabbi Yitz岣k says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淟ook not upon wine when it is red鈥 (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: 鈥淟ook not upon wine that reddens [yitaddam]鈥 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.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 转讬专砖 讜拽专讬谞谉 转讬专讜砖 讝讻讛 谞注砖讛 专讗砖 诇讗 讝讻讛 谞注砖讛 专砖

Rav Kahana raises a contradiction: The verse states: 鈥淭herefore, 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鈥 (Jeremiah 31:11). The word for wine is written tirash, without the letter vav, but we read it as tirosh, with the letter vav. The matter can 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].

专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讬砖诪讞 讜拽专讬谞谉 讬砖诪讞 讝讻讛 诪砖诪讞讜 诇讗 讝讻讛 诪砖诪诪讛讜 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 讜专讬讞谞讬 驻拽讞讬谉

Rava raises a similar contradiction: It is written: 鈥淎nd wine that gladdens the heart of man鈥 (Psalms 104:15). The word for gladdens could be read as yeshama岣, meaning that wine makes one crazy, but we read it as yesama岣, gladdens the heart. The matter can be explained as follows: If one merits and drinks a moderate amount the wine gladdens him [mesame岣], 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.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讬 讗讜讬 诇诪讬 讗讘讜讬 诇诪讬 诪讚谞讬诐 诇诪讬 砖讬讞 诇诪讬 驻爪注讬诐 讞谞诐 诇诪讬 讞讻诇诇讜转 注讬谞讬诐 (讜讙讜壮) 诇诪讗讞专讬诐 注诇 讛讬讬谉 诇讘讗讬诐 诇讞拽专 诪诪住讱 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 诪讗谉 讚讚专讬砖 诇讬讛 诪专讬砖讬讛 诇住讬驻讬讛 诪讚专讬砖 讜诪住讬驻讬讛 诇专讬砖讬讛 诪讚专讬砖

Rav Amram, son of Rabbi Shimon bar Abba, says that Rabbi 岣nina says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淲ho 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鈥 (Proverbs 23:29鈥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.

讚专讬砖 注讜讘专 讙诇讬诇讗讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讜讜讬谉 谞讗诪专 讘讬讬谉 讜讬讞诇 谞讞 讗讬砖 讛讗讚诪讛 讜讬讟注 讻专诐 讜讬砖转 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜讬砖讻专 讜讬转讙诇 讘转讜讱 讗讛诇讜 讜讬专讗 讞诐 讗讘讬 讻谞注谉 讗转 注专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讬讙讚 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讜讬拽讞 砖诐 讜讬驻转 讗转 讛砖诪诇讛 讜讬砖讬诪讜 注诇 砖讻诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讬诇讻讜 讗讞专谞讬转 讜讬讻住讜 讗转 注专讜转 讗讘讬讛诐 讜驻谞讬讛诐 讜讙讜壮 讜讬讬拽抓 谞讞 诪讬讬谞讜 讜讬讚注 讗转 讗砖专 注砖讛 诇讜 讘谞讜 讛拽讟谉

A visitor from the Galilee expounded: The conversive vav is stated thirteen times in the passage concerning wine, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Noah began [vayya岣l] 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 [vayyika岣] 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鈥檚 nakedness. And Noah awoke [vayyiketz] from his wine, and knew [vayyeda] what his younger son had done to him鈥 (Genesis 9:20鈥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.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 住专住讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 专讘注讜

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.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住专住讜 诪转讜讱 砖拽诇拽诇讜 讘专讘讬注讬 拽诇诇讜 讘专讘讬注讬 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讘注讜 讙诪专 讜讬专讗 讜讬专讗 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讬专讗 讞诐 讗讘讬 讻谞注谉 讗转 注专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬专讗 讗讜转讛 砖讻诐 讘谉 讞诪讜专 讜讙讜壮

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鈥檚 fourth son. Ham鈥檚 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鈥28). And the one who says that Ham sodomized Noah learned this from a verbal analogy between the words 鈥渁nd he saw鈥 and 鈥渁nd he saw.鈥 Here it is written: 鈥淎nd Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father鈥; and there it is written: 鈥淎nd Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, and he took her, and lay with her, and afflicted her鈥 (Genesis 34:2). This indicates that the term 鈥渟aw鈥 alludes to sexual intercourse.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住专住讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽诇诇讜 讘专讘讬注讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讘注讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讘讬注讬 谞诇讟讬讬讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讛讜讗讬

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鈥檚 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.

