Sanhedrin 70b — the Talmud in English

for you have no matter that brings wailing upon a person except wine,

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

Rabbi Judah says: It was wheat. For a child does not know how to call “father” and “mother” until he tastes the taste of grain,

so wheat brings understanding, and therefore it indicates that it was the tree of knowledge .

Rabbi Nehemiah says: It was a fig tree. For with the thing with which they sinned—

with it they were rectified, as it is stated (Genesis 3):

(Genesis 3)

“And they sewed together a fig leaf,”

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

The Gemara adds to expound the disgrace of drinking a great deal of wine.

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 intoxicating drink! Lest he drink and forget what is decreed, and pervert the judgment of all the poor.”

“Lemuel the king”—this is an appellation for King Solomon: “to him, God”; his deeds and his wisdom belong to the Holy One, blessed is He. “The burden”—this is moral reproof, “with which his mother chastised him,” Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother.

The Gemara expounds her words of reproof to her son Solomon, when she saw that he was pleasure-seeking and increased his feasting.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: “Chastised him” his mother is expounded in the language of “lashes” [as it is stated concerning the stubborn and rebellious son: “And they shall chastise him,” and the Sages expounded that he is given lashes.]—

“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 the pillar

in the manner of those who are given 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 ,

now

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

they will say: “His mother caused him”

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

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

to

enter

your father,

so that I would have a son who was vigorous and well-formed,

for marital relations are beneficial to the fetus during the last three months. And this is her statement, “And what, son of my womb”: my womb caused you to be well-formed and powerful.

“And what, son of my vows!” All the women of 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

as follows:

And

when they become drunk

they say: “Why do we need God?”—

“And for princes, intoxicating drink,”

and it is expounded: “princes” in the language of “secret”; and thus she said to him:

“One to whom all the secrets of the world are revealed—shall he drink wine and become drunk?!

And say: “Where is intoxication” ?!

There are those who say: “One to whose doorway all the princes of the world rise early

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

shall he drink wine and become drunk?!””

Will his mind not become confused?

Rabbi Isaac said: From where

do we learn

that Solomon repented

from

it and acknowledged his mother—

For it is written

immediately after that burden:

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

King Solomon acknowledges that before his mother reproved and chastised him, he was brutish, without human understanding. And it is expounded:

“For I am more brutish than any man”

that is,

Noah,

who was called a man,

as it is written: “And Noah, the man of the earth,”

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

this is the first man,”

that is, I was brutish, without understanding, and I did not learn from their deeds the greatness of the disgrace in drinking wine, and I drank more than they did .

We learned in our Mishna:

If he ate in a mitzva gathering

[he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son].

The Gemara brings a statement of Rabbi Abbahu [Rabbi Abbahu did not state his law as an explanation of the Mishna].

Rabbi Abbahu said:

A stubborn and rebellious son

is not liable until he eats

meat and wine

in a gathering consisting entirely of empty men,

empty people. For they will accustom him to disgraceful deeds; but if there is a proper person in the gathering, he will not be drawn after this .

And we raise an objection:

And

but

we learned

in our Mishna:

If he ate in a mitzva gathering, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son—

And we infer:

The reason—

the reason that he is not drawn after them is

that

he ate in a gathering of

mitzva; but

if

it is not a mitzva,

he does become a stubborn and rebellious son,

even though it does not consist entirely of empty men,

for not all of them are empty people.

The Mishna could have taught us a greater novelty: that even a gathering that is not for a mitzva—he would also be exempt if there were one proper person there.

And we answer: In fact, he is liable only in a gathering consisting entirely of empty men; and indeed,

this teaches us,

the Mishna teaches us a great novelty

, that even though it consists entirely of empty men,

nevertheless,

since he is occupied with a mitzva,

since their joining together now is for a mitzva meal—

he is not drawn after them,

he will not be drawn to 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 of the intercalation of the month will be explained below.

And we raise an objection:

Does this mean

that we learn from this

that

for the meal of the intercalation of the month—

they bring up meat and wine,

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

And

but

it was taught:

we learned in a beraita:

One goes up 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 up meat and wine with him,

and this teaches us

the Mishna teaches us:

even though one goes up to it only with bread and legumes, and he

himself

brought up

brought up with him

meat and wine,

and ostensibly he does not join them, and it is not called that he ate a mitzva meal—

Nevertheless,

since he is occupied with a mitzva—

he is not drawn after them.

