Previous dappim add restriction upon restriction to make it almost impossible to convict a son as a “rebellious son (ben soreer umoreh-בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה). The ben soreer umoreh is not guilty of the death penalty until if he’s younger than 13 years old and older than 13 years and three months. He had to have stolen money from his father and spent it on a specific amount of meat and wine. He had to have eaten and drank in a group of 10 useless members of society in somebody else’s property and not his father’s. The meat had to be eaten in the half raw state and drink undiluted wine like in the manner thieves who are in a hurry to cook the meat. Thus showing he was unable to temper his cravings.
I am a little cold I'm afraid to sayToday’s daf TB Sanhedrin 71 continues to add
restrictions. “Mishna: If his
father wishes to have him punished but his mother does not wish
that, or if his father does not wish to have him punished but his
mother wishes that, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son,
unless they both wish that he be punished. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his
mother was not suited for his father, the two being an inappropriate match,
as the Gemara will explain, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious
son. GEMARA:… Rather,
Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the boy’s mother must be identical to his
father in several aspects. The Gemara comments: This is also taught
in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to
his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become a stubborn and
rebellious son. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? As
the verse states: “He will not obey our voices [kolenu]”
(Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that they both have the same voice. And since
we require that they be identical in voice, we also require
that they be identical in appearance and height.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Can you imagine a father and mother who are so identical?!
Parents who
have disabilities also exempt their son from the rebellious son death penalty. “MISHNA:
If one of the parents was without hands, or lame, or mute, or blind,
or deaf, their son does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, as it
is stated: “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring
him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place. And they shall
say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he
will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy
21:19–20). The Sages derive: “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold
of him,” but not people without hands, who cannot do this. “And
bring him out,” but not lame people, who cannot walk. “And they shall
say,” but not mutes. “This son of ours,” but not blind people, who cannot
point to their son and say “this.” “He will not obey our voices,” but not
deaf people, who cannot hear whether or not he declined to obey them.”
(Sefaria.org translation)
With all
these restrictions Rabbi Yehuda says something amazing. “The Gemara asks: In
accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita:
There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be
one in the future, as it is impossible to fulfill all the requirements
that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was
the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the
Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and
receive reward for your learning, this being an aspect of the Torah that
has only theoretical value. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It
is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who requires
that the parents have certain identical characteristics, making it virtually
impossible to apply the halakha.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Even Rabbi
Shimon agrees that there was never been and never will be a stubborn and
rebellious son, because of parental love. “If you wish, say instead that
this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: And
is it simply due to the fact that the boy ate a tarteimar
of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine that his father and
his mother shall take him out to stone him? Rather, there has never been a
stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the
future. (The Gemarra asks)
And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and
rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon
new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning” (Sefaria.org
translation)
Rabbi
Yonaton disagrees that cases of rebellion sons were adjudicated. “Rabbi
Yonatan says: This is not so, as I saw one. I was once in a place
where a stubborn and rebellious son was condemned to death, and I even sat
on his grave after he was executed.” (Sefaria.org translation)
In his
commentary on Deuteronomy 21:21, Rebbeinu Bachya explains Rabbi Yonaton position.
“Either Rabbi Yonaton did not consider the Baraita as authentic, or we would
have to say that the grave of the בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה (rebellious son-gg) which Rabbi Yonaton sat was not that of
a בֵּן
סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה
(rebellious son-gg) and the precise meaning of the term, but that it was
someone more like Avshalom (who rebelled against his father King David in order
to replace him on the throne-gg), i.e. a wayward son when deed been executed
but for more serious crimes and at an older age.” (Torah Commentary by Rabbi
Bachya ben and annotated by Eliyhu Munk, volume 7, pages 2622-3)
No comments:
Post a Comment