(18) If a householder has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him, (19) his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. (20) They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” (21) Thereupon his town’s council shall stone him to death. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst: all Israel will hear and be afraid.
(ב) מֵאֵימָתַי חַיָּב, מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל טַרְטֵימַר בָּשָׂר וְיִשְׁתֶּה חֲצִי לֹג יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, מָנֶה בָּשָׂר וְלֹג יָיִן. אָכַל בַּחֲבוּרַת מִצְוָה, אָכַל בְּעִבּוּר הַחֹדֶשׁ, אָכַל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, אָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, אָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ, אָכַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא עֲבֵרָה, אָכַל כָּל מַאֲכָל וְלֹא אָכַל בָּשָׂר, שָׁתָה כָל מַשְׁקֶה וְלֹא שָׁתָה יַיִן, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר וְיִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי כג) אַל תְּהִי בְסֹבְאֵי יָיִן בְּזֹלְלֵי בָשָׂר לָמוֹ:
(2) From when is a stubborn and rebellious 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. ... 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).
(י) הָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה אִמּוֹ רוֹצָה וְאָבִיו אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יט) "וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ". הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן גִּדֵּם אוֹ חִגֵּר אוֹ אִלֵּם אוֹ סוּמָא אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ וְלֹא גִּדְּמִים. (דברים כא יט) "וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ" וְלֹא חִגְּרִים. (דברים כא כ) "וְאָמְרוּ" וְלֹא אִלְּמִים. (דברים כא כ) "בְּנֵנוּ זֶה" וְלֹא סוּמִים. (דברים כא כ) "אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקלֵנוּ" וְלֹא חֵרְשִׁים:
(10) If his father desires to convict him and his mother does not desire, or his mother desires and his father does not desire, he is not judged as a "wayward and rebellious son," as implied by Deuteronomy 21:19: "His father and mother shall take hold of him." If one of the parents has had his arm amputated, was lame, dumb, blind, or deaf, the son is not judged as a "wayward and rebellious son." These concepts are derived as follows: "His father and mother shall take hold of him" - This excludes parents with amputated arms" "And bring him out" - this excludes the lame. "They say" - this excludes the dumb. "This son of ours" - This excludes the blind. "He does not heed our voice" - This excludes the deaf.
וְעִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ זְקֵנִים – רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי, חַד אָמַר: נַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין נַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין נַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה – בָּעֵינַן ״זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ״, וְלֵיכָּא. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה – מִצְוָה בְּעָלְמָא.
MISHNAH: If he stole from his father and ate at his father’s property, or from others and ate at others’ property, or from others and ate at his father’s property, he is not treated as deviant and rebellious son unless he stole from his father and ate at others’ property. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Yehudah says, unless he stole both from his father and his mother.
(א) (יט) ותפשו בו אביו ואמו, מלמד שאינו חייב עד שיהו לו אב ואם דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר אם לא היתה אמו ראויה לאביו אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה.
(1) (Devarim 21:19) "Then his father and mother shall take hold of him": We are hereby taught that he is not liable unless he has a father and a mother. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: If his mother were not fit for (i.e., similar to) his father, he does not become a sorer umoreh.
(ד) וראוי להיות בן סורר ומורה משיביא שתי שערות עד שיקיף זקן התחתון. אבל קודם שיביא שתי שערות עונשים הוא. ולאחר שהקיף זקן התחתון, ראוי להוליד, ורחמנא אמר בן ולא הראוי להיות אב:
(4) וראוי להיות בן סורר ומורה משיביא שתי שערות עד שיקיף זקן התחתון – but prior to his bringing forth two hairs, he is not liable for punishment. But after he has grown an encircling beard, he is worthy of giving birth (i.e., engaging in sexual intercourse for purposes of reproduction) and the All-Merciful stated (Deuteronomy 21:18): “If a man has [a wayward and defiant] son/בן,” but not one worthy of being a father.
אמר רב חסדא קטן שהוליד אין בנו נעשה בן סורר ומורה שנא' כי יהיה לאיש בן לאיש בן ולא לבן בן ...
§ Rav Ḥisda says: In the case of a minor who fathered a child, his son cannot become a stubborn and rebellious son, as it is stated: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son,” which indicates that the halakha applies only if a man has a son, but not if a son, i.e., one who is not yet a man, has a son. ...
בן ולא בת: ... יין חי מזיג ולא מזיג בשר חי בשיל ולא בשיל כבשר כיבא דאכלי גנבי רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרווייהו אכל בשר מליח ושתה יין מגיתו אין נעשה בן סורר ומורה תנן התם ערב תשעה באב לא יאכל אדם שני תבשילין ולא יאכל בשר ולא ישתה יין ותנא אבל אוכל הוא בשר מליח ושותה יין מגתו
§ The mishna teaches that the penalty for rebelliousness is imposed upon a son, but not upon a daughter. ...