讜讬讞诇 谞讞 讗讬砖 讛讗讚诪讛 讜讬讟注 讻专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇谞讞 谞讞 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讱 诇诇诪讜讚 诪讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 讙专诐 诇讜 讗诇讗 讬讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讜转讜 讗讬诇谉 砖讗讻诇 诪诪谞讜 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讙驻谉 讛讬讛

The Gemara continues to analyze the passage relating to Noah. The verse states: 鈥淎nd Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.鈥 In explanation of this matter, Rav 岣sda 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鈥檛 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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讗讬诇谉 砖讗讻诇 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪诪谞讜 讙驻谉 讛讬讛

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: The tree from which Adam the first man ate was a grapevine,

砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖诪讘讬讗 讬诇诇讛 诇讗讚诐 讗诇讗 讬讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讟讛 讛讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讛转讬谞讜拽 讬讜讚注 诇拽专讜讗 讗讘讗 讜讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖讬讟注讜诐 讟注诐 讚讙谉 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 转讗谞讛 讛讬讛 砖讘讚讘专 砖拽诇拽诇讜 讘讜 谞转拽谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 壮讜讬转驻专讜 注诇讛 转讗谞讛壮

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 鈥渢he Tree of Knowledge.鈥 Rabbi Ne岣mya 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: 鈥淎nd they sewed together fig leaves, and made for themselves loincloths鈥 (Genesis 3:7).

讚讘专讬 诇诪讜讗诇 诪诇讱 诪砖讗 讗砖专 讬住专转讜 讗诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪诇诪讚 砖讻驻讗转讜 讗诪讜 注诇 讛注诪讜讚 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 壮诪讛 讘专讬 讜诪讛 讘专 讘讟谞讬 讜诪讛 讘专 谞讚专讬壮 壮诪讛 讘专讬壮 讛讻诇 讬讜讚注讬诐 砖讗讘讬讱 讬专讗 砖诪讬诐 讛讜讛 注讻砖讬讜 讬讗诪专讜 讗诪讜 讙专诪讛 诇讜

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of wine. Referring to the verse that states: 鈥淭he words of King Lemuel, the burden with which his mother corrected him鈥 (Proverbs 31:1), Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: This teaches that when Solomon鈥檚 mother Bathsheba saw Solomon engaged in excessive drinking, she bound him to a pillar to have him flogged. And she said to him: 鈥淲hat, my son? And what, son of my womb? And what, son of my vows?鈥 (Proverbs 31:2). She meant: 鈥淲hat, my son?鈥 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.

壮讜诪讛 讘专 讘讟谞讬壮 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 讻讬讜谉 砖诪转注讘专讜转 砖讜讘 讗讬谞谉 专讜讗讜转 驻谞讬 讛诪诇讱 讜讗谞讬 讚讞拽转讬 讜谞讻谞住转讬 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 诪讝讜专讝 讜诪诇讜讘谉

鈥淎nd what, son of my womb?鈥 That is to say: With regard to all of the women of your father鈥檚 house, once they conceive they no longer see the face of the king, but I pushed myself in and entered the king鈥檚 chamber while I was pregnant, so that I might have a son who is strong and fair-skinned. There are times during a woman鈥檚 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.

壮讜诪讛 讘专 谞讚专讬壮 讻诇 谞砖讬诐 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 讛讬讜 谞讜讚专讜转 讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 讛讙讜谉 诇诪诇讻讜转 讜讗谞讬 谞讚专转讬 讜讗诪专转讬 讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 讝专讬讝 讜诪诪讜诇讗 讘转讜专讛 讜讛讙讜谉 诇谞讘讬讗讜转

鈥淎nd what, son of my vows?鈥 That is to say: With regard to all of the women of your father鈥檚 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.

