Talmud - Sanhedrin 70b סנהדרין ע׳ ב׳

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 “the Tree of Knowledge.” Rabbi Neḥemya 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: “And they sewed together fig leaves, and made for themselves loincloths” (Genesis 3:7).

§ The Gemara continues its discussion of wine. Referring to the verse that states: “The words of King Lemuel, the burden with which his mother corrected him” (Proverbs 31:1), Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: This teaches that when Solomon’s mother Bathsheba saw Solomon engaged in excessive drinking, she bound him to a pillar to have him flogged. And she said to him: “What, my son? And what, son of my womb? And what, son of my vows?” (Proverbs 31:2). She meant: “What, my son?” 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.

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

“And what, son of my vows?” That is to say: With regard to all of the women of your father’s 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.

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

Rabbi Yitzḥak 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: “For I am more foolish than a man, and have not the understanding of a man” (Proverbs 30:2). This should be understood as follows: “For I am more foolish than a man [ish]”; that is, I am more foolish than Noah, who sinned with wine and is called “a man,” as it is written: “And Noah began to be a farmer [ish ha’adama]” (Genesis 9:20). “And have not the understanding of a man [adam]”; 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.

§ 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.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t 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.

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’t 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.

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’s intercalation; and they ascend not by day, but only at night. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in another baraita: They ascend not at night, but only by day? The Gemara explains: As Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.

§ 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.

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.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t 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.

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.

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

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’ila, 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.

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

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Sanhedrin 70b explores rabbinic debates on the Tree of Knowledge's identity and recounts Bathsheba's rebuke of Solomon over excessive wine drinking.