Sanhedrin 70a — the Talmud in English

And what is the reasoning? Because

everything is available to her through transgression

, and when she is a glutton and a drunkard in her youth, in the end, when she does not find her accustomed fare—even though it is not her way to rob people—she stands at crossroads and entices people to fornication for the sake of a harlot’s fee

Rather,

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

It is a scriptural 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 abundant eating and drinking; and

from when

indeed is he

liable?

From

when he

eats

the measure of

a tartimar

(which is half a maneh)

of meat, and drinks half a log of Italian wine

, from the land of Italy, and it is choice and good wine; but with other wines, a greater measure is required

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

.

These are the words of the Sages. Rabbi Yose says: a maneh of meat and a log of wine. This eating applies only when he ate optional food; but if he ate the food of a mitzva, or even joined in his eating with those who eat at a mitzva meal, he is exempt.

And likewise if he ate forbidden food.

And the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

He ate

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

in a group for a mitzva

, a mitzva meal; and likewise if he

ate at a

meal that they would make at the assembly at which they would gather for the

intercalation of the new month.

And likewise if he

ate second tithe in Jerusalem

, having stolen money of his father’s second tithe and purchased meat and wine with it and eaten in Jerusalem, and this is the eating of a mitzva

. Or if he ate forbidden food, for example, if he

ate

meat

of carcasses and animals suffering a terminal defect, creeping things and crawling creatures,

(ate

—that is, 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 are forbidden eating)

. And not specifically the eating of a mitzva or a transgression by Torah law; rather, even if he

ate something that is a mitzva

by rabbinic law,

and something that is a transgression

by rabbinic law.

In all these cases he is exempt.

If he ate every kind of food but did not eat meat, or drank every kind of drink 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.”

And from where do we learn that “glutton” means meat, and “drunkard” means wine? From the following verse:

And although there is no

verse that follows

proof of the matter

, for the fact that in the following verse King Solomon warns not to be a glutton for meat and not to be a drunkard with wine cannot provide a complete proof that his intention is specifically to meat and wine, and it is possible that one is also called a glutton and a drunkard with other foods and drinks; rather, Solomon warns concerning meat and wine because they are especially alluring—

nevertheless, there is in the verse

a remembrance of the matter!

And what is the verse?

As it is stated (Proverbs 23):

(Proverbs 23):

“Do not be among wine-drinkers, among gluttons for meat.”

Gemara:

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

Rabbi Zeira said: This tartimar, I do not know what it is—

Rather,

it is possible to learn its measure from the words of Rabbi Yose:

since Rabbi Yose doubled the

measure of

wine

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

it follows that he also doubles the meat, and

he 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.

Rabbi Hanan bar Molדה

—that is his name—

said Rabbi Huna: He is not liable

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

Until he takes

—purchases with money that he stole from his father—

meat cheaply and eats it

; and likewise he purchases

wine cheaply and drinks it.

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

And although he said this on the basis of reasoning, nevertheless he supports it with what

is written: “A glutton and a drunkard,” “glutton” in the sense of “cheap.”

“Glutton” from the expression “cheap.”

And

further

Rabbi Hanan bar Molדה said in the name of Rav Huna: He is not liable

for every kind of meat and wine—

rather,

until he eats raw meat

, which is not cooked,

and drinks raw wine

, which is not mixed with water. As will be explained.

And we object:

Is that so?

It is not so—

But Rabbah 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

.

And this is difficult for Rav Huna, who makes him liable only for raw meat and wine.

And we answer:

Ravina said:

There is no contradiction between the statements, and both are saying the same thing. With genuinely raw meat and wine, everyone agrees that he is exempt.

And what Rav Huna said:

raw wine—

that is,

partially mixed and not fully mixed

, a slight dilution, with a little water; for if he dilutes it properly, according to the measure of dilution, he is not liable.

And likewise, what Rav Huna said:

raw meat—

that is,

partially cooked and not fully cooked

, to its full extent. For this is the way of thieves: to hurry to eat before the cooking is complete. But if he ate meat fully cooked, he will not be drawn after it, since he purchases the meat with stolen money and performs his deeds secretly; he has no time to wait until the cooking is complete.

And what is called “partially cooked and not fully cooked”?

Like meat roasted

over coals,

which thieves eat

, for it is the way of thieves to eat it.

The Gemara brings another halakha.

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

, whose taste has been changed by its salt,

and drank wine from its vat

, whose fermentation was not completed [as though it were still in the vat]

, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son

, because they are not important and he is not drawn after them.

For how many days must it remain in its salt for it to be called “salted meat,” and until when is wine called “wine from its vat”? Seemingly, this can be learned from another halakha—

We learned there

, in tractate Taanit:

On the eve of the Ninth of Av, a person may not eat two cooked dishes

, meat and fish, or meat and eggs upon it, or fish and an egg upon it

, and he may not eat meat or drink wine

, because of mourning over the destruction of the Temple.

And a tanna

—we learned a beraita there:

But he may eat salted meat

, which does not gladden and does not contradict the mourning,

and drink wine from its vat.

And there the amoraim explained the beraita:

Salted meat—until when?

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

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

a

peace-offering

, whose time for eating is two days and one night, moisture still remains in it and it gladdens the heart; and peace-offerings gladden the heart, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27): “And you shall slaughter peace-offerings and eat there and rejoice.”

And wine from its vat—until when?

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 time of its fermentation?

It was taught: Fermenting wine has no

prohibition of

exposure,

which is the prohibition against drinking exposed wine because of the danger of a snake, lest it have put venom into it, since snakes do not drink fermenting wine;

and how long

is the time of its

fermentation? Three days.

