Sanhedrin 70a (ע.) — the Talmud in English

And what is the reasoning? Because

“everything is associated with her in transgression,”

and when she is a glutton and a drunkard in her youth, eventually, when she does not find what she has become accustomed to—even though it is not her way to rob people—she will stand at crossroads and entice people to engage in prostitution in exchange for payment—

Rather,

why is there no law of a wayward and rebellious son in the case of a “daughter”?

It is a biblical decree: a son and not a daughter!

!

Mishna:

The Torah said: “A glutton and a drunkard.” Our Mishna explains the concept of “a glutton and a drunkard”—its nature, quality, and measure. A wayward and rebellious son is not liable for every instance of excessive eating and drinking. And

from when

is he actually

liable?

F

When

he eats

a measure of

tartimar

[which is half a maneh]

of meat, and drinks half a log of Italian wine,

from the land of Italy, which is excellent and fine wine; but with other wines a greater measure is required. These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Yosei says: A maneh of meat and a log of wine.

.

This eating applies only when he ate a voluntary meal. But if he ate a mitzva meal, or even joined in his eating with those eating at a mitzva meal, he is exempt.

Likewise, if he ate prohibited food,

the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

If he ate

the meat and wine that he purchased with money he stole from his father

in a mitzva group,

a mitzva meal, and likewise if he

ate at a

meal held by the quorum that would gather to

intercalate the month.

And likewise if he

ate second tithe in Jerusalem,

having stolen money from his father’s second tithe funds, purchased meat and wine with it, and eaten them in Jerusalem; this is a mitzva meal.

Or if he ate prohibited food, such as if he

ate

meat of

animals that died without slaughter, animals with a terminal defect, creeping things, and crawling creatures,

(if he ate

[that is, if he drank wine that was]

untithed produce, and first tithe from which its teruma had not been removed,

which is also untithed produce,

and second tithe and consecrated property that had not been redeemed,

all these constitute prohibited eating).

It is not specifically eating a mitzva or a Torah transgression; rather, even if he

ate something that is a mitzva

by rabbinic ordinance,

or something that is a transgression

by rabbinic ordinance. In all these cases he is exempt.

If he ate every type of food but did not eat meat, or drank every type of beverage but did not drink wine,

he does not become a wayward and rebellious son

until he eats meat and drinks wine.

As it is stated: “A glutton and a drunkard.”

From where do we learn that “glutton” refers to meat and “drunkard” refers to wine? From the following verse:

And although there is no

verse

proof of the matter,

since the following verse has King Solomon warning not to be a glutton for meat and not to be a drunkard with wine, it is impossible to establish a conclusive proof that he specifically means meat and wine. It is possible that one is also called a glutton and a drunkard with regard to other foods and beverages; rather, Solomon warns specifically about meat and wine because they are especially enticing—

nevertheless, there is in the verse

a remembrance of the matter!

And what is the verse?

As it is stated

(Proverbs 23):

“Do not be among wine drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat.”

Gemara:

The Gemara explains what the measure of a “tartimar” is.

Rabbi Zeira said: I do not know what this tartimar is—

Rather,

it is possible to derive its measure from the words of Rabbi Yosei.

Since Rabbi Yosei doubled the

measure of

wine

and said “a log” instead of the “half a log” stated by the first tanna,

it follows that he also doubled the measure of meat, and

said “a maneh” of meat;

it follows

that the measure of a

tartimar

is

half a maneh,

weighing fifty dinars.

The Gemara adds another halakha.

Rav Ḥanan bar Molada

[that was his name]

said that Rav Huna said: He is not liable

if he purchased meat and wine at a high price, because then they do not come to him easily and he will not become drawn after them. And when is he liable?

Only when he takes

—when he purchases with money he stole from his father—

cheap meat and eats it,

and likewise purchases

cheap wine and drinks it.

Similarly, if he stole the meat and wine themselves, he is not liable.

Although he stated this based on reasoning, he nevertheless supports it with

what is written: “A glutton and a drunkard,”

where “glutton” derives from the expression “cheap.”

And

he further

said that Rav Ḥanan bar Molada said that Rav Huna: He is not liable

for every kind of meat and wine—

rather,

until he eats raw meat

that has not been cooked,

and drinks raw wine,

that has not been diluted with water, as will be explained.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

That is not the case—

But Rabba and Rav Yosef both said

—they both said:

If he ate raw meat and drank raw wine,

he does not become a wayward and rebellious son.

.

This presents a difficulty for Rav Huna, who makes him liable only for raw meat and wine.

And we answer:

Ravina said:

There is no contradiction; they both state the same position. With genuinely raw meat and genuinely raw wine, everyone agrees that he is exempt.

