Commento su Deuteronomio 21:18

סורר (from the root סור to deviate) means, one who deviates from the proper path of life.

A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON. In the opinion of our Rabbis⁸⁸Sanhedrin 68b. he is not a minor, for a minor is not subject to any punishments ordained by the Torah or to [the observance of] any commandments. Rather, this verse applies to a boy who has grown two hairs [signifying puberty, and, therefore making the child subject to all the laws prescribed by the Torah]. Now, he is liable to two punishments: the first, because he dishonors his father and his mother⁸⁹Further, 27:16. and rebels against them, and the second, because he is a glutton, and a drunkard,⁹⁰Verse 20. transgressing that which we have been commanded, Ye shall be holy,⁹¹Leviticus 19:2. and it is further stated, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave⁹²Above, 13:5. — as I have explained,⁹³Ibid., 6:12. we are commanded to know G-d in all our ways, and a glutton, and a drunkard⁹⁰Verse 20. does not know the way of G-d. In general, then, as of now he [this stubborn and rebellious son] has not committed a sin punishable by death, but is judged because of [what he is destined to become in] the end, just as our Rabbis have mentioned.⁹⁴Sanhedrin 72a. This is the sense of the expression, and all Israel shall hear, and fear,⁹⁵Verse 21. for he was not executed due to the greatness of his sin, but in order to discipline the public, and so that he not become a menace to others. It is the manner of Scripture so to warn that when the death-penalty is imposed as a deterrent, the execution should serve as a benefit to others. Thus it mentioned the same in the case of the rebellious elder [who defies the decision of the Great Sanhedrin — And all the people shall hear, and fear]⁹⁶Above, 17:13. because, in his decision [contradicting that of the court] there is no sin deserving of death, but [the death sentence being imposed only to] deter dissension from the Torah, as I have explained there.⁹⁷Ibid., Verse 11. Similar is the case of plotting witnesses⁹⁸Ibid., 19:20: And those that remain shall hear, and fear. who are executed [for scheming to condemn someone to death] although they have not caused his execution.⁹⁹See Ramban ibid., Verse 19. Scripture also mentions it in the case of the beguiler¹⁰⁰Ibid., 13:12: And all Israel shall hear, and fear. because he is executed merely for his evil speech even though the beguiled has not worshipped the idols, nor hearkened to him; his [the beguiler’s] death is rather to chasten the survivors. This, too, is a newly-declared commandment — or it may be explanatory of the commandments, Honor thy father and thy mother,¹⁰¹Exodus 20:12. and Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father.¹⁰²Leviticus 19:3.

סורר ומורה, his obstinacy removed all hope that he would change his lifestyle.

כי יהיה לאיש…איננו שומע, "When a man has a delinquent son…he refuses to listen, etc." Why does the Torah write איננו instead of אינו? Perhaps the Torah wanted to emphasise that when the evil urge dominates within man this deprives man of his normal ability to hear and to understand. The reason is that the evil urge takes up its position at the entrance of man's heart preventing words to get through to the soul. I have compared the matter to a king whose security guards were thieves and robbers. Can one imagine that these guards would permit their victims who want to complain to the king that they have been robbed to gain entrance to the king's palace and thereby to help incriminate themselves? Our situation is quite similar.

מורה, obstinate, vexing. The word occurs in this sense in Lamentations 1,20 מרה, מריתי, “I kept disobeying.”

