This is the first part of a two-part series. The outline of the series is below.
Part 1
This sugya develops a sustained discussion of wine, drunkenness, and their consequences, moving from general observations about wine to biblical narratives involving Noah, Adam, and Solomon.
The discussion begins with a series of interpretations of verses in Proverbs, Jeremiah, and Psalms that present wine as a substance with sharply divergent effects: It can provide consolation, pleasure, and even intellectual stimulation, but it can also produce poverty, shame, violence, madness, and moral failure.
The sugya then turns to Noah’s drunkenness after the Flood, using that episode both as an illustration of the dangers of wine and as the basis for a detailed interpretation of what Ham did to Noah. From Noah, the discussion moves backward to Adam and the Tree of Knowledge, and finally forward to Solomon, whose mother Bathsheba rebukes him for excessive drinking. The resulting sequence places several major biblical figures within a common framework of drinking, loss of control, and failure to learn from precedent.
The opening statements focus on the purposes and effects of wine. Rav Hanan interprets Proverbs 31:6, “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter of soul,” as identifying two legitimate functions: wine comforts mourners, while the pleasures of this world serve as the reward of the wicked before their punishment in the World-to-Come. R’ Yitzhak reads Proverbs 23:31, “Look not upon wine when it is red,” as a warning that wine may redden the drinker’s face in this world but ultimately whiten it with shame in the World-to-Come. Rava offers a more concrete wordplay: the reddening of wine, yitadam, evokes dam, “blood,” because excessive drinking can lead to murder.
Other statements emphasize wine’s potential for both good and bad. Rav Kahana interprets the defective spelling of tirosh, wine, as containing two possible outcomes: One who “merits” becomes a rosh, “a leader,” while one who does not becomes rash, “poor.” Rava similarly exploits the wording of Psalms 104:15, “wine that gladdens the heart of man.” Properly used, wine gladdens; improperly used, it drives a person into a disturbed state. Rava’s own statement that wine and fragrant spices made him perceptive provides a positive example of controlled consumption. Wine can therefore enhance sociability, pleasure, and mental sharpness, while excessive drinking produces the opposite effects.
The sugya then interprets Proverbs 23:29-30 as describing a reciprocal relationship between drinking and distress. The verses ask who suffers woe, quarrels, complaints, wounds, and reddened eyes, and answer: those who linger over wine. According to the sages of Eretz Yisrael, however, the passage can be read in either direction: Drinking produces misery, but people already suffering from quarrels, complaints, and wounds may also be drawn toward drinking. The sugya thus presents drunkenness both as a cause of personal disorder and as a response to it.
Part 2
The discussion then turns to the biblical paradigm of destructive drunkenness: Noah in Genesis 9. An anonymous Galilean interpreter notes that the narrative contains 13 consecutive verbal forms beginning with the Hebrew letter vav followed by yod. These letters together spell vay, “woe,”1 allowing the entire sequence, from Noah’s planting of a vineyard through his drinking, nakedness, Ham’s act, and Noah’s awakening, to be read as a chain of calamities associated with wine.
The focus then shifts from Noah’s drinking to the obscure description of Ham seeing “the nakedness of his father.” Rav and Shmuel dispute what Ham actually did: One maintains that Ham castrated Noah; the other that he sexually penetrated him. The castration interpretation explains why Noah cursed Canaan, Ham’s fourth son: Ham deprived Noah of the possibility of producing a fourth son, and Noah therefore punished him through Ham’s own fourth son. The sexual-penetration interpretation is derived through a verbal analogy between “and he saw” in the Noah episode and “and Shechem saw her” in the account of Shechem’s rape of Dinah in Genesis 34. The apparently euphemistic biblical language is thus read as indicating a sexual assault.
Noah’s failure is next connected with Adam’s. God is represented as rebuking Noah for failing to learn from Adam, whose own downfall had likewise been caused by wine. This interpretation presupposes the view that the Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine. A baraita records three identifications of the tree. R’ Meir identifies it as a grapevine, arguing from the continuing association between wine and human wailing and trouble. R’ Yehuda identifies it as wheat, because a child develops the knowledge required to call its parents “father” and “mother” only after tasting grain. R’ Nehemya identifies it as a fig tree, reasoning that Adam and Eve repaired the consequences of their sin with the same species involved in the sin itself: after eating from the tree, they covered themselves with fig leaves.
