Deuteronomy 21:10 – 25:19
The rebellious son that gets stoned
What do we mean by saying someone is a rebellious child? What are we admitting about them and ourselves?
For being one of the most notorious sections of the Torah, this is really one of the least honestly discussed topics. I say honestly discussed because biblical critics harp on this verse as the hot button point of religious cruelty, it makes a nice strawman. While among most the faithful it’s only talked about ominously, a boogeyman’s topic with which we scare our children.
It is most certainly discussed among religious Jews, however in a purely philosophical way. Nonetheless, it’s so hard a topic to stomach that it’s almost never mentioned in our weekly divrei Torah as shul.
For most of us Jews, whether we are religious or not, its something we can’t take too seriously because we can’t imagine the stereotypical, overbearing Jewish mother letting her kid be killed for being a brat. It’s just unimaginable. It could never happen.
And this is pretty much the position that our rabbis take. Actually this is one of the mains laws set into place for constricting the application of execution for a rebel son; both the mother and the father have to agree, something that is quite unlikely. (see Talmud Bavli, Sanheidrin 71a) But it’s not just in the fine print that rabbis show reluctance to the use of capital punishment for a wayward child. They also explain for us why we even discuss this uncomfortable topic at all. On the same folio our text provides us some amazing statements:
|
“There never has been a ‘stubborn and rebellious son’, and never will be. Why then was the law written? That you may study it and receive reward. — This agrees with Rabbi Yehudah. “Alternatively, you may say it will agree with Rabbi Shimon. For it has been taught: Rabbi Shimon said: Because one eats a tartemar of meat and drinks half a log of Italian wine, shall his father and mother have him stoned? But it never happened and never will happen. Why then was this law written? — That you may study it and receive reward. “Rabbi Yonatan said: ‘I saw him and sat on his grave’.” |
אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר כמאן כרבי יהודה איבעית אימא ר‘ שמעון היא דתניא אמר רבי שמעון וכי מפני שאכל זה תרטימר בשר ושתה חצי לוג יין האיטלקי אביו ואמו מוציאין אותו לסקלו אלא לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר אמר ר‘ יונתן אני ראיתיו וישבתי על קברו: |
|
Talmud Bavli, Sanheidrin 71a |
|
This gemara brings to attention the finer points surrounding the command for the “ben sorer u’moreh / the stubborn and rebellious son” which is presented here in this weeks parsha,
For the sake of time I will merely condense the details of the text for us. If a man has a son that is stubborn and rebellious, and he doesn’t listen to his father and mother, despite them both imposing harsh punishment of him (Deut. 21:18), then the parents are to take hold of him and drag him before the elders of his city (v.19). They are to say to the leaders: “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and doesn’t listen to our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” (v.20) Then the men of the city stone the boy to death. (v.21)
Now I want to remind us, this law in the gemara is talked about in the context of the mother also agreeing to execute the son. The mother and the father both had to have warned and disciplined him, and now they both have to be in agreement as witnesses (the only two possible witnesses) of their son’s irredeemable nature. The mother has to be of equal status as the father in intellect, charm and authority in order for this to be carried out; or else a call for such a punishment is considered invalid. It is a biblical command that they take hold of their son (notice the use of the word our). Rabbi Yehudah almost seems to mock the idea that any mother could go along with this, even if the father was so inclined. This is too high of a bar to reach. It has and never will be possible to meet this standard, contends Rabbi Yehudah.
Our gemara points out another fact about our text, the son must actually be guilty of specific charges. He must have stolen from his parents (as revealed in the previous folio by the rabbis), and he must have consumed enough meat to feed a whole family and enough imported wine for an entire household in one sitting. Thus he is “zolel v’sovei / a glutton and a drunkard,” as our parsha reads. (Deut. 21:20) Rabbi Shimon contends that it is unimaginable that any two parents would agree to execute their son for eating and drinking too much. Rabbi Shimon also states that it has and never will happen.