壮讗诇 诇诪诇讻讬诐 诇诪讜讗诇 讗诇 诇诪诇讻讬诐 砖转讜 讬讬谉壮 壮讗诇 诇诪诇讻讬诐壮 讗诪专讛 诇讜 诪讛 诇讱 讗爪诇 诪诇讻讬诐 砖砖讜转讬诐 讬讬谉 讜诪砖转讻专讬诐 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇诪讛 诇谞讜 讗诇 壮讜诇专讜讝谞讬诐 讗讬 砖讻专壮 诪讬 砖讻诇 专讝讬 注讜诇诐 讙诇讜讬讬诐 诇讜 讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜讬砖转讻专 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬 砖讻诇 专讜讝谞讬 注讜诇诐 诪砖讻讬诪讬谉 诇驻转讞讜 讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜讬砖转讻专

It is further stated there: 鈥淚t is not for kings, O Lemoel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes to say: Where is strong drink?鈥 (Proverbs 31:4). The Gemara provides an explanation of the meaning of each part of this verse. 鈥淚t is not for kings鈥: 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. 鈥淣or for princes [rozenim] to say: Where is strong drink?鈥 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讞讝专 砖诇诪讛 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讗诪讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讘注专 讗谞讻讬 诪讗讬砖 讜诇讗 讘讬谞转 讗讚诐 诇讬 讻讬 讘注专 讗谞讻讬 诪讗讬砖 诪谞讞 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讞诇 谞讞 讗讬砖 讛讗讚诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讬谞转 讗讚诐 诇讬 讝讛 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淔or I am more foolish than a man, and have not the understanding of a man鈥 (Proverbs 30:2). This should be understood as follows: 鈥淔or I am more foolish than a man [ish]鈥; that is, I am more foolish than Noah, who sinned with wine and is called 鈥渁 man,鈥 as it is written: 鈥淎nd Noah began to be a farmer [ish ha鈥檃dama]鈥 (Genesis 9:20). 鈥淎nd have not the understanding of a man [adam]鈥; 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.

讗讻诇 讘讞讘讜专转 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 讘讞讘讜专讛 砖讻讜诇讛 住专讬拽讬谉

搂 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.

讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讻诇 讘讞讘讜专转 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讟注诪讗 讚诪爪讜讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗讜 讻讜诇讛 住专讬拽讬谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻讜诇讛 住专讬拽讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注住讬拽 诇讗 诪讬诪砖讬讱

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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.

讗讻诇 讘注讬讘讜专 讛讞讜讚砖 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘砖专 讜讬讬谉 诪住拽讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讚讙谉 讜拽讟谞讬转 讘诇讘讚 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讜拽讟谞讬转 讜讗讬讛讜 讗住讬拽 讘砖专 讜讬讬谉 讜讗讻诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注住讬拽 诇讗 诪诪砖讬讱

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 讘注讬讘讜专 讛讞讜讚砖 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讚讙谉 讜拽讟谞讬转 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜专 注讬讘讜专讜 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讗诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讘谞讬讛 讗讞专讬驻讜 讜注讜诇讜 讗讞专讬驻讜 讜驻讜拽讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖诪注讜 讘讻讜 讗讬谞砖讬

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鈥檚 intercalation; and they ascend not by day, but only at night. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: They ascend not at night, but only by day? The Gemara explains: As Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗讻诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 拽讗 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪诪砖讬讱

搂 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.

讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻诇 讘砖专 注讜祝 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛

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.

讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讛讗 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 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.

讗讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪爪讜讛 讜讚讘专 注讘讬专讛 讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 转谞讞讜诪讬 讗讘诇讬诐 讚讘专 注讘讬专讛 转注谞讬转 爪讬讘讜专

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.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬谞谞讜 砖诪注 讘拽诇谞讜 讘拽讜诇谞讜 讜诇讗 讘拽讜诇讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐

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: 鈥淭his son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that the halakha applies to a boy who does not obey 鈥渙ur voices,鈥 i.e., the voice of his parents, but not to one who also does not obey the voice of God.