The final major section turns from primordial history to the monarchy. Proverbs 31 is read as Bathsheba’s rebuke of Solomon for drunkenness. R’ Yohanan, citing R’ Shimon ben Yohai, interprets the statement that King Lemuel’s mother “corrected him” as indicating that Bathsheba physically restrained Solomon while reprimanding him. Her repeated address, “What, my son? And what, son of my womb? And what, son of my vows?,” is unpacked phrase by phrase.
“What, my son?” refers to Solomon’s parentage and public reputation. Since David was known as God-fearing, Bathsheba warns that Solomon’s misconduct will be attributed to his mother. “Son of my womb” recalls her efforts during pregnancy: unlike David’s other wives, who ceased sexual relations with the king after conceiving, Bathsheba continued to enter David’s chamber because this would produce a strong and fair-skinned child. “Son of my vows” refers to her ambitions for Solomon. David’s other wives prayed for sons fit for kingship; Bathsheba prayed for a son who would be diligent, filled with Torah, and fit for prophecy.
Her rebuke then focuses specifically on the incompatibility between drunkenness and kingship. “It is not for kings to drink wine” is interpreted as a warning against rulers who drink until they become irreligious and ask why they need God. The continuation, “nor for princes to say: Where is strong drink?,” is applied directly to Solomon. One interpretation understands rozenim, “princes,” through razim, “secrets”: a man to whom the “secrets of the world” have been revealed should not become drunk. Another retains the political sense: a king before whose door the princes of the world assemble cannot ethically afford drunkenness.
The sugya closes by linking Solomon explicitly back to Noah and Adam. R’ Yitzhak interprets Proverbs 30:2, “For I am more foolish than a man, and have not the understanding of a man,” as Solomon’s acknowledgment that his mother was correct. The first “man” refers to Noah, called ish ha-adamah, “a man of the earth”; the second refers to Adam. Solomon thus confesses that he failed to learn from two earlier figures whose stories had already demonstrated the dangers associated with wine.
Across the sugya, wine functions as both a practical substance and an interpretive theme connecting otherwise separate biblical texts. The discussion begins with general maxims about its physical, psychological, social, and eschatological effects; proceeds to Noah as the principal biblical example of catastrophic drunkenness; extends Noah’s failure backward to Adam through the identification of the Tree of Knowledge as a grapevine; and concludes with Solomon’s failure to learn from both predecessors. Proverbs, Genesis, Psalms, and Jeremiah are linked through wordplay, spelling, verbal analogy, narrative comparison, and homiletical reinterpretation. The recurring distinction is between controlled and uncontrolled drinking: wine can console, gladden, and sharpen the mind, but drunkenness can produce poverty, shame, violence, sexual degradation, impaired judgment, and failure in religious and political leadership.
Outline
Intro
The Passage
Rav Ḥanan - Wine was created to comfort mourners and to give the wicked their reward in this world - Proverbs 31:6
R’ Yitzḥak - Wine reddens the faces of the wicked in this world but ultimately brings them shame in the World-to-Come - Proverbs 23:31
Rava - “Wine when it reddens” alludes to blood: excessive drinking leads to murder - Proverbs 23:31
Rav Kahana - The defective spelling of tirosh indicates wine’s double potential: if one merits, it makes him a leader; if not, it makes him poor - Jeremiah 31:12
Rava - Wine likewise has two possible effects: properly used, it gladdens; improperly used, it drives a person mad - Psalms 104:15
Rava - Wine and fragrant spices sharpen the mind
Rav Dimi citing the sages of Eretz Yisrael - Proverbs 23:29–30 can be interpreted in both directions: drinking causes misery, and those already embroiled in misery are drawn to drink
Part 2
Anonymous Galilean - The Noah narrative contains 13 occurrences of Hebrew letter vav (“and”) followed by yod, spelling vay (“woe” - symbolizing the suffering caused by wine) - Genesis 9:20–24
Rav and Shmuel - One says Ham castrated Noah; the other says he sexually penetrated him - Genesis 9:22–24
The castration view explains why Noah cursed Ham through his 4th son, Canaan: Ham prevented Noah from having a 4th son - Genesis 10:6; Genesis 9:25