סורר ומורה, “wayward and rebellious;” Nachmanides points out that there are two culpable deeds here for which punishment is called for. !) Treating one’s parents with disdain, disrespect. 2) He drinks alcohol to excess and he is a glutton, something forbidden to Jews who have been commanded to be a holy nation, not one guilty of debauchery. Even so, neither one of these sins is one that carries a death penalty. This penalty can be justified only because it heads off the likelihood that the son in question when fully adult will become guilty of the death penalty after committing sins which may cost other people’s lives before he is brought to justice. Naturally, many people ask how someone can be convicted of the death penalty, or of any penalty for that matter, at a time when is not guilty of an indictable offence. We have a rule that no one is convicted except on the basis of the sins he has carried out, not for the ones he contemplated committing in the future. (Compare Sanhedrin 72) This rule was based on the words באשר הוא שם, which the Torah writes in connection with Ishmael who was about to perish from thirst just out of earshot of his mother Hagar, (Genesis 21,16-21). Ishmael’s survival at the time does not necessarily contradict the principle we quoted, as we do not know of any crime committed by Ishmael afterwards that would have made him guilty of the death penalty. [Who knows if his miraculous survival did not inspire him to observe a lifestyle more in accordance with what he had seen in his father Avraham’s house. Ed.] Although we have a rule that all is under the control of heaven except whether man will be G’d-fearing and observe a lifestyle which reflects this, i.e. he is not interfered with in his decisions by G’d, the wayward son raised under ideal circumstances by parents who both were models of piety, is judged by the Torah, by superhuman psychology, as growing up to be thoroughly depraved. The Torah, [i.e. also his parents who bring him to court, Ed.] are therefore doing him a favour by enabling the court which decrees his execution to preserve such a son’s share in the hereafter for him through his execution at this stage of his life

They warn him before three [magistrates] and have him flogged, etc. Rashi is citing the words of the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 71a) that says, “They warn him before three and have him flogged.” The Gemora explains that the Mishnah is speaking of two separate cases, that they warn him before two [witnesses] and he is flogged before three [magistrates]. You might ask, from where does Rashi derive that they have him flogged [and not some other form of chastening]? The answer is that it is written here “בן סורר (a wayward son),” and later (25:2) it is written, “והיה אם בן הכות הרשע (should the wicked one deserve flogging).” And we derive a law by comparing [the section here that says] בן to [the section there where it says] בן. Just as over there, there is flogging, so here too there is flogging.

V. 18. כי יהיה לאיש בן. An die בכור לנחלה-Institution, welche die Bedeutsamkeit des Sohnes als vermögensrechtlichen Fortträgers der Persönlichkeit des Vaters für Familie und Haus in den Vordergrund stellt, schließt sich ein Gesetz über den völlig missratenen Sohn, בן סורר ומורה, für welchen das Gesetz die Eltern selbst einen frühzeitigen Tod aus Richters Händen als Rettung vor gänzlicher Verderbnis fordern lässt. Wir haben im achten Jahrgang des Jeschurun dieses Kapitel von dem ungeratenen Sohn einer eingehenden Betrachtung unterzogen. Wir haben dort darauf hingewiesen, wie nach einer Auffassung (Sanhedrin 71 a) dieses Kapitel ein Problem behandelt, das לא היה ולא עתיד להיות, das in aller Vergangenheit und aller Zukunft nur "Probleme" war und bleiben wird, nach allen bedingenden Momenten nie zum konkreten Fall sich gestalten kann, das aber nichtsdestoweniger, oder vielmehr eben darum eine reiche Fundgrube pädagogischer Wahrheiten bildet, deren Erforschung דרוש וקבל שכר mit reichstem Gewinnst für das Erziehungsgeschäft der Eltern lohnt.

כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה, “if a man has a wayward son, etc.” the death penalty decreed here for what must appear to the reader as a relatively minor sin by a teenager, is understood as the Torah’s way to save this son from losing his share in the world to come, if he were allowed to continue in his lifestyle. This is how Rashi explains it. If you were to ask that at least he should not have to face a harsher death penalty than that administered for armed robbery, which is death by the sword, not death by stoning, the Torah wrote that he ignored both father and mother, a euphemism for this son cursing father and mother, a crime which carries the penalty of death by stoning. (Compare Leviticus 20,9, where the wording of the Torah for cursing father or mother is: דמיו בו, “his blood will be upon him.” Whenever this expression occurs it refers to death by stoning.

'כי יהיה לאיש וגו, “if a man has, etc.” the reason why the paragraph dealing with a wayward son is appended here is that if such a son is a firstborn, his rights as such are null and void, and the parent must deliver him to the court in order that he will be executed, i.e. he will inherit nothing, not only no double portion.

ומורה means, one who is disobedient to the words of his father, of the same meaning as ממרים in the phrase (Deuteronomy 9:7) “ממרים הייתם”, “ye have been rebellious”.