Now the Gemara explains what the meal of the intercalation of the month is.

And Rashi wrote: Certainly this is not an assembly for the purpose of examining whether to intercalate the month, as explained in the first chapter, for they went up at the light of its intercalation, which is the night following the thirtieth day, after they had already intercalated it; and if they intercalate the month, there is no need at all for examination, since Heaven has already sanctified it. Furthermore, why did they require ten people, when it was stated there that three examiners 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 go up for the intercalation of the month with fewer than ten people,

to increase the publicity.

And one goes up to it only with grain bread and legumes.

And one goes up to it only at the light of its intercalation,

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

And one does not go up to it during the day, but at night.

And we challenge this:

But it was taught

for we learned in another beraita:

One does not go up to it at night, but during the day.

And we answer: Indeed, they did it at night, and concerning this we learned: One does not go up during the day except at night. Rather, because of their great desire to do it publicly, they went up while it was still daytime, close to nightfall, so that people would see them when they went up; and concerning this we learned: One does not go up at night except during the day .

As Rav Hiyya bar Abba said to his sons

to his sons:

Hurry

go early

and go up!

to this assembly,

hurry and go out!

Go out early from this assembly at dawn, when it is morning, after you have been there all night; and if you delay, those who see you will think that you went up in the morning. But if you descend immediately at dawn, they will understand that you sat there all night; and if you do so—

so that people will hear about it through 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 eats it in its customary manner,

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

he is not drawn after them.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he ate unslaughtered animals, animals with a fatal defect, repugnant creatures, and creeping things.

[He does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.]

The Gemara brings a statement of Rava. [Rava did not state his law as an explanation of the Mishna.]

Rava said: If he ate poultry—

he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son,

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

And we raise an objection:

But we learned: If he ate unslaughtered animals, animals with a fatal defect, repugnant creatures, and creeping things—

he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son—

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

but

birds

that are pure—

he becomes a stubborn and rebellious son.

And we answer: Rava indeed holds that poultry meat is not considered meat with regard to the law of a stubborn and rebellious son, but he concedes that if he ate a tarteimar less than an olive-bulk of animal meat, and completed the measure of a tarteimar with poultry meat, it joins with it—

And therefore,

when the Mishna also teaches,

the Mishna comes to teach us

to complete,

that if he completed the measure of a tarteimar with an olive-bulk of the meat of “repugnant creatures,” he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, since it is forbidden eating.

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.]

It may be challenged: What does the Mishna teach us? It already taught us something that is a mitzva— a mitzva gathering, the intercalation of the month, and second tithe in Jerusalem—and likewise something that is a transgression—unslaughtered animals, animals with a fatal defect, repugnant creatures, and creeping things.

And we answer: If it had taught only something that is a mitzva, it would have been understood to refer 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 from the Torah, but, for example, if he ate on

a communal fast day,

when the prohibition of eating on it 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 a transgression, whether for eating a prohibition from the Torah or for a rabbinic prohibition .

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

and it is expounded:

“Our voice”

means that it is specifically to the voice of his father and mother that he does not listen; and it comes to exclude:

and not

this one, who eats forbidden food, for he does not listen even

to the voice of the Omnipresent,

the Holy One, blessed is He.

We learned in our Mishna:

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 stubborn and rebellious son.

It may be challenged: What does the Mishna come to include? It already stated explicitly: until he eats and drinks wine.

And we answer: It might enter your mind that it is not specifically meat and wine, but also foods and drinks similar to them—in that they satisfy and intoxicate. Therefore the Mishna emphasizes: He ate “every kind of food” but did not eat meat, and drank “every kind of drink” but did not drink wine—he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

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

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

it comes to include among the things through which he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son

dveila,

figs,

ke'ilit,

which comes from that place.

“If he drank every kind of drink but did not drink wine”—to include honey and milk,

which intoxicate.

As

it was taught:

a priest who

ate dveila ke'ilit, and drank

or drank

honey

honey-water

and milk

and entered

the Temple—