That isn’t the only point that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon agree on. Though they take the argument from different angles, they hit on the same point of truth. They both agree that this commandment is merely given for philosophical purposes, that we would receive the benefit of the study even if it can never be practiced. In fact, this is really the only logical approach for most of the rabbis of the Talmud. The ability for the Sanheidrin to prescribe execution was already long since taken from them under the occupation of Rome. Such a topic could only be theoretical in their world.
This is the apparent position of all the authoritative rabbis on the subject, except for Rabbi Yonatan. He is an older guy who has been around longer, so he pipes in with a statement that he not only saw a man executed when he was a boy, but he also sat on the man’s grave. He chimes in like a typical old guy with tall tales, and it doesn’t seem like anyone really took him too seriously. Clearly our rabbinic tradition does not favor capital punishment in this case, as seen by the rabbis popularly leaning toward restraint.
Though we are quite sure that of cases of Jewish capital punishment did take place, it was out of the ordinary and explained away as the product of extreme circumstances in that age. But even in review of those cases, our rabbis tend to hold a distaste for capital punishment. So notorious is this that even secular Jews often know this section of Talmud:
|
“Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: A Sanhedrin [court] that effects a capital punishment once in 70 years is branded a destructive tribunal. “Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: Were we members of the Sanhedrin, no person would ever be put to death. “[Thereupon] Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel remarked: If so, they [these rabbis] would multiply shedders of blood in Israel.” |
סנהדרין ההורגת אחד בשבוע נקראת חובלנית רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר אחד לשבעים שנה רבי טרפון ורבי עקיבא אומרים אילו היינו בסנהדרין לא נהרג אדם מעולם רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף הן מרבין שופכי דמים בישראל: |
|
Mishnah, Makkot 1:10 |
|
Here we have the rabbis saying that even if they had lived in an age in which the Sanheidrin had authority over life and death they would consider an execution, even if only once every century, to be too harsh. In fact we have two highly respected rabbis of our tradition saying that had they been members of the court in that age they would have not allowed it, they would have found a way to save the life of the person.
Of course we have the dissenting view also presented here by Rabbi Gamliel, that if society withholds execution then murder will increase among Israel. And this is really the only argument that one can logically have for the purpose of execution. However his view is greatly overshadowed by the rest of the rabbis who demand that the Sanheidrin – as the supreme court – in all their wisdom, the rabbis should find another way.
When we look at the Rashi for this text we find the mentality driving this discussion laid out for us in his commentary for the next verse:
|
“The juxtaposition of these passages [i.e., this one and that of the wayward and rebellious son] teaches [us] that if his father and mother spare him, he will eventually lead an evil lifestyle and commit [grave] sins for which he will be sentenced to death by the court. [Tanchuma 1]” |
וכי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות: סמיכות הפרשיות מגיד, שאם חסים עליו אביו ואמו, סוף שיצא לתרבות רעה ויעבור עבירות ויתחייב מיתה בבית דין: |
|
Rashi on Deuteronomy 21:22 |
|
The reason given for executing one’s rebel son is because if he is allowed to continue to live and mature then he will eventually inherit everything. He will then exhaust the family inheritance to live an evil lifestyle, and grow to become so evil the courts will eventually execute him anyhow (the details of execution are discussed immediately after this text). So in theory, by killing your child you are preemptively saving the world from a terrible danger embodied in your child. You are preemptively executing your child for their crimes.
For as cruel as we feel this text is, having been to college I know very well that we are not the only people who lead these discussions. Even the secular do. It’s hard to get through the first few weeks of philosophy, logic or argumentation without being asked to consider something along these lines. It happens when a professor asks the question of the century, “Would you kill a baby Hitler if you knew what he was going to grow up to be?” It’s an uncomfortable question that irks people in a classroom, just as much as our approach does when we discuss it in the beit midrash (the house of learning).
