This lesson will illustrate a very interesting legal and theological phenomenon a case where the sages delimit the application of a law by making it next to impossible to carry out. We will deal with the Talmud’s treatment of the “ben sorrar u’moreh the wanton and rebellious son.” Whatever the purpose and application of this law in biblical times (something that it is next to impossible to assess), Rabbinic Judaism obviously wanted to limit or deny its application through the interpretative process.
The first step in our lesson is to examine the source for these laws in the Torah:
This passage, aside from being the pretext for our entire discussion, is important for its details. The details will turnout to be tool by which the sages limit the application of this passage. What I suggest for now is that you familiarize yourselves with this passage. We will be seeing a lot of it.
I now want to spend a moment on a Talmudic technique in interpretation called the דיוק or limited reading of a text. One can read laws inclusively or, in other words, in a representative fashion, or exclusively, narrow the meaning of something so that its applicability is limited. We will see a lot of the later in our discussion.
Now to the Talmudic text itself:
מתני' בן סורר ומורה מאימתי נעשה בן סורר ומורה משיביא שתי שערות ועד שיקיף זקן התחתון ולא העליון אלא שדברו חכמים בלשון נקיה שנאמר (דברים כא, יח) כי יהיה לאיש בן בן ולא בת בן ולא איש קטן פטור שלא בא לכלל מצות:
גמ' קטן מנלן דפטור מנלן כדקתני טעמא שלא בא לכלל מצות ותו היכא אשכחן דענש הכתוב דהכא ליבעי קרא למיפטריה אנן הכי קאמרינן אטו בן סורר ומורה על חטאו נהרג על שם סופו נהרג וכיון דעל שם סופו נהרג אפילו קטן נמי ועוד בן ולא איש קטן משמע אמר רב יהודה אמר רב דאמר קרא וכי יהיה לאיש בן בן הסמוך לגבורתו של איש
Mishnah: WHEN DOES HE BECOME LIABLE TO THE PENALTY OF A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON’? FROM THE TIME THAT HE PRODUCES TWO HAIRS UNTIL HE GROWS A BEARD RIGHT ROUND (BY WHICH IS MEANT THE HAIR OF THE GENITALS, NOT THAT OF THE FACE, BUT THAT THE SAGES SPOKE IN POLITE TERMS), FOR IT IS WRITTEN, IF A MAN HAVE A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON (Deuteronomy 21:18): ‘A SON’, BUT NOT A DAUGHTER;‘A SON’, BUT NOT A FULL-GROWN MAN. WHILST A MINOR IS EXEMPT, SINCE HE DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE COMMANDMENTS....
Gemarah: 1. [Shealah] Whence do we know that A MINOR IS EXEMPT?
2. [Teshuva] Whence do we know? The Mishnah states the reason, viz that HE DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE COMMANDMENTS.
3. [Another Teshuva with a rhetorical question] Moreover, ... where else do we find that Scripture prescribed a penalty [for a minor], that a verse should be necessary here to exempt him? This is our question:
4. [Clarification of the shealah] Thus we say: Now, is then a ‘STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON’ executed ... for his actual iniquity? Surely he is rather slain on account of his ultimate end; and that being so, even a minor should be executed? Moreover, [the interpretation,]
5. [Another justification of the shealah] ‘a son’, but not a man, implies a minor? Rab Judah said in Rab’s name:
6. [Teshuva] Scripture says, If a man has a son [that is stubborn and rebellious], implying, a son near to the strength of manhood.
Mishnah 1
It is a rarity that we find midrash or scriptural interpretation in the Mishnah, yet in this lesson practically every step in the mishnayot is accompanied it.
The first mishnah deals with two questions: 1. The age of person for whom this law applies; 2. Is this law to be broadly applied to all children or narrowly applied exclusively to boys.
- What is the age range talked about by the Mishnah?
- How does it derive this from the Torah?
- How does the Mishnah limit the law’s application exclusively to boys?
Talmud
1-2. This first sugya initially attacks the question of the law’s applicability from a different angle than that of the mishnah. Its opening question concerns finding a source for exempting a minor from this law, but its answer in step two is not from Scripture. How would you describe the answer?
3. Here an alternative answer is offered in the form of a rhetorical question. Again no Scriptural reference is offered. Still this answer depends on Scripture? What is the crux of the answer? Describe how it proves that a minor is exempt from this law.
4. This step changes the focus of the question and allows for the possibility that a minor might be liable. Why might this law apply to a minor, according to the argument in this step?
5. This step further reinforces this question through a textual reference from verse 18 quoted above. On which is its focus? What is it trying to derive from this verse?
6. Rav faces down this question using the very same words used in the question. How does he interpret these words differently to answer the challenge offered by the question?
Question to Consider
- What does this Talmudic argument add as ammunition to the attempt to limit the applicability of this law?
- The second small sugya quotes step 2a in the mishnah and then brings a baraita which comments on it.
- The baraita contains a statement about the logic of the laws application. Logically this law should apply to both boys and girls. Why?
- How does it justify that the law does not apply to girls?
- Is this reading of the verse the only possible understanding of this verse? (Hint: Above we discussed the difference between a narrow and broad reading of a text.)
- What is Rabbi Shimon’s assumption regarding how to read this verse?