Sanhedrin 70b (ע:) — the Talmud in English

for you have nothing that brings a person to wailing except wine,

therefore it is reasonable that it was because of the wine that death and eternal weeping were decreed upon him.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It was wheat, for a child does not know how to say “Father” and “Mother” until he tastes the taste of grain,

thus wheat brings understanding, and it follows that it was the Tree of Knowledge.

Rabbi Neḥemya says: It was a fig tree, for with the very thing through which they sinned

they were restored, as it is stated

(Genesis 3):

“And they sewed together a fig leaf,”

and this is the attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He: with the instrument with which He strikes, He heals—a miracle within a miracle.

The Gemara continues to expound upon the disgrace of excessive wine drinking.

It is stated in the Book of Proverbs (31):

“The words of Lemuel the king, the burden with which his mother chastised him.”

“What, my son? And what, son of my womb? And what, son of my vows? … It is not for kings, Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes to drink strong drink, lest he drink and forget what has been enacted, and pervert the judgment of all the children of poverty.”

“Lemuel the king” is an appellation for King Solomon: “To him belongs God”—his deeds and wisdom were for the Holy One, blessed be He. “The burden” refers to moral admonition, with which his mother chastised him—Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother.

The Gemara expounds upon the words of admonition that she addressed to her son Solomon, when she saw that he was pleasure-seeking and indulged in his feasts.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai:

“Chastised him” is expounded as referring to lashes, as in the case of the stubborn and rebellious son: “And they shall chastise him,” which the Sages expounded to mean that he is given lashes. —

This teaches that his mother bound him to a post

in the manner of one receiving lashes

, and said to him: “What, my son, and what, son of my womb, and what, son of my vows?” —

“What, my son!” Everyone knows that your father was God-fearing ,

but now

if you continue in your desires and become wicked, people will not attribute this to your father, but

they will say: “His mother caused him”

to become wicked. Therefore she said: “What, my son”—why should you cause people to say of you that you are my son and not David’s son?

“And what, son of my womb! All the women in your father’s household, once they became pregnant, no longer saw the king’s face. But I exerted myself

and

entered

your father

in order that I might have a son who would be vigorous and well developed,

for marital relations during the final three months are beneficial to the fetus. This is the meaning of her statement, “And what, son of my womb”: my womb caused you to be well formed and strong.

“And what, son of my vows! All the women in your father’s household would vow: ‘May I have a son fit for kingship .”

But I vowed and said: ‘May I have a son who is diligent, filled with Torah, and fit for prophecy.’”

And you are drawn after your desires?! No

! “It is not for kings, Lemuel! It is not for kings to drink wine!

It is not for kings!”

Thus

she said to him: “What have you to do with kings who drink wine and become drunk?” “Lemuel” is expounded:

«Lemуэl» —

and

when they become drunk

they say: “Why do we need God?” —

“Nor for princes to drink strong drink,”

and “princes” is expounded as referring to those who know secrets. Thus she said to him:

“Should one to whom all the secrets of the world are revealed drink wine and become drunk?

And say, “Where is strong drink?” ?!

Some say: “Should one to whose door all the princes of the world rise early

to request words of wisdom from him, like the Queen of Sheba,

drink wine and become drunk?”

Would this not cause him to lose his mind?

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where

do we learn

that Solomon repented

from his ways

and acknowledged his mother’s rebuke? —

As it is written

immediately after that burden:

“For I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man;

King Solomon acknowledges that before his mother rebuked and chastised him, he was brutish, without human understanding. This is expounded as follows:

“For I am more brutish than any man”

means

Noah,

who is called a man,

as it is written: “And Noah, the man of the soil, began”;

“And I have not the understanding of a man” — —

this is the first man,”

meaning: I was brutish and without understanding, and I did not learn from their deeds the extent of the disgrace involved in drinking wine, and I drank more than they did.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he ate in a group assembled for a mitzva

he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

The Gemara cites a statement of Rabbi Abbahu. Rabbi Abbahu did not state his ruling as an explanation of the Mishna.

Rabbi Abbahu said:

A stubborn and rebellious son

is not liable until he eats

meat and drinks wine

in a group consisting entirely of empty people,

worthless men. For they will accustom him to disgraceful deeds; but if there is a worthy person in the group, he will not be drawn after them.

And we challenge this:

But

we learned

in our Mishna

in our Mishna:

If he ate in a group assembled for a mitzva, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son—

And we infer:

The reason

that he is not drawn after them is

that

he ate in a group assembled for a

mitzva; but

if it is

not for a mitzva,

he does become a stubborn and rebellious son,

even though the group does not consist entirely of empty people,

as not all of them are worthless men.

The Mishna could have taught us a greater novelty: that even when the group is not assembled for a mitzva, he is exempt if there is a single worthy person present.

And we answer: In fact, he is liable only when the group consists entirely of empty people. Nevertheless,

this teaches us

that the Mishna teaches a greater novelty

, that even though the group consists entirely of empty people,

nevertheless,

since they are engaged in a mitzva,

since they have now gathered for a mitzva meal—

he will not be drawn after them,

he will not be drawn into disgraceful deeds.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he ate at the intercalation of the month

he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

The nature of the meal held for the intercalation of the month will be explained later.

And we challenge this:

Does this mean

that we may infer from this

that

at the meal for the intercalation of the month

meat and wine are brought up,

they are brought up to the upper chamber where they ate, since the stubborn and rebellious son ate with them? —

But

we have

it was taught

in a beraita:

One ascends to it only with grain bread

and legumes alone?

And we answer: Indeed, they ate grain bread and legumes, while the stubborn and rebellious son brought meat and wine up with him.

