A wayward son and a teacher
Shalom Rabbi, regarding a rebellious son and teacher:
- It is said that he was condemned for his end, that he would go out into evil culture and become a robber or a murderer. But at this moment he is neither a robber nor a murderer, but only a glutton and a glutton, and how is it possible that he was condemned to death because of fear that he would become a criminal?
- The halakha details clearly unrealistic conditions for the fulfillment of this law, to the point that the Sages raise doubts about whether they will ever be fulfilled or will ever be fulfilled. But how is it possible that all of these conditions are true? If they were true, this would effectively make the entire story of the rebellious son and the teacher redundant from the Torah, and as if the matter was not written in the Torah at all. Was the Torah’s intention that this matter not be fulfilled? And if so, why write it?
1. Here the battered example of the lovable and laughing baby Adolf comes to mind. If you saw him in the cradle and knew what was going to come out of him, would it be unreasonable to kill him as a baby? But in light of Section 2, this is a hypothetical question anyway.
2. Rabbi Israel of Salant in his article Law and Justice offers a very interesting explanation. The Gemara itself asks why these verses were written (for the same opinion that Ben Sorer did not exist and will not exist), and answers: “It is necessary and will receive a reward.” The Rabbis asks, “Have we exhausted all the rest of the Torah that we need to provide us with verses that are not applicable so that we will receive a reward for studying them?” And he answers: These verses were written to teach the principle of “it is necessary and will receive a reward,” that is, the principle that we do not study in order to apply, but in order to learn. Learning is a value in itself, and this is the main lesson of Parasha Ben Sorer. This Parasha also teaches about the applicable Parashas whose study is not intended to be carried out, but is a value in itself. Study is our way of adhering to God, through adherence to His will (=halakha). Of course, if we have the opportunity, then we should also carry it out, but this is not the purpose of studying (otherwise we would have to constantly deal with the applicable parts of the Torah, or at least not move on to other parts until we have mastered them perfectly).
There is much to be said about this, and there is no room here.
In Bereshit Rabbah, Parsha 55, verse 14, it is said:
“Where he is there”
Rabbi Simon said: “The ministering angels jumped to their knees”.
They said before him: “Lord of the worlds, is there a man who is about to kill your children with thirst, do you raise a well for him?”.
He said to them: “Now what is he, righteous or wicked?”.
They said to him: “Righteous”.
He said to them: “I do not judge a man except in his time”.
And this also teaches us how we should judge the lovable and funny baby Adolf, where he is there. Even though we know what will come of him. How can we resolve the difficulty, in your opinion?
This contradiction has nothing to do with what I said. There is a contradiction between the statement that a rebellious son is judged by his end (which is explained in the Mishnah), and this midrash that states that the person is judged as he is there. Many have already addressed this, but beyond all the excuses, it could also be a disagreement between approaches.
Why don't we simply explain that in the past the law of a rebellious and errant son was indeed applied, as the Tanna testifies, "I saw him and sat at his grave." Later, the Sages imposed restrictions and reservations and made the commandment (almost) completely tayrotic.
I don't know the case you brought up about the testimony of the Tanna, but in my opinion there is no such thing as a rebellious and rebellious son because it is clear that they first restrain him and if he doesn't change then they stone him - so it is clear that he must change.
B. Another possibility, the Torah does not allow secularism, this son's parents raised him according to the Torah but he does the opposite - he does not listen to their voice and follow the commandments of the Torah, he eats and drinks, he is of no use even to himself, what can be done with him? The Torah answered: He is liable to stoning.
Maimonides brings other things from his own knowledge and the knowledge of the LBM, see: http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/e307.htm
It is worth quoting that only if both his parents agree to sentence him to stoning then he is liable to stoning.
From my perspective, it is easiest to make a simple sentence, if he does not listen to his parents, will he listen to his Creator? Therefore, he is liable to death, because the boy will not come out educated no matter what you do. And so it turns out that we judge a person at the very moment of his sin, because disrespecting one's parents is identical to disrespecting the Blessed One, as it is said: “You shall fear your mother and father” – “Now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you but to fear the Lord, to keep His commandments, and to cleave to Him”. And it is further said: “You are the Lord our Father, our Redeemer from eternity” and it is further said: “Now, O Lord our Father, You are the Lord our Father”. Three partners in a person are father, mother, and the Blessed One.