As for what Rav Huna said concerning

raw wine,

that means

partially diluted and not fully diluted

—a slight dilution, with a small amount of water. But if it is diluted properly, according to the usual measure of dilution, he is not liable.

And likewise, what Rav Huna said concerning

raw meat

means

cooked but not fully cooked,

since it is the practice of thieves to hurry to eat before the cooking is complete. But if he ate meat cooked completely, he will not become drawn after it, because since he purchases the meat with stolen money and performs his actions secretly, he has no time to wait until the cooking is complete.

And what is called “cooked but not fully cooked”?

Like meat roasted

over coals,

which thieves eat,

as it is the practice of thieves to eat it.

The Gemara cites another halakha.

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: If he ate salted meat

whose taste had been changed by its salting,

and drank wine from its vat,

whose fermentation had not been completed [as though it were still in the winepress],

he does not become a wayward and rebellious son,

because these are not considered important and he does not become drawn after them.

How many days must meat remain in salt to be called “salted meat,” and until when is wine called “wine from its vat”? Ostensibly, this matter can be learned from another halakha—

We learned there

in tractate Ta’anit:

On the eve of Tisha BeAv, a person may not eat two cooked dishes,

such as meat and fish, meat and eggs cooked with it, or fish and eggs cooked with it,

and he may not eat meat or drink wine,

because of mourning over the destruction of the Temple.

And a tanna

taught a beraita there:

But he may eat salted meat

that does not bring joy and does not contradict the mourning,

and drink wine from its vat.

And there the amoraim explained the beraita:

Salted meat—for how long?

How long must it remain in salt so that its taste changes from the taste of meat to the taste of salt?

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana said: As long as it is like

the offering of

peace-offerings,

whose permitted eating time is two days and one night, moisture is still present in it and it brings joy to the heart. Peace-offerings bring joy to the heart, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27): “You shall slaughter peace-offerings and eat there, and you shall rejoice.”

And wine from its vat—for how long?

Until when is it called wine from its vat?

As long as it is fermenting,

biting in the throat because it is becoming sour.

And

what is the duration of its fermentation?

It was taught: Fermenting wine is not subject to the prohibition of

leaving it

uncovered,

the prohibition against drinking uncovered wine because of the danger from a snake, lest it have injected venom into it, since snakes do not drink fermenting wine.

And how long

is its

fermentation? Three days.

Thus the halakha concerning the eve of Tisha BeAv is clarified: salted meat is meat that has remained in salt for two days and one night, and wine from its vat is wine that has fermented for three days.

The discussion is:

Here,

with regard to the law of a wayward and rebellious son,

what

is the measure of salted meat and wine from its vat that exempts him, as stated by Rabba and Rav Yosef? Is it similar to the law concerning the eve of Tisha BeAv, or is there room to distinguish between them?

And we resolve it: Indeed, there is room to distinguish between them.

There,

with regard to the eve of Tisha BeAv, the reason for prohibiting the eating of meat and the drinking of wine

is joy.

Therefore,

as long as it is like peace-offerings,

even though the dissipation of its taste begins after one night, nevertheless

it still contains joy;

its taste has not diminished so greatly, and it brings joy.

But

if

here,

with regard to a wayward and rebellious son, the reason for his liability

is becoming drawn after it,

so that he will become attached to his habit,

then in any case,

if one night has passed in its salt,

he is no longer drawn after it

and he is exempt.

And

likewise with

wine:

although after three days of fermentation its principal fermentation has passed, nevertheless it is still called wine from its vat

until

forty days have passed,

and before that time he does not become drawn after it.

In connection with the lesson that excessive drinking of wine draws a person toward disgraceful acts, the Gemara cites statements of tannaim and amoraim denigrating the drinking of wine.

Rabbi Ḥanan said: Wine was created in the world

,

only

in order

to comfort

mourners

and

in order

to pay the reward

to the wicked,

who indulge in it and receive the reward for their few mitzvot in this world.

As it is stated

(Proverbs 31): “

Give strong drink to the perishing

[the wicked person who is perishing and losing his reward in the World-to-Come]

and wine

to those of bitter soul

[mourners, whose sorrow wine dispels].”

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: What

is the meaning

of that which is written: “Do not look at wine when it reddens,”—

and he expounds:

“Do not look”

—do not set your eyes upon it; do not become drawn after it. “When it reddens,” from the expression “red”— \ -

for it reddens the faces of the wicked in this world

through excessive drinking,

and whitens their faces in the World-to-Come

through great shame.

Rava said:

“It reddens” derives from the word “blood”:

“Do not look at wine”

whose end is blood,

for the end of a wayward and rebellious son is to be killed because of it.