And this teaches us

that the Mishna teaches:

Even though one ascends to it only with bread and legumes, and he

himself

brought up

with him

meat and wine,

and seemingly he does not join them and cannot be considered to have eaten a mitzva meal—

Nevertheless,

since they are engaged in a mitzva—

he is not drawn after them.

The Gemara now explains what the meal for the intercalation of the month is.

Rashi wrote: Certainly this is not an assembly for deliberating whether to intercalate the month, as described in the first chapter. For they ascended on the night following the day of intercalation, the night after the thirtieth day, when they had already intercalated it; and if they intercalate the month, there is no need for deliberation, since Heaven has already sanctified it. Furthermore, why were ten people needed? There it is stated that three deliberators suffice.

Rather, they would hold an assembly with a meal in order to publicize that the court had intercalated the month.

The Sages taught: One does not ascend for the intercalation of the month with fewer than ten people,

to increase the publicity.

And one ascends to it only with grain bread and legumes.

And one ascends to it only on the night following the intercalation,

the day of intercalation is the thirtieth day, the day on which they “intercalated”—added to the month; and the night following the day of intercalation is the night after the thirtieth day, the night of the thirty-first.

And one ascends to it during the day only in order to remain there at night.

And we raise a contradiction:

But it was taught

in another beraita:

One ascends to it at night only in order to remain there during the day.

And we answer: Indeed, they did this at night, and concerning this it was taught: One ascends during the day only in order to remain there at night. However, because of their great desire to publicize it, they ascended during the day, close to nightfall, so that people would see them ascending; and concerning this it was taught: One ascends at night only in order to remain there during the day.

As Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba said to his sons,

to his sons:

“Hurry

and come early

and ascend!”

to this assembly;

“Hurry and leave!”

hurry to leave this assembly at daybreak, after spending the entire night there. If you delay, those who see you will think that you ascended in the morning. But if you descend immediately at daybreak, they will understand that you sat there all night. If you do this—

“So that people will hear about you,”

the report will spread that they intercalated the month.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he ate second tithe in Jerusalem

he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

The Gemara explains:

Since he is eating it in its customary manner,

he eats it in the manner prescribed by its mitzva. Thus the Torah commanded (Deuteronomy 14): “And you shall spend the money on whatever your soul desires, for cattle, for sheep, for wine, and for strong drink.” Therefore,

he is not drawn after them.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he ate unslaughtered animal carcasses, animals with fatal defects, creeping creatures, or crawling things

he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

The Gemara cites a statement of Rava. Rava did not state his ruling as an explanation of the Mishna.

Rava said: If he ate poultry—

he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son,

since he will not be drawn after it, and it is not like the meat of an animal.

And we challenge this:

But we learned in our Mishna: “If he ate unslaughtered animal carcasses, animals with fatal defects, creeping creatures, or crawling things”

he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son—

And we infer: Only “creeping creatures”—creeping creatures ordinarily refers to impure birds—is the reason that he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, since they are birds that are forbidden to eat;

but

birds that are

pure—

he does become a stubborn and rebellious son.

And we answer: Rava indeed maintains that poultry is not considered meat with regard to the law of a stubborn and rebellious son. But he agrees that if he ate less than an olive-bulk of animal meat—one tartimar—and completed the measure of a tartimar with poultry, it joins with it.

And therefore,

when our Mishna also teaches,

the Mishna comes to teach:

“to complete,”

that if he completed the measure of a tartimar with an olive-bulk of the meat of creeping creatures, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, since it is prohibited food.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he ate something that is a mitzva and something that is a transgression

he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

This is difficult: What does the Mishna teach us? It has already taught us the matter of a mitzva—an assembly for a mitzva, the intercalation of the month, and second tithe in Jerusalem—and the matter of a transgression—unslaughtered animal carcasses, animals with fatal defects, creeping creatures, and crawling things.

And we answer: Had it taught only the matter of a mitzva, one might have understood that this applies only to actual mitzva eating, such as priests eating consecrated food or Israelites eating the Paschal offering.

Therefore it comes to add:

“Something that is a mitzva,”

even though it is not an actual mitzva, such as a

meal of comforting mourners,

which is a rabbinic enactment.

And it likewise teaches us:

“Something that is a transgression,”

that is not prohibited by the Torah, but is, for example, if he ate on a day of

a communal fast,

when the prohibition against eating is rabbinic—

nevertheless, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

The Gemara explains:

And what is the reason?

Why is he exempt for eating prohibited food, whether the prohibition is from the Torah or rabbinic?

The verse says: “He does not heed our voice”—

and it is expounded:

“Our voice”

means that he does not heed the voice of his father and mother, and this excludes

“not”

this one, who eats forbidden food, who does not heed even

the voice of the Omnipresent,

the Holy One, blessed be He.

We learned in our Mishna:

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

he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

This is difficult: What does the Mishna come to add? It already stated explicitly that he is liable only once he eats and drinks wine.

And we answer: One might have thought that it is not specifically meat and wine, but that even foods and beverages similar to them—those that satisfy and intoxicate—would suffice. Therefore the Mishna emphasizes: If he ate “every kind of food” but did not eat meat, or drank “every kind of beverage” but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

And what are those foods and beverages that satisfy and intoxicate like meat and wine?

“If he ate every kind of food but did not eat meat”—this comes to include

among the things with which he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son:

a dried fig,

a fig,

of Ke’ilit,

which comes from that place.

“Or drank every kind of beverage but did not drink wine”—this comes to include honey and milk,

which intoxicate.

As

it was taught:

A priest who

ate a dried fig of Ke’ilit, or drank

or drank

honey,

honey water,

and milk,

and entered

the Temple—