And the halakha concerning the eve of the Ninth of Av is explained: salted meat is anything that remained in its salt for two days and one night, and wine from its vat is wine that has undergone three days of fermentation.

And the discussion is:

Here,

concerning the law of the wayward and rebellious son,

what

is the measure of salted meat and wine from its vat for him to be exempt concerning them, according to the words of Rabbah and Rav Yosef? Is it comparable to the law of the eve of the Ninth of Av, or is there room to distinguish between them?

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

. There

, concerning the eve of the Ninth of Av, the reason for the prohibition against eating meat and drinking wine

is because of joy

, and therefore,

as long as it is like peace-offerings

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

there is also joy in it

, it does not lose its taste so greatly, and it gladdens;

and

if

here

, concerning the wayward and rebellious son, the reason for his liability

is because of being drawn after it

, that he will be drawn after his habit,

and in any amount

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

until

there have passed

forty days,

and before that he is not drawn after it.

Since we have learned that abundant drinking of wine draws a person after ugly deeds, the Gemara brings statements of tannaim and amoraim condemning the drinking of wine.

Rabbi Hanan said: Wine was not created in the world

,

except

in order

to comfort

with it

mourners and

in order

to pay 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): “

(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 bitter of soul

[mourners, whose sorrow the wine clears].

Rabbi Yitzhak said: What

is the meaning

of what 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 be drawn after it, for “when it reddens,” from the expression “red”— \-

for it reddens the faces of the wicked in this world

because of their abundant drinking,

and whitens their faces in the World to Come

because of great shame.

Rava said: “It reddens” is from the expression “blood”:

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

“Do not look at wine”—

whose end is blood

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

. Rav Kahana raised a contradiction

:

It is written: “You will impoverish”

, with the letter vav missing, and it is read:

“Wine.”

And he answers:

If he merits

, drinking according to measure and guarding himself from abundant drinking,

he becomes a leader

—the wine sharpens his heart with wisdom, and therefore it is read “wine,” “you shall be a head”;

if he does not merit

—

he becomes poor

, from the expression “poor and needy,” and therefore it is written “you will impoverish,” “you shall be poor.”

Rava raised a contradiction :

It is written (Psalms 104), “And wine

(Psalms 104): “And wine

will gladden

the heart of man,” and the writing is without vowels; it can be read with a right shin, whose meaning is from the expression “desolation,” that wine makes him desolate and removes the wisdom of his heart,

but it is read: “will gladden”

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

And he answers:

If he merits—

the wine

gladdens him; if he does not merit—

it makes him desolate.

And this is what Rava said: Wine

and

fragrances

, kinds of spices,

make wise

—they made me wise.

Rabbi Amram, son of Rabbi Shaman bar Abba, said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: What

is the meaning

of what is written (Proverbs 23):

(Proverbs 23):

“For whom is woe? For whom is lament

[a cry]?

For whom are quarrels

[judgment and strife]?

For whom is sorrow

[pain]?

For whom are wounds without cause?

For whom are rednesses of eyes

[red eyes]?

For those who tarry

[delay]

over wine, for those who come to investigate mixed wine

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

When

, то есть когда

Rav Dimi

came from the Land of Israel,

he said: They say in the West: This verse

—

the one who expounds it from its beginning to its end

, from its beginning to its end,

is expounded

properly. And this is its explanation: For whom are sorrow, cries, quarrels, wounds, and red eyes? For one who is avid for wine.

And

the one who expounds

from its end to its beginning

from its end to its beginning -

is also expounded

well, for one who has woe and lamentation, namely, mourners, and for one who has quarrels and wounds for nothing, namely, a wicked person who fights with people, and for one whose eyes are red and sunken from an excess of fat, it is fitting for them to delay over wine, become drunk, and forget their toil.

A Galilean expounded: thirteen vavs

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

were said

concerning wine -

It is stated (Genesis 9:

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

to teach us that drinking wine brings great distress, from the expression “woe.”

And moving from one matter to another, the Gemara explains the incident with Noah.

It is stated: “what his youngest son had done”; what indeed did he do?

They disputed this,

Rav and Shmuel.

One

one of the two, and it was not stated which one,

said: He castrated him

so that he would no longer father sons.

And one said: He sodomized him

male intercourse.

The Gemara explains the two opinions:

The one who says: He castrated him

explains:

Since

Ham

impaired him with regard to

fathering a son

fourth,

therefore

he cursed

Noah cursed Ham

with

his son

fourth,

and that was Canaan.

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

he learned it by a gezerah shavah:

“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 lay with her, so here he lay with him.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to the one who says: He castrated him, for that reason he cursed him with a fourth -,

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

this requires explanation,

what is different about a fourth

why did he curse his

fourth son; let him curse him explicitly

why did he not curse his other sons?

And we answer: He holds:

This and that occurred

both happened: he both castrated him and sodomized him.

It is stated there:

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

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

Rav Hisda said in the name of Rav Ukva. And some say

there is one who transmitted this tradition in the name of

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

the words “the man of the soil” contain a hint to the first man, who was created from the soil -

And thus

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

Did

you not have to learn from the first man, whose death was not caused for him

that death was decreed upon him,

except

because of

wine,

as will be explained. And therefore Noah is called here “the man of the soil.”

And how do we find that wine caused the first man his curse?

According to the one who says: That tree

the tree of knowledge

from which the first man ate -

was a vine.

For it was taught: Rabbi Meir says: That tree from which the first man ate -

was a vine.