讗讻诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讘砖专 砖转讛 讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗讻诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讘砖专 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 砖转讛 讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 砖转讛 讬讬谉 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讚讘砖 讜讞诇讘

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鈥檌la, 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.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讜砖转讛 讚讘砖 讜讞诇讘 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖

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鈥檌la, or drank honey or milk, thereby becoming intoxicated, and he then entered the Temple to perform the Temple service,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 70

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 70

砖讛讻诇 诪爪讜讬讬谉 讗爪诇讛 讘注讘讬专讛 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专转 讛讻转讜讘 讛讬讗 壮讘谉壮 讜诇讗 讘转

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讗讬诪转讬 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讬讗讻诇 转专讟讬诪专 讘砖专 讜讬砖转讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛 讘砖专 讜诇讜讙 讬讬谉

MISHNA: From when is a stubborn and rebel-lious 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.

讗讻诇 讘讞讘讜专转 诪爪讜讛 讗讻诇 讘注讬讘讜专 讛讞讚砖 讗讻诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 (讗讻诇 讟讘诇 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜)

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.

讗讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪爪讜讛 讜讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 注讘讬专讛 讗讻诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讘砖专 砖转讛 讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 砖转讛 讬讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讝讜诇诇 讜住讘讗 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转讛讬 讘住讘讗讬 讬讬谉 讘讝诇诇讬 讘砖专 诇诪讜

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: 鈥淭his son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he does not listen to our voice; he鈥is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard [vesovei]鈥 (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: 鈥淏e not among wine drinkers [besovei], among gluttonous eaters [bezolelei] of meat鈥 (Proverbs 23:20).

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转专讟讬诪专 讝讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛讜 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖讻驻诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讬讬谉 谞诪爪讗 讻讜驻诇 讗祝 讘讘砖专 讜谞诪爪讗 转专讟讬诪专 讞爪讬 诪谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 诪讜诇讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽讞 讘砖专 讘讝讜诇 讜讬讗讻诇 讬讬谉 讘讝讜诇 讜讬砖转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讝讜诇诇 讜住讘讗

Rav 岣nan bar Molada says that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he purchases inexpen-sive [bezol] meat and eats it, and he buys inexpensive wine and drinks it, as it is written: 鈥淗e is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard.鈥

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 诪讜诇讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讞讬 讜讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 讞讬 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讗讻诇 讘砖专 讞讬 讜砖转讛 讬讬谉 讞讬 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讬讬谉 讞讬 诪讝讬讙 讜诇讗 诪讝讬讙 讘砖专 讞讬 讘砖讬诇 讜诇讗 讘砖讬诇 讻讘砖专 讻讬讘讗 讚讗讻诇讬 讙谞讘讬

And Rav 岣nan 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鈥檛 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.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讗讻诇 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 讜砖转讛 讬讬谉 诪讙讬转讜 讗讬谉 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 转谞谉 讛转诐 注专讘 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讚诐 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜诇讗 讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜转谞讗 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 讜砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 诪讙转讜

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鈥檃nit 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.

讘讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讻砖诇诪讬诐

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 岣nina 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.

讜讬讬谉 诪讙讬转讜 注讚 讻诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 转讜住住 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讬谉 转讜住住 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 讜讻诪讛 转住讬住转讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐

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.

讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讞讛 讛讜讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讻砖诇诪讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖诪讞讛 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬诪砖讜讻讬 讛讜讗 讜讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讬诪砖讬讱 讜讬讬谉 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讜诐

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 peaceoffering, 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗 谞讘专讗 讬讬谉 讘注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 诇谞讞诐 讗讘诇讬诐 讜诇砖诇诐 砖讻专 诇专砖注讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 转谞讜 砖讻专 诇讗讜讘讚 讜讬讬谉 诇诪专讬 谞驻砖

搂 The Gemara鈥檚 discussion turns to wine in general. Rav 岣nan 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: 鈥淕ive strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter of soul鈥 (Proverbs 31:6). 鈥淗im that is ready to perish鈥 is referring to the wicked, who will perish from this world, while 鈥渢he bitter of soul鈥 denotes mourners.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 转专讗 讬讬谉 讻讬 讬转讗讚诐 讗诇 转专讗 讬讬谉 砖诪讗讚讬诐 驻谞讬讛诐 砖诇 专砖注讬诐 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜诪诇讘讬谉 驻谞讬讛诐 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诇 转专讗 讬讬谉 讻讬 讬转讗讚诐 讗诇 转专讗 讬讬谉 砖讗讞专讬转讜 讚诐

Rabbi Yitz岣k says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淟ook not upon wine when it is red鈥 (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: 鈥淟ook not upon wine that reddens [yitaddam]鈥 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.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 转讬专砖 讜拽专讬谞谉 转讬专讜砖 讝讻讛 谞注砖讛 专讗砖 诇讗 讝讻讛 谞注砖讛 专砖

Rav Kahana raises a contradiction: The verse states: 鈥淭herefore, 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鈥 (Jeremiah 31:11). The word for wine is written tirash, without the letter vav, but we read it as tirosh, with the letter vav. The matter can 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].