The view that Ham sexually penetrated Noah derives Ham’s act through a verbal analogy between “and he saw” in Noah’s story and “and he saw” in the account of Shechem’s rape of Dinah - Genesis 9:22; Genesis 34:2
Rav Ḥisda citing Rav Ukva / Mar Ukva citing R’ Zakkai - God rebuked Noah for failing to learn from Adam, whose downfall was likewise caused by wine
This is according to the view that the Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine - Genesis 9:20
R’ Meir - The Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine, since wine uniquely brings wailing and trouble upon a person
R’ Yehuda - The Tree of Knowledge was wheat, as a child does not acquire the knowledge to call “father” and “mother” until tasting grain
R’ Neḥemya - The Tree of Knowledge was a fig tree, as Adam and Eve repaired their sin using the same species with which they sinned - Genesis 3:7
R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Shimon ben Yoḥai - Bathsheba physically restrained Solomon and rebuked him for excessive drinking - Proverbs 31:1–2
“What, my son?” - Bathsheba warned Solomon that people would blame his behavior on her rather than his God-fearing father David
“And what, son of my womb?” - Bathsheba explained to Solomon that she continued to have sex with David while pregnant with him in order to produce a strong and fair-skinned son
“And what, son of my vows?” - Unlike David’s other wives, who prayed merely for sons fit for kingship, Bathsheba prayed for a son diligent in Torah and fit for prophecy
“It is not for kings” - Bathsheba continues to rebuke Solomon - A king should not imitate drunken kings who become irreligious and ask why they need God
“Nor for princes [rozenim] to say: Where is strong drink?” - Solomon, to whom the secrets of the world were revealed, should not become drunk
Alternate interpretation - Solomon, before whose door the princes of the world assemble, should not become drunk
R’ Yitzḥak - Solomon eventually acknowledged his mother’s rebuke, admitting that he had failed to learn from Noah and Adam, both associated with the disastrous effects of wine - Proverbs 30:2; Genesis 9:20
The Passage
Sanhedrin/70a#12 thru 70b#6
Rav Ḥanan - Wine was created to comfort mourners and to give the wicked their reward in this world - Proverbs 31:6
אמר רב חנן:
לא נברא יין בעולם אלא
לנחם אבלים,
ולשלם שכר לרשעים,
שנאמר:
״תנו שכר לאובד
ויין למרי נפש״.
§ The Talmud’s discussion turns to wine in general.
Rav Ḥanan says:
Wine was created in the world only
to comfort mourners2 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.
R’ Yitzḥak - Wine reddens the faces of the wicked in this world but ultimately brings them shame in the World-to-Come - Proverbs 23:31
אמר רבי יצחק:
מאי דכתיב
״אל תרא יין כי יתאדם״?
אל תרא יין ש
מאדים פניהם של רשעים
בעולם הזה,
ומלבין פניהם
לעולם הבא.
R’ 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 - “Wine when it reddens” alludes to blood: excessive drinking leads to murder - Proverbs 23:31
רבא אמר:
״אל תרא יין כי יתאדם״
אל תרא יין שאחריתו דם.
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 murder [dam],
indicating that one who drinks wine will end up committing an act of killing or will be killed because of it.
Rav Kahana - The defective spelling of tirosh indicates wine’s double potential: if one merits, it makes him a leader; if not, it makes him poor - Jeremiah 31:12
רב כהנא רמי:
כתיב
״תירש״
וקרינן
״תירוש״.
זכה –
נעשה ראש,
לא זכה –
נעשה רש.
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 YHWH, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd” (Jeremiah 31:12).
The word for wine is written
Tirash, without the letter vav,
but we read it
as tirosh (תירוש), with the letter vav.
The matter can be 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 [רש - rash].
Rava - Wine likewise has two possible effects: properly used, it gladdens; improperly used, it drives a person mad - Psalms 104:15
רבא רמי:
כתיב
״ישמח״
וקרינן
״ישמח״.
זכה –
משמחו,
לא זכה –
משממהו.
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 crazy3
Rava - Wine and fragrant spices sharpen the mind
והיינו דאמר רבא:
חמרא
וריחני
פקחין.
And that is what Rava meant when he said:
Wine
and fragrant spices
have made me wise4
Rav Amram b. Shimon b. Abba citing R’ Ḥanina / Rav Dimi citing the sages of Eretz Yisrael - Proverbs 23:29–30 can be interpreted in both directions: drinking causes misery, and those already embroiled in misery are drawn to drink
אמר רב עמרם בריה דרבי שמעון בר אבא, אמר רבי חנינא:
מאי דכתיב
״למי אוי? למי אבוי?
למי מדנים? למי שיח?
