The reason is that all are found frequently with her in sin, and in the end she will be a sinner and cause others to sin. But it is a Torah edict that the penalty for rebelliousness is imposed only upon a son, and not upon a daughter.

MISHNA: From when is a stubborn and rebel-lious son liable? From when he eats a tarteimar of meat and drinks a half-log of Italian wine. Rabbi Yosei says: From when he eats a maneh of meat and drinks a log of wine.

The mishna now lists a series of conditions concerning his eating and drinking. If he ate these items with a group assembled for the performance of a mitzva, or he ate them at a meal celebrating the intercalation of a month, or he ate the items when they had second tithe status, in Jerusalem, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son because each of these circumstances involves some aspect of a mitzva. If he ate the meat of unslaughtered animal carcasses or animals that had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months [tereifot] or repugnant creatures or creeping animals, or he ate untithed produce from which tithes and terumot were not separated, or first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, or second tithe outside Jerusalem or consecrated food that was not redeemed, each of which involves a transgression, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

The mishna summarizes: If he ate an item that involves performing a mitzva or an item that involves committing a transgression, or if he ate any food in the world but did not eat meat, or if he drank any beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he actually eats meat and actually drinks wine, as it is stated: “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he does not listen to our voice; he…is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard [vesovei]” (Deuteronomy 21:20). One is not called a glutton and a drunkard unless he eats meat and drinks wine. And although there is no explicit proof to the matter that the reference in the Torah is to meat and wine, there is an allusion to the matter in another verse, as it is stated: “Be not among wine drinkers [besovei], among gluttonous eaters [bezolelei] of meat” (Proverbs 23:20).

GEMARA: Rabbi Zeira says: Concerning this tarteimar that is mentioned in the mishna, I do not know what its measure is. But since Rabbi Yosei is found to have doubled the measure of the wine, as the unattributed opinion in the mishna speaks of a half-log whereas Rabbi Yosei requires a log, he presumably is found to have doubled the measure of the meat as well. Therefore, it turns out that a tarteimar is equivalent to one-half of a maneh.

Rav Ḥanan bar Molada says that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he purchases inexpen-sive [bezol] meat and eats it, and he buys inexpensive wine and drinks it, as it is written: “He is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard.”

And Rav Ḥanan bar Molada says that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he eats raw meat and drinks undiluted wine. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? But don’t Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: If he ate raw meat or drank undiluted wine he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son? Ravina said: The two conflicting statements can be reconciled. If he ate totally raw meat or drank totally undiluted wine, he is in fact exempt. The undiluted wine for which he is liable is wine that is diluted but not diluted properly. And the raw meat for which he is liable is meat that is cooked but not cooked properly, like the scorched meat that thieves are wont to eat, due to the hasty manner in which they must prepare their food.

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: If he ate heavily salted meat or drank wine from his winepress, i.e., wine that has not finished fermenting, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. And on a related topic we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Ta’anit 26b): On the eve of the Ninth of Av, a person may not eat two cooked dishes in one meal. And furthermore, he may neither eat meat nor drink wine. And a tanna taught in a baraita: But one may eat heavily salted meat, as it is not considered meat, and one many drink wine from his winepress before it has properly fermented.

The Gemara asks: With regard to salted meat on the eve of the Ninth of Av, how long must this meat remain in salt before it is permitted? Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana says: As long as it is like a peace-offering, which could be eaten for two days and one night after it was sacrificed. After this time has passed, it is no longer the type of meat that one may not eat during that meal. Therefore, if it was salted for longer than this, it may be eaten on the eve of the Ninth of Av.

The Gemara inquires further: And with regard to wine from his press before it has properly fermented, until when is wine considered in this category? As long as it is still fermenting. And it is taught in a baraita: Fermenting wine is not subject to the prohibition of exposed liquids, as there is no concern that a snake will leave its venom in that wine. And how long is its initial fermenting period? Three days from the time the grapes were pressed.

The Gemara clarifies: These definitions of salty meat and wine from his winepress were stated with regard to the prohibitions applying on the eve of the Ninth of Av. Here, concerning a stubborn and rebellious son, what is considered salty meat and wine from his press? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the eve of the Ninth of Av, the prohibition is due to joy; as long as the meat is like a peace-offering, there is still joy. But here, with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son, it is due to the son becoming drawn to it, and if the taste of the meat is flawed only slightly he will not be drawn to it. And with regard to wine, there is no concern that he will be drawn to it until it is forty days old.

§ The Gemara’s discussion turns to wine in general. Rav Ḥanan says: Wine was created in the world only to comfort mourners in their distress, and to reward the wicked in this world so that they will have no reward left in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter of soul” (Proverbs 31:6). “Him that is ready to perish” is referring to the wicked, who will perish from this world, while “the bitter of soul” denotes mourners.

Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Look not upon wine when it is red” (Proverbs 23:31)? Look not upon wine that reddens the faces of the wicked in this world when they drink it, and whitens their faces, i.e., embarrasses them, in the World-to-Come. Rava says that this is how the verse should be understood: “Look not upon wine that reddens [yitaddam]” means: Look not upon wine, as it leads to bloodshed [dam], indicating that one who drinks wine will end up committing an act of killing or will be killed because of it.

Rav Kahana raises a contradiction: The verse states: “Therefore, they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow to the bounty of the Lord, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd” (Jeremiah 31:11). The word for wine is written tirash, without the letter vav, but we read it as tirosh, with the letter vav. The matter can explained as follows: If one merits and drinks a moderate amount he becomes a leader [rosh], whereas if he does not merit and drinks excessively he becomes poor [rash].

Rava raises a similar contradiction: It is written: “And wine that gladdens the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15). The word for gladdens could be read as yeshamaḥ, meaning that wine makes one crazy, but we read it as yesamaḥ, gladdens the heart. The matter can be explained as follows: If one merits and drinks a moderate amount the wine gladdens him [mesameḥo], whereas if he does not merit and drinks excessively it makes him crazy [meshamemehu]. And that is what Rava meant when he said: Wine and fragrant spices have made me wise; that is to say, the controlled drinking of wine is beneficial to the drinker.

Rav Amram, son of Rabbi Shimon bar Abba, says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who cries, Woe? Who cries, Alas? Who has quarrels? Who has complaints? Who has causeless injuries? Who has redness of eyes? They who tarry long at the wine, they who go to seek mixed wine” (Proverbs 23:29–30)? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that one who interprets this verse from the beginning to the end interprets it in a way that has meaning and significance. And also one who interprets it from the end to the beginning interprets it in a meaningful manner. It is possible to interpret these verses from the beginning to the end and say: Woe and alas to one who drinks wine; and it is also possible to interpret them from the end to the beginning: Who drinks wine? He who has quarrels, complaints, and injuries.

A visitor from the Galilee expounded: The conversive vav is stated thirteen times in the passage concerning wine, as it is stated: “And Noah began [vayyaḥel] to be a farmer, and he planted [vayyita] a vineyard, and he drank [vayyesht] of the wine, and was drunk [vayyishkar]; and he was uncovered [vayyitgal] within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw [vayyar] the nakedness of his father, and told [vayyagged] his two brothers outside. And Shem and Japheth took [vayyikaḥ] the garment, and laid it [vayyasimu] upon both their shoulders, and went [vayyelekhu] backward, and covered [vaykhassu] the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke [vayyiketz] from his wine, and knew [vayyeda] what his younger son had done to him” (Genesis 9:20–24). All thirteen instances of the conversive vav here are followed by the letter yod. Together they form the word vay, meaning woe, and allude to the suffering and misfortune caused by uncontrolled drinking.

Having cited the passage discussing Noah, the Gemara enters into a discussion about what was actually done to him by his younger son, Ham. Rav and Shmuel disagreed: One says that Ham castrated Noah and one says that Ham sodomized him.

The Gemara explains: The one who says that Ham castrated Noah adduces the following proof: Since he injured Noah with respect to the possibility of conceiving a fourth son, which Noah wanted but could no longer have, therefore Noah cursed him by means of Ham’s fourth son. Ham’s sons were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan (see Genesis 10:6), and of all of these, it was Canaan whom Noah cursed (see Genesis 9:25–28). And the one who says that Ham sodomized Noah learned this from a verbal analogy between the words “and he saw” and “and he saw.” Here it is written: “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father”; and there it is written: “And Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, and he took her, and lay with her, and afflicted her” (Genesis 34:2). This indicates that the term “saw” alludes to sexual intercourse.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that Ham castrated Noah, it is due to that reason that Noah cursed Ham by means of Ham’s fourth son. But according to the one who says that Ham sodomized him, what is different about his fourth son? He should have cursed Ham directly. The Gemara answers: This Sage holds that both this offense and that offense were committed. All agree that Ham castrated Noah, and some say that Ham also sodomized him.

The Gemara continues to analyze the passage relating to Noah. The verse states: “And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.” In explanation of this matter, Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Ukva says, and some say that Mar Ukva says that Rabbi Zakkai says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Noah: Noah, shouldn’t you have learned from Adam the first man, whose banishment from the Garden of Eden was caused only by wine? The Gemara notes: This is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the tree from which Adam the first man ate was a grapevine.

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: The tree from which Adam the first man ate was a grapevine,