专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讬砖诪讞 讜拽专讬谞谉 讬砖诪讞 讝讻讛 诪砖诪讞讜 诇讗 讝讻讛 诪砖诪诪讛讜 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 讜专讬讞谞讬 驻拽讞讬谉

Rava raises a similar contradiction: It is written: 鈥淎nd wine that gladdens the heart of man鈥 (Psalms 104:15). The word for gladdens could be read as yeshama岣, meaning that wine makes one crazy, but we read it as yesama岣, gladdens the heart. The matter can be explained as follows: If one merits and drinks a moderate amount the wine gladdens him [mesame岣], 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.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讬 讗讜讬 诇诪讬 讗讘讜讬 诇诪讬 诪讚谞讬诐 诇诪讬 砖讬讞 诇诪讬 驻爪注讬诐 讞谞诐 诇诪讬 讞讻诇诇讜转 注讬谞讬诐 (讜讙讜壮) 诇诪讗讞专讬诐 注诇 讛讬讬谉 诇讘讗讬诐 诇讞拽专 诪诪住讱 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 诪讗谉 讚讚专讬砖 诇讬讛 诪专讬砖讬讛 诇住讬驻讬讛 诪讚专讬砖 讜诪住讬驻讬讛 诇专讬砖讬讛 诪讚专讬砖

Rav Amram, son of Rabbi Shimon bar Abba, says that Rabbi 岣nina says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淲ho 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鈥 (Proverbs 23:29鈥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.

讚专讬砖 注讜讘专 讙诇讬诇讗讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讜讜讬谉 谞讗诪专 讘讬讬谉 讜讬讞诇 谞讞 讗讬砖 讛讗讚诪讛 讜讬讟注 讻专诐 讜讬砖转 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜讬砖讻专 讜讬转讙诇 讘转讜讱 讗讛诇讜 讜讬专讗 讞诐 讗讘讬 讻谞注谉 讗转 注专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讬讙讚 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讜讬拽讞 砖诐 讜讬驻转 讗转 讛砖诪诇讛 讜讬砖讬诪讜 注诇 砖讻诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讬诇讻讜 讗讞专谞讬转 讜讬讻住讜 讗转 注专讜转 讗讘讬讛诐 讜驻谞讬讛诐 讜讙讜壮 讜讬讬拽抓 谞讞 诪讬讬谞讜 讜讬讚注 讗转 讗砖专 注砖讛 诇讜 讘谞讜 讛拽讟谉

A visitor from the Galilee expounded: The conversive vav is stated thirteen times in the passage concerning wine, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Noah began [vayya岣l] 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 [vayyika岣] 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鈥檚 nakedness. And Noah awoke [vayyiketz] from his wine, and knew [vayyeda] what his younger son had done to him鈥 (Genesis 9:20鈥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.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 住专住讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 专讘注讜

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.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住专住讜 诪转讜讱 砖拽诇拽诇讜 讘专讘讬注讬 拽诇诇讜 讘专讘讬注讬 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讘注讜 讙诪专 讜讬专讗 讜讬专讗 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讬专讗 讞诐 讗讘讬 讻谞注谉 讗转 注专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬专讗 讗讜转讛 砖讻诐 讘谉 讞诪讜专 讜讙讜壮

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鈥檚 fourth son. Ham鈥檚 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鈥28). And the one who says that Ham sodomized Noah learned this from a verbal analogy between the words 鈥渁nd he saw鈥 and 鈥渁nd he saw.鈥 Here it is written: 鈥淎nd Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father鈥; and there it is written: 鈥淎nd Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, and he took her, and lay with her, and afflicted her鈥 (Genesis 34:2). This indicates that the term 鈥渟aw鈥 alludes to sexual intercourse.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住专住讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽诇诇讜 讘专讘讬注讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讘注讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讘讬注讬 谞诇讟讬讬讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讛讜讗讬

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鈥檚 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.