למי פצעים חנם? למי חכללות עינים (וגו׳)?
למאחרים על היין, לבאים לחקר ממסך״
Rav Amram, son of R’ Shimon bar Abba, says that R’ 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)?
כי אתא רב דימי אמר:
אמרי במערבא,
האי קרא
מאן דדריש ליה מרישיה לסיפיה –
מדריש,
ומסיפיה לרישיה –
מדריש.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that
they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that
this verse --
one who interprets it 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.
I.e., 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.”
Compare this same homiletic wordplay elsewhere in the Talmud, in my “‘And it Came to Pass’: The Ominous Implication of “Va-Yehi” in Biblical Narratives (Megillah 10b)“, and see my extended note there.
לנחם אבלים.
Compare Hebrew Wikipedia, ניחום אבלים.
משממהו - meshamemehu.
On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “שָׁמֵם”, section “Pi’el - שִׁמֵּם”:
to lay waste, ruin; to confound.
Yalkut Shimoni on Nach 959:31 אם זכה משמחו ואם לאו מְשַׁמְּמוֹ if a man is good, it (dreaming of wine) means joy to him, if not, it means confounding.
Part. pass. מְשׁוּמָּם; feminine מְשׁוּמֶּמֶת.
Tosefta Ketubot 7:10 מש׳ היא (ed. Zuckermandel: שעמומית) she (my daughter) is confused in her mind; see שִׁעֲמֵם, שַׁעֲמוּמִית
And compare the word שממין in Shir_HaShirim_Rabbah.4.7.1:
מהו כלך יפה רעיתי,
תני רבי שמעון בן יוחאי,
בשעה שעמדו ישראל לפני הר סיני ואמרו (שמות כד, ז):
כל אשר דבר ה’ נעשה ונשמע,
אותה שעה לא היה בהם
לא זבים ולא מצרעין
ולא חגרין ולא סומין
לא אלמין ולא חרשין,
לא שוטין ולא שממין,
לא טפשין ולא חלוקי לב,
על אותה שעה נאמר:
כלך יפה רעיתי,
כיון שחטאו לא היו ימים קלים והיו בם
זבים ומצרעים
חגרין וסומין,
אלמים חרשים
שוטים וטפשין,
באותה שעה נאמר (במדבר ה, ב):
וישלחו מן המחנה כל צרוע וכל זב.
Note that here are close Greco-Roman parallels. The combination in Rava’s dictum belongs to a broader ancient idea that moderate wine and pleasant aromatics could positively affect cognition through their action on the body, especially the brain.
For example, Athenaeus in The Deipnosophists, Book 2, writing around 200 CE but quoting much earlier Greek authors, preserves several statements. Chaeremon, a 4th-century BCE tragedian, says that wine gives its user “wisdom ... and good counsel.” The physician Mnesitheus similarly says that properly used wine “strengthens their bodies, and their minds makes wise.” Athenaeus contrasts this with excessive drinking, which produces madness.
Plutarch’s Table Talk (Plut. Quaes. Conv. 7.9.1) discusses the apparently paradoxical custom of deliberating over wine. He notes that Dionysus was called “Good Counsellor” and describes wine and reason as working together in serious political and philosophical discussion.
This reflects the institutional setting of the Greek symposium: drinking was not conceived simply as recreation. Moderate wine could loosen speech, sociability, poetic inspiration, and intellectual conversation. Athenaeus even quotes the comic poet Cratinus’ sentiment that wine is the “horse” carrying the poet toward intellectual creativity, whereas water produces nothing worthwhile.
As for the idea that fragrant substances literally invigorate the brain, Athenaeus, Deipnosophists 15.36, writes:
“our senses are soothed, and indeed reinvigorated, by sweet smells”
and quotes the 4th-century BCE comic poet Alexis:
“The best recipe for health / Is to apply sweet scents unto the brain.”
Athenaeus then explains this physiologically: fragrances ascend toward the organs of smell and affect the brain and, according to other medical theories, the heart and soul.
Aristotle supplies the physiological theory behind this. In On Sense and the Sensible 5, Aristotle says that intrinsically pleasant fragrances, especially floral aromas, are beneficial because their warmth rises to the brain. Since the human brain is naturally excessively cold and moist, aromatic heat corrects its condition:
“when odours ... mount to the brain, the health of this region is thereby promoted.”
He explicitly describes fragrances as producing “heat and stimulation” in the cerebral region.