Rebellious Son

(1) A wayward and rebellious son- at what time can he become a wayward and rebellious son? From when he grows two hairs until the beard grows full. [This refers to] the lower beard, not the upper beard, [but this expression is used] since the Sages spoke in clean language. As it says, (Deuteronomy 21:18) "If a man have a son": "a son," and not a daughter; "a son," and not a man. A minor is exempt, for he has not entered the category of [those obligated in] the commandments.

(2) From when is he liable [to be stoned]? When he eats a tarteimar of meat and drinks half a log [ measure of liquid] of Italian wine. Rabbi Yosi says, a maneh [equal to one hundred zuz] of meat and a log of wine. [If] he ate [it] in a mitzvah gathering; [if] he ate [it] in [celebration of] the intercalation of the month; [if] he ate [it] as ma'aser sheni [the second tithe, which must be eaten in Jerusalem] in Jerusalem; [if] he ate nevelot [an animal not properly slaughtered] or terefot [a mortally wounded animal] or creepy crawlies; [if he ate] tevel [untithed produce] or ma'aser rishon [the first tithe] from which terumah [the portion given to the priest] has not been taken; or ma'aser sheni or hekdesh that has not been redeemed; [if] he ate something [in fulfillment of] a commandment or something [in violation of] a transgression; [or if] he ate all foods but did not eat meat; [or] drank all drinks but did not drink wine, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son, until he eats meat and drinks wine. As it says, (Deuteronomy 21:20) "He is a glutton and a drunkard." And even though there is no proof to the matter [from a Scriptural verse], there is a reference to the matter, as it says, (Proverbs 23:20) "Be not among winebibbers, among gluttonous eaters of flesh."

(3) If he stole from his father and ate in his father's domain; [if he stole] from others and ate in others' domain; [if he stole] from others and ate in his father's domain, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son, until he steals from his father and eats in others' domain. Rabbi Yosi bar Yehudah says, until he steals from his father and from his mother.

(4) If his father wants [to bring the son to court] and his mother does not want, [or if] his father does not want and his mother does want, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son, until they both want. Rabbi Yehudah says, if the mother were not appropriate for the father, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son. If one of [the parents] had a hand cut off, or was lame, mute, blind, or deaf-mute, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son. As it says, (Deuteronomy 21:19) "Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him," and not those whose hands have been cut off. "And bring him out," and not a lame person. (Deuteronomy 21:20) "And they shall say," and not mute people. "This our son," and not blind people. "He does not listen to our voice," and not deaf-mute people. They warn him in front of three and lash him. If he repeats his misdeeds, he is judged by a court of twenty-three. And he is not stoned until the original three [judges] are present, as it says (Deuteronomy 21:20), "This our son," he who was lashed before you. If he flees before the verdict has been reached and then his lower beard grows full, he is exempt. But if once the verdict was reached he fled, and then his lower beard grew full, he is [still] liable.

(5) The wayward and rebellious son is judged on the basis of his end. He should die innocent and not liable, because the death of the wicked is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world; but for the righteous, it is bad for them and bad for the world. Wine and sleep: for the wicked they are a benefit to them and a benefit for the world; but for the righteous, they are bad for them and bad for the world. Being scattered: for the wicked it is a benefit to them and to the world; but for the righteous, it is bad for them and bad for the world. Being gathered: for the wicked it is bad for them and bad for the world; but for the righteous, it is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world. Quiet: for the wicked it is bad for them and bad for the world; but for the righteous, it is beneficial for them and beneficial to the world.

(1) סורר ומורה, his stuborness removed all hope that he would change his lifestyle.

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: The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he speaks of the mother as being not suited for the father? If we say that due to their union they are among those who are liable to receive karet, in which case the marriage does not take effect, and certainly if the union puts them in the category of those who are liable to receive one of the types of court-imposed death penalty, in which case the marriage also does not take effect, there is a difficulty: Why should it matter if they are not married? Ultimately, his father is still his father and his mother is still his mother, and the verses concerning the stubborn and rebellious son can be fulfilled. 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. 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. 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.

(3) ויסרו אתו AND THEY SHALL CHASTISE HIM — admonish him in the presence of three people, and if he still remains refractory they cause him to be lashed through the court (Sanhedrin 71a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 218:11). The refractory and rebellious son is not liable to the death penalty until he proves to be a thief and eats at one meal a “tartemar” (a weight of half a Maneh) flesh and drinks half a Log wine, for it is said of him, (v. 20) זולל וסבא, and in another passage (Proverbs 23:20) it says: “Do not be among wine-guzzlers (בְסֹבְאֵי-יָיִן), among gluttonous eaters of meat” (Sanhedrin 70a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 219:4). — The refractory and rebellious son is put to death on account of the final course his life must necessarily take (not because his present offence is deserving death); — the Torah has fathomed his ultimate disposition: in the end he will squander his fathers property and seeking in vain for the pleasures to which he has been accustomed, he will take his stand on the crossroads and rob people, and in some way or other make, himself liable to the death penalty. Says the Torah, “Let him die innocent of such crimes, and let him not die guilty of them” (Sifrei Devarim 220:3; Sanhedrin 72a).

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that further elaborates upon the words of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Is it simply due to the fact that the boy ate a tarteimar of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine that the Torah states that he shall be taken out to court to be stoned? Rather, the Torah penetrated the ultimate mind-set of the stubborn and rebellious son and the inevitable results of his actions, and it is understood that he will continue on this path, and in the end he will squander his father’s property, and then, seeking the pleasures to which he had become accustomed but not finding them, he will go out to the crossroads and rob people.