讜讬讞诇 谞讞 讗讬砖 讛讗讚诪讛 讜讬讟注 讻专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇谞讞 谞讞 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讱 诇诇诪讜讚 诪讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 讙专诐 诇讜 讗诇讗 讬讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讜转讜 讗讬诇谉 砖讗讻诇 诪诪谞讜 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讙驻谉 讛讬讛

The Gemara continues to analyze the passage relating to Noah. The verse states: 鈥淎nd Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.鈥 In explanation of this matter, Rav 岣sda 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鈥檛 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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讗讬诇谉 砖讗讻诇 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪诪谞讜 讙驻谉 讛讬讛

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: The tree from which Adam the first man ate was a grapevine,

砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖诪讘讬讗 讬诇诇讛 诇讗讚诐 讗诇讗 讬讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讟讛 讛讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讛转讬谞讜拽 讬讜讚注 诇拽专讜讗 讗讘讗 讜讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖讬讟注讜诐 讟注诐 讚讙谉 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 转讗谞讛 讛讬讛 砖讘讚讘专 砖拽诇拽诇讜 讘讜 谞转拽谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 壮讜讬转驻专讜 注诇讛 转讗谞讛壮

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 鈥渢he Tree of Knowledge.鈥 Rabbi Ne岣mya 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: 鈥淎nd they sewed together fig leaves, and made for themselves loincloths鈥 (Genesis 3:7).

讚讘专讬 诇诪讜讗诇 诪诇讱 诪砖讗 讗砖专 讬住专转讜 讗诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪诇诪讚 砖讻驻讗转讜 讗诪讜 注诇 讛注诪讜讚 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 壮诪讛 讘专讬 讜诪讛 讘专 讘讟谞讬 讜诪讛 讘专 谞讚专讬壮 壮诪讛 讘专讬壮 讛讻诇 讬讜讚注讬诐 砖讗讘讬讱 讬专讗 砖诪讬诐 讛讜讛 注讻砖讬讜 讬讗诪专讜 讗诪讜 讙专诪讛 诇讜

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of wine. Referring to the verse that states: 鈥淭he words of King Lemuel, the burden with which his mother corrected him鈥 (Proverbs 31:1), Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: This teaches that when Solomon鈥檚 mother Bathsheba saw Solomon engaged in excessive drinking, she bound him to a pillar to have him flogged. And she said to him: 鈥淲hat, my son? And what, son of my womb? And what, son of my vows?鈥 (Proverbs 31:2). She meant: 鈥淲hat, my son?鈥 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.

壮讜诪讛 讘专 讘讟谞讬壮 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 讻讬讜谉 砖诪转注讘专讜转 砖讜讘 讗讬谞谉 专讜讗讜转 驻谞讬 讛诪诇讱 讜讗谞讬 讚讞拽转讬 讜谞讻谞住转讬 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 诪讝讜专讝 讜诪诇讜讘谉

鈥淎nd what, son of my womb?鈥 That is to say: With regard to all of the women of your father鈥檚 house, once they conceive they no longer see the face of the king, but I pushed myself in and entered the king鈥檚 chamber while I was pregnant, so that I might have a son who is strong and fair-skinned. There are times during a woman鈥檚 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.

壮讜诪讛 讘专 谞讚专讬壮 讻诇 谞砖讬诐 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 讛讬讜 谞讜讚专讜转 讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 讛讙讜谉 诇诪诇讻讜转 讜讗谞讬 谞讚专转讬 讜讗诪专转讬 讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 讝专讬讝 讜诪诪讜诇讗 讘转讜专讛 讜讛讙讜谉 诇谞讘讬讗讜转

鈥淎nd what, son of my vows?鈥 That is to say: With regard to all of the women of your father鈥檚 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.