Rav Kahana posed a contradiction

:

It is written: “You shall inherit,”

with the letter vav omitted, but it is read:

“Tirosh,”—

and he answers:

If one merits

to drink in moderation and is careful not to drink excessively,

he becomes a leader;

wine sharpens his heart with wisdom. Therefore it is read “tirosh”—you will become a leader.

If he does not merit,

he becomes impoverished,

from the expression “poor and needy”; therefore it is written “you shall inherit,” meaning “you shall become poor.”

Rava posed a contradiction:

:

It is written

(Psalms 104): “And wine

gladdens

the heart of man.” Since the written text is unvocalized, it can be read with the right shin, conveying the meaning of “desolation”—that wine desolates him and removes the wisdom of his heart—

but it is read: “gladdens,”

with the left shin, from the expression “joy.”

And he answers:

If he merits,

the wine

gladdens him; if he does not merit,

it desolates him.

And this is what Rava said: Wine

and

fragrant spices

—types of spices—

make one wise;

they made me wise.

Rav Amram, son of Rabbi Shemen bar Abba, said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: What

is the meaning

of that which is written

(Proverbs 23):

“For whom is woe? For whom is anguish

[a cry]?

For whom are quarrels

[judgment and strife]?

For whom is distress

[suffering]?

For whom are wounds without cause?

For whom are bloodshot eyes

[red eyes]?

For those who linger

[delay]

over wine, for those who come to investigate mixed wine

[who investigate and search for where wine thoroughly mixed with spices is sold]—

When

Rav Dimi

arrived from the Land of Israel,

he said: In the West they say: This verse

—this verse—

whoever expounds it from its beginning to its end

from beginning to end

expounds it

well. And this is its meaning: For whom are suffering, cries, quarrels, wounds, and bloodshot eyes? For the one who is fervently devoted to wine.

And

whoever expounds

from the end to the beginning

is also expounded well: for one who has woe, lamentation, and mourning—that is, mourners; for one who has quarrels and gratuitous wounds—that is, a wicked person who fights with people; and for one whose red eyes are sunken from excessive fat—these are suited to linger over wine, become intoxicated, and forget their troubles

.

The Galilean expounded: Thirteen vavs

the letters vav and yod, from the expression “woe, woe,”

are stated

in connection with wine—

It is stated (Genesis 9): “

Noah, a man of the soil, began and planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. And Shem and Japheth took the garment, placed it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward; and they covered the nakedness of their father, with their faces turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him

” .

This teaches us that drinking wine brings great sorrow, as indicated by the expression “woe.”

From one matter to another, the Gemara explains the incident involving Noah.

It is stated: “what his youngest son had done”—what, in fact, did he do

?

Rav and Shmuel disagreed about this.

One

of the two, but it is not specified which one,

said: He castrated him,

so that he would not father any more sons.

And one said: He sodomized him,

engaging in male intercourse with him.

The Gemara explains the two opinions:

The one who says: He castrated him

explains:

Since

Ham

impaired him with regard to

fathering a fourth son,

therefore

he

cursed

Noah cursed Ham

with regard to

his son, the

fourth,

and this was Canaan.

And the one who says: He sodomized him, derived it

by means of a gzera shava:

“And he saw,” “and he saw”: Here it is written, “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father,” and there it is written

(Genesis 34):

“And Shechem the son of Hamor saw her,”

just as there he had intercourse with her, so here he had intercourse with him.

And we challenge this:

Granted, according to the one who says: He castrated him, that is why he cursed him with regard to the fourth—

But according to the one who says: He sodomized him,

this requires explanation:

What is different about the fourth

that he cursed his

fourth

son? Why did he not curse his other sons

?

And we answer: He holds that

both occurred—he both castrated him and sodomized him.

It is stated there:

“Noah, a man of the soil, began and planted a vineyard,”

why was he called “a man of the soil”?

Rav Hisda said that Rav Ukva said. And some say

that this teaching was transmitted in the name of

Mar Ukva, who said in the name of Rabbi Zakkai:

The words “a man of the soil” allude to Adam, the first man, who was created from the soil—

And so

the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Noah: Noah!

Did you

not have to learn from Adam the first man, that it was not what caused

the decree of death to be imposed upon him,

but

because of

wine,

as will be explained. Therefore Noah is called here “a man of the soil.”

And where do we find that wine caused Adam the first man to receive his curse?

According to the one who says: That tree,

the Tree of Knowledge,

from which Adam the first man ate—

it was a grapevine.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir says: That tree from which Adam the first man ate—

it was a grapevine.