The commandment to honor one's parents is from common sense! Therefore, this is my opinion, but the law determines, not me!.
To my father –
Rabbi Yonatan, who says: About a rebellious son and teacher: ‘I saw him and sat on his grave’ and about a rejected city: ‘I saw it and stood on its mound’, was a student of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, and lived for decades after the destruction. The laws of souls were abolished forty years before the destruction, the law of a rejected city could only exist while there was a kingdom in Israel, during the First Temple or during the Hasmonean period, hundreds of years before Rabbi Yonatan's generation. And how could he ‘see’ a rebellious son and teacher or a rejected city in their literal sense? It is clear, therefore, that his words were spoken in the form of a parable, as is customary in the words of a legend, and as Maimonides explained in his introduction to Part 1.
The very condition that the Torah established that the mother must also join in the demand to execute the son, is quite clear that the scenario is not feasible, ‘Can a woman forget the son of her womb?’,, much less a ‘Yiddish mother’ who would give her life to save her son.
The purpose of the law of the disobedient son and teacher is moral, to teach us how serious is the debauched and disrespectful behavior towards parents, that whoever acts in this way morally loses his right to exist. Internalizing this insight in the heart is the greatest ’reward’. It creates a restrained and respectful society.
With best wishes, S.C. Levinger
Honorable Rabbi Levinger, you are solving a problem and returning to the first problem, we emphasized here that this is a mitzvah that is intellectual so there is no need to teach us this, in addition, the sages themselves said - there is no such thing as a rebellious and disobedient son, and then the Tanna came and said that he would sit on his grave, so why did he add this if in the first place there was no such thing according to the sages - and they said that he should be sought and received a reward, and then this Tanna came later - what did he innovate? He only reinforced their words? What did we gain from him?
So it follows from your conclusions that it is better to kill him because anyone who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful. Which is very bad! Therefore, here we return to the first conclusion - such a thing is possible but …. The sages ruled that even if he was, they would not stone him.. until the Tishbi comes and makes excuses.
In my opinion, in short, leaving a guy like that who disrespects his parents is no less than walking around with a grenade in his hand when the Nazir was released.
Even if you explain it this way, the Tanna's opinion that it did not exist, was not created, and will not be in the future still requires explanation. The question is not historical, but what did that Tanna believe.
A Jew answers with a question:
Why don't you ask him? This is his opinion - if it were my business he would have reasoned his opinion – and I wouldn't have sought an explanation myself. Incidentally, it would be enough for him to say that he did not exist and was not created and we would have understood on our own that he will not exist, because if he did not exist, what is the point of not being created? Also unnecessary, or/and it would be enough for him to say that he will not exist and we would have reasoned - to learn and to be rewarded.
Our sages said (Baba Batra, 12/2) A”R. Yochanan, from the day the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to….. and infants. [I don't know if this is appropriate here, but let's study and pay tribute]
Now seriously, the Tanna believed that it does not sit well with him in reason and faith, that there would be such a person who was educated in religious values and suddenly his mind went astray and is not willing to listen to the voice of his parents, or he claims that if there were such a person, then they would not have killed him lest he die a righteous man. That he is exempt from many commandments.
And what do you think about the Tanna who contradicts him, saying “I sat on his grave” This is literally a lie.
Whose words are stronger? In my opinion, the words of ”I sat on his grave” because they are more realistic, and it hurts him that ”the child went” and prays for him. Although the sages say that it is for his benefit because it is better for him to die righteous than guilty.
The token came to me as if I was tired and I found:
It is written, Honor your father and mother, so that your days may be long, and it is written, He will not listen to the voice of his father or mother - meaning his life will be shortened. Really simple! Cursed is the rod of his father and mother; and all the people said, Amen. What do you think?
It is not necessary to say that Rabbi Yonatan actually saw the execution of a rebellious son and teacher... but he knows (perhaps through tradition) that it did happen... It is less likely in my opinion that so much ink would be spilled on discussions, sections, and subsections of purely theoretical mitzvot...
Not only that. It is possible that he meant to say that he saw his grave. In any case, it is a fact that there is a conditional opinion that this is a theoretical issue and that does not prevent anyone from spilling mountains of ink on it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