壮讗诇 诇诪诇讻讬诐 诇诪讜讗诇 讗诇 诇诪诇讻讬诐 砖转讜 讬讬谉壮 壮讗诇 诇诪诇讻讬诐壮 讗诪专讛 诇讜 诪讛 诇讱 讗爪诇 诪诇讻讬诐 砖砖讜转讬诐 讬讬谉 讜诪砖转讻专讬诐 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇诪讛 诇谞讜 讗诇 壮讜诇专讜讝谞讬诐 讗讬 砖讻专壮 诪讬 砖讻诇 专讝讬 注讜诇诐 讙诇讜讬讬诐 诇讜 讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜讬砖转讻专 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬 砖讻诇 专讜讝谞讬 注讜诇诐 诪砖讻讬诪讬谉 诇驻转讞讜 讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜讬砖转讻专

It is further stated there: 鈥淚t is not for kings, O Lemoel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes to say: Where is strong drink?鈥 (Proverbs 31:4). The Gemara provides an explanation of the meaning of each part of this verse. 鈥淚t is not for kings鈥: 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. 鈥淣or for princes [rozenim] to say: Where is strong drink?鈥 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讞讝专 砖诇诪讛 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讗诪讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讘注专 讗谞讻讬 诪讗讬砖 讜诇讗 讘讬谞转 讗讚诐 诇讬 讻讬 讘注专 讗谞讻讬 诪讗讬砖 诪谞讞 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讞诇 谞讞 讗讬砖 讛讗讚诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讬谞转 讗讚诐 诇讬 讝讛 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淔or I am more foolish than a man, and have not the understanding of a man鈥 (Proverbs 30:2). This should be understood as follows: 鈥淔or I am more foolish than a man [ish]鈥; that is, I am more foolish than Noah, who sinned with wine and is called 鈥渁 man,鈥 as it is written: 鈥淎nd Noah began to be a farmer [ish ha鈥檃dama]鈥 (Genesis 9:20). 鈥淎nd have not the understanding of a man [adam]鈥; 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.

讗讻诇 讘讞讘讜专转 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 讘讞讘讜专讛 砖讻讜诇讛 住专讬拽讬谉

搂 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.

讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讻诇 讘讞讘讜专转 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讟注诪讗 讚诪爪讜讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗讜 讻讜诇讛 住专讬拽讬谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻讜诇讛 住专讬拽讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注住讬拽 诇讗 诪讬诪砖讬讱

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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.

讗讻诇 讘注讬讘讜专 讛讞讜讚砖 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘砖专 讜讬讬谉 诪住拽讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讚讙谉 讜拽讟谞讬转 讘诇讘讚 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讜拽讟谞讬转 讜讗讬讛讜 讗住讬拽 讘砖专 讜讬讬谉 讜讗讻诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注住讬拽 诇讗 诪诪砖讬讱

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 讘注讬讘讜专 讛讞讜讚砖 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讚讙谉 讜拽讟谞讬转 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜专 注讬讘讜专讜 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讗诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讘谞讬讛 讗讞专讬驻讜 讜注讜诇讜 讗讞专讬驻讜 讜驻讜拽讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖诪注讜 讘讻讜 讗讬谞砖讬

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鈥檚 intercalation; and they ascend not by day, but only at night. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: They ascend not at night, but only by day? The Gemara explains: As Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗讻诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 拽讗 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪诪砖讬讱

搂 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.

讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻诇 讘砖专 注讜祝 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛

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.

讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讛讗 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 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.

讗讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪爪讜讛 讜讚讘专 注讘讬专讛 讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 转谞讞讜诪讬 讗讘诇讬诐 讚讘专 注讘讬专讛 转注谞讬转 爪讬讘讜专

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.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬谞谞讜 砖诪注 讘拽诇谞讜 讘拽讜诇谞讜 讜诇讗 讘拽讜诇讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐

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: 鈥淭his son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that the halakha applies to a boy who does not obey 鈥渙ur voices,鈥 i.e., the voice of his parents, but not to one who also does not obey the voice of God.

讗讻诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讘砖专 砖转讛 讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗讻诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讘砖专 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 砖转讛 讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 砖转讛 讬讬谉 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讚讘砖 讜讞诇讘

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鈥檌la, 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.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讜砖转讛 讚讘砖 讜讞诇讘 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖

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鈥檌la, or drank honey or milk, thereby becoming intoxicated, and he then entered the Temple to perform the Temple service,

Scroll To Top