Sanhedrin

MISHNAH. WHEN DOES HE BECOME LIABLE? — WHEN HE EATS A TARTEMAR  OF MEAT AND DRINKS HALF A LOG  OF ITALIAN WINE.  R. JOSE SAID: A MINA  OF FLESH AND A LOG OF WINE. IF HE ATE IT IN A COMPANY [CELEBRATING] A RELIGIOUS ACT, OR GATHERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERCALATING THE MONTH;  IF HE ATE THE SECOND TITHE  IN JERUSALEM;  IF HE ATE THE NEBELOTH  OR TEREFOTH,  ABOMINABLE AND CREEPING THINGS,  OR TEBEL,  OR THE FIRST TITHE FROM WHICH TERUMAH HAD NOT BEEN SEPARATED,  OR UNREDEEMED SECOND TITHE,  OR UNREDEEMED SACRED FOOD;  IF HIS EATING INVOLVED A RELIGIOUS ACT OR A TRANSGRESSION;  IF HE ATE ANY FOOD BUT MEAT OR DRANK ANY DRINK BUT WINE, HE DOES NOT BECOME A 'STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON THEREBY, UNLESS HE EATS MEAT AND DRINKS WINE, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, [THIS OUR SON IS STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS, HE WILL NOT OBEY OUR VOICE;] HE IS A GLUTTON [ZOLEL] AND A DRUNKARD [WE-SOBE].  AND THOUGH THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE PROOF, THERE IS A SUGGESTION FOR THIS, AS IT IS WRITTEN, BE NOT AMONG WINEBIBBERS [BE-SOBE]; AMONG GLUTTONOUS EATERS OF FLESH [BE-ZOLELE]. GEMARA. R. Zera said: I do not know what is this tartemar; but since R. Jose doubled the measure of wine, he must have doubled that of meat too; hence the tartemar is half a mina. R. Hanan b. Moladah said in R. Huna's name: He is not liable unless he buys meat and wine cheaply and consumes them,  for it is written. He is a Zolel.  R. Hanan b. Moladah also said in R. Huna's name: He is not liable unless he eats raw meat and drinks undiluted wine.  But that is not so, for did not Rabbah and R. Joseph both say: If he ate raw meat or drank undiluted wine, he does not become a 'stubborn and rebellious son'? — Rabina answered, by 'undiluted wine' insufficiently diluted wine is meant, and raw meat means only partially cooked, like charred meat eaten by thieves.  Rabbah and R. Joseph both said: If he eats pickled meat or drinks 'wine from the vat', [i. e., new wine before it has matured], he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son'. We learnt elsewhere: On the eve of the ninth of Ab  one must not partake of two courses, neither eat meat nor drink wine.  And a Tanna taught: But he may eat pickled meat and drink new wine.  Now, what length of time must elapse before it is regarded as pickled meat [as opposed to fresh meat]? — R. Hanina b. Kahana said: As long as the flesh of the peace offering may be eaten.  And how long is it called new wine? — As lone as it is in its first stage of fermentation; and it has been taught: wine in the first stage of fermentation does not come within the prohibition against uncovered liquid:  and how long is this first stage? — Three days. Now, what is the law here? — There [the prohibition of eating meat on the eve on the month of Ab] is on account of joy: as long as it is as the flesh of a peace offering, it yields the joy of meat eating. Here, however, it is on account of its seductiveness, and when a short period has passed, it no longer attracts, whilst wine is unattractive until it is forty days old. R. Hanan said: The only purpose for which wine was created was to comfort mourners and requite the wicked,  for it is written, Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish [i.e., the wicked], and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.  R. Isaac said: what is meant by, Look not thou upon the wine when it is red?  — Look not upon the wine, which reddens the faces of the wicked in this world and makes them pale [with shame] in the next. Raba said: Look not thou upon the wine ki yith'addam: look not upon it, for it leads to bloodshed [dam].  R. Kahana raised a difficulty; The Bible writes tirash [for wine], but the word is read tirosh.  — If one has merit, he becomes a leader, if not, he becomes impoverished. Raba raised a difficulty: The Bible writes, [and wine] yeshammah [the heart of man], but it is read yesammah.  — If one has merit, it gladdens him; if not, it saddens him.  And thus Raba said: wine and spices have made me wise. R. Amram the son of R. Simeon b. Abba said in R. Hanina's name: What is meant by, Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine?  — When R. Dimi came,  he said: In the West it is said, In these verses, the second may be interpreted as explanatory of the first, or vice versa. 'Ubar the Galilean gave the following exposition: The letter waw [and]  occurs thirteen times in the passage dealing with wine: And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father, and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.  [With respect to the last verse] Rab and Samuel [differ,] one maintaining that he castrated him, whilst the other says that he sexually abused him. He who maintains that he castrated him, [reasons thus;] Since he cursed him by his fourth son,  he must have injured him with respect to a fourth son.  But he who says that he sexually abused him, draws an analogy between 'and he saw' written twice. Here it is written, And Ham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father; whilst elsewhere it is written, And when Shechem the son of Hamor saw her [he took her and lay with her and defiled her].  Now, on the view that he emasculated him, it is right that he cursed him by his fourth son; but on the view that he abused him, why did he curse his fourth son; he should have cursed him himself? — Both indignities were perpetrated. And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard, — R. Hisda said in R. 'Ukba's name, and others state, Mar 'Ukba said in R. Zakkai's name: The Holy One, blessed be He, said unto Noah: 'Noah, shouldst thou not have taken a warning from Adam, whose transgression was caused by wine?' This agrees with the view that the [forbidden] tree from which Adam ate was a vine. For it has been taught: R. Meir said: That [forbidden] tree from which Adam ate was a vine,