The consideration of this question is appalling to many people, and that is really the point. To shock people to the point of asking where have we and our society gone wrong that we could produce such a type of person.
This discussion, when taken on by the rabbis, is much different from the flippant way we are taught about it by our parents and elders. Whether they are great scholars or not. We almost always hear this text misinterpreted by an angry parent saying that if we had lived in the days of Moses and misbehaved we would be stoned in front of the whole town. What a parent is not so subtly saying is that the Torah prescribes public punishment for embarrassing them with their bad behavior.
One who does this throw up their hands and makes their case to the public that they did everything they could. There are no saving virtues in their child, they are utterly incorrigible.
I would like all of us to ask ourselves an honest question. Would you kill your own child because you are scared of the lifestyle choices them make? Are you willing to expose your child to the harshness of the mobs because you don’t like their less than ideal life choices and tendencies? Our tradition forces us to ask this question when we consider this text.
This text challenges us regarding disavowing and causing the downfall of our children. It tell us that if we are going to write-off our children, we might as well hand them over to be stoned. At least be honest about what you are doing. Be honest about what you are implying about the moral character of your child.
Our rabbis stand firm, with the majority of them being of the opinion that even if a person could be found guilty of being “sorer u’moreh / stubborn and rebellious” it should be the responsibility of the rabbis to find every reason in order to suspend such a sentence. We need to find another way.
Disavowing and cutting off a child from the community often leaves them disoriented and vulnerable. Ejecting them for a community of love and support, throwing them to the wind, is a death sentence both physically and spiritually for our youth. Our tradition here challenges us to be patient with our mistaken youth, as most often their short comings are not really as bad as we make them out to be. Our tradition also challenges the leaders of Israel to find another way to show leniency and find redemptive qualities in each and every person.
Our rabbis actually show a great deal of understanding, something that is often missed by people are not familiar with their discourses. Most people not familiar with our sages would expect them to be harsh and unbending, strict and unwavering in a most firm application of the law. The sages instead turn the discussion around on us.
In conclusion I would like us to consider the view of the rabbis for a moment, how they viewed these rebel sons and their situation. We don’t need to dig too far into Talmudic text for this point. In fact it’s a very obvious statement made in a standard chumash, in a comment by Rashi that is made earlier on in this parsha.
Rashi make the point in his commentary for Deuteronomy 21:11 that it is not an accident that the command regarding the wayward son is juxtaposed with the text about the war wife (see Parshat Ki Teitzei 2011), the unloved wife and her disinherited son, etc. He suggest that a case of a son becoming “sorer u’moreh / stubborn and rebellious” is not just a spontaneous misfortune. Rashi is among our sages that looks at this chapter of the bible and sees the issues spoken of in the beginning of our parsha as being progressive wrong choices and attitudes of the parents, that have consequentially disenfranchised and caused the stubbornness of a son. The sages force us to look at the environment of the child and their experience, to take responsibility for what we have contributed to their apparent rebellious nature. Have we loved them enough? Have we done wrong by them? Did we make wrong choices that resulted in bitter consequences for them?
In this our sages take away the opportunity of zealots to look at this commandment and try pass off the (G-d forbid) abandonment of our children and youth as something praiseworthy. We aren’t washing our hands and relieving ourselves of responsibility by throwing our children to angry masses, clearing our names and honor. When we eject a child we are not merely saying they are utterly flawed, we instead are really revealing just how flawed we are in our own parenting and mentoring.
Interestingly, for as much as the rabbis object to the liberal use of execution and claim that they would have not allowed it, they never ultimately answer the question how they would prevent this. What would we have to do as parents and leaders in order to keep our children from going utterly wayward and to their destruction? I believe the question is left unanswered by the gemara because in each and every generation, and for every unique person, we need to find another way to reach the stubborn and the rebel soul. We need to find another way to retain them and keep them in love with Torah.
Hardcore Mesorah 
Leave a comment