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. ...
אכל בחבורת מצוה: אמר רבי אבהו אינו חייב עד שיאכל בחבורה שכולה סריקין ...
§ 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. ...
(ו) כָּל יָמָיו שֶׁל בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֵינָן אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. לְפִי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּתְעַבֵּר אִשְׁתּוֹ וְיִהְיֶה עֻבָּרָהּ נִכָּר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים כא יח) "כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה" וְלֹא אָב סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאִם הִקִּיף הַשֵּׂעָר אֶת כָּל הַגִּיד קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּשְׁלִים שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר:
(6) The entire period for which a "wayward and rebellious son" is liable is only three months from the time he manifests signs of physical maturity. For it is possible that his wife will conceive and her fetus will be recognizable within three months. This is derived from Deuteronomy 21:18: "If a person will have a wayward and rebellious son..."; a son, and not a "wayward and rebellious father." Thus one may conclude that if one's pubic hair surrounds the entire organ before the three months are completed, he is not liable.
(ד) אָכַל בָּשָׂר חַי וְשָׁתָה יַיִן חַי פָּטוּר שֶׁזֶּה קֶרִי הוּא וְאֵין אָדָם יָכוֹל לְהִמָּשֵׁךְ בָּזֶה. וְכֵן אִם אָכַל בָּשָׂר מָלִיחַ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לִמְלִיחָתוֹ אוֹ שָׁתָה יַיִן מִגִּתּוֹ פָּטוּר שֶׁאֵין אָדָם יָכוֹל לְהִמָּשֵׁךְ בָּזֶה:
(4) When he ate raw meat and undiluted wine, he is not liable. The rationale is that this is an occasional occurrence and not something that a person will be drawn after. Similarly, if he ate this meal of salted meat on the third day after it was salted, or drank fresh grape juice, he is not liable. For a person will not be drawn after such matters.
אלא בשוה לאביו קאמר תניא נמי הכי רבי יהודה אומר אם לא היתה אמו שוה לאביו בקול ובמראה ובקומה אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה מאי טעמא דאמר קרא איננו שומע בקלנו מדקול בעינן שוין מראה וקומה נמי בעינן שוין כמאן אזלא הא דתניא בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר כמאן כרבי יהודה ... אלא לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר אמר ר' יונתן אני ראיתיו וישבתי על קברו
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.
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. ...
Rather, there has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future.
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.
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.
(א) כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה. אמרו רז"ל (סנהדרין עא) בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא יהיה ולמה נכתב בתורה אלא דרוש וקבל שכר, ומ"מ חל עלינו חובת ביאור דבר זה למה כתבה תורה דבר שאינו בנמצא כלל, גם יש להתבונן במה שנאמר כאן וכל ישראל ישמעו ויראו יותר מבשאר מצות פרטיות ועוד למה לא נאמר כאן ולא יזידון עוד כמ"ש בפר' שופטים (יז יג) ואולי טעמו של דבר לפי שבן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא יהיה ולא נכתבה הפר' כ"א כדי שישמעו הבנים ויראו ולא יעשו כדבר הזה, ומ"ש וכל ישראל ישמעו היינו שישמעו פרשה זו ומשפט הכתוב בה ויראו הבנים מלמרות עיני כבודם של אב ואם ולכך לא נאמר ולא יזידון עוד. כי לשון עוד מורה על דבר הנעשה כבר שלא יהיה נעשה עוד וזה אינו שהרי בן סורר ומורה לא היה דברים מעולם ולא נכתבה פרשה זו כ"א להפיל אימתה ופחד על הבנים.
(A) If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son. The sages said (Sanhedrin 71): A stubborn and rebellious son never existed and will never exist, and why was it written in the Torah? Only for interpretation and to receive reward. Nevertheless, we are still obligated to explain why the Torah wrote about something that does not exist at all. Additionally, it is necessary to consider what is said here: 'And all Israel will hear and fear,' more than in other specific commandments. Also, why is it not said here 'and they will not continue to do so' as mentioned in Parashat Shoftim (Deuteronomy 17:13)? Perhaps the reason is that a stubborn and rebellious son never existed and never will, and this section was written only so that children will hear and fear and not act in such a manner. What is meant by 'And all Israel will hear' is that they will hear this section and the judgment written in it, and children will fear to defy their parents. Therefore, 'and they will not continue to do so' is not mentioned here because the term 'anymore' implies that something that has already occurred will not happen again, which is not the case here, as a stubborn and rebellious son never existed at all. This section was written only to instill awe and fear in children."