זולל וסובא, as in Proverbs 23,21 “guzzlers of wine and gluttons of meat.”

Wayward and rebellious son. The continuation of the verse explains what this means, “He does not obey his father or his mother.” In Mishlei the verse states, “Hear, my son, the instruction of your father, and do not forsake the teaching of your mother” (Mishlei 1:8). This means that the father teaches his son the Torah of Hashem, which is called “instruction” whereas the mother teaches correct behavior and customs, which is the “teaching of the mother.” The son who does not listen to the Torah of his father is called “wayward” and if he does not listen to the teachings of his mother he is called “rebellious.” In other words, this son does not follow in the path of Torah nor of correct behavior.

And consumes a tartamor of meat, etc. Because you might ask: What do the witnesses warn him about? [Therefore] Rashi explains, “The wayward, rebellious son is not liable, etc.” Therefore they warn him to not steal and to not eat a tartamor of meat.

בקול אביו ובקול אמו, "to the voice of his father or to the voice of his mother." Why did the Torah have to write the word: "his father," instead of merely writing "his voice," i.e. that of the man who has been described as having this son? The Torah wanted to emphasise that the rebellious son and those who have given birth to him of which the Torah speaks here are his original parents i.e. his Father in heaven and his Mother, i.e. community of Israel, G'd's partner (compare Zohar volume two page 85). This relationship between us and our Father in heaven, i.e. G'd, has already been formulated by Solomon in Proverbs 1,8: שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטש תורת אמך, "My son, hear the instruction of your father, and do not abandon the teachings of your mother." Solomon refers to G'd and the community of Israel respectively. If the son of a terrestrial union became a delinquent it was only because the parents failed to discipline him in time and did not give him proper guidance. This in turn caused him to rebel. The Torah tells us that "when a 'man' has a delinquent son, etc.," i.e. a son who rebels against G'd, remember that even if both his biological father and his biological mother discipline him he will not pay attention to them seeing that he does not even listen to his Father in heaven. In fact, the result of rejecting the laws governing our conduct between ourselves and G'd bring in its wake that we will also ignore the laws of conduct between man and his fellow.

Dieses Gesetz, das über einen jugendlichen Verbrecher als einen "Unverbesserlichen" den Stab bricht und seinen frühzeitigen Tod als einzige Rettung vor künftiger völliger Entartung statuiert, — בן סורר ומורה נידון על שם סופו ימות זכאי ואל ימות חייב (daselbst 17 b) — knüpft nämlich dieses sein Urteil an ganz bestimmte Momente des Alters, des Vergehens, ganz besonders aber des Verhaltens der Eltern zueinander und zum Sohne, die nur in ihrem vorhandenen Zusammenwirken die elterliche Erziehungsaufgabe als gelöst, und die Schuld allein in der unverbesserlichen Natur des Sohnes erscheinen lassen, die aber eben damit die bedeutsamsten Fingerzeige derjenigen Momente bilden, welche eine jede gedeihliche Erziehung zur Voraussetzung hat. Wir haben diese Momente in der erwähnten Abhandlung hervorzuheben und eingehend zu beleuchten versucht. Wir verweisen hierauf und beschränken uns hier darauf, diese Momente nur wie sie sich aus Erläuterung des Textes ergeben, zu verzeichnen.

בן סורר ומורה, “a son who is stubborn and rebellious.” We have learned concerning this in the Mishnah in Sanhedrin folio 70, that such a son does not become legally guilty of such treatment by his parents until he has consumed a certain amount of meat and drunk a certain amount of wine, both of which he had stolen from his parents. There is some discussion of what precisely is the amount of meat and wine described there. Either way, it is a relatively insignificant amount. Furthermore, according to the Talmud, this theft must occur while the son in question is between 13 years and three months, but before he has become thirteen and a half. Rashi explains that the law as it stands is not only not cruel, but is designed to preserve the afterlife for such a wayward son, for if, at such a tender age he were allowed to continue in this way, most likely he would become guilty of the kind of crime that would lead to his forfeiting his share in the world to come because he would have killed an innocent person. If you were to ask how it is that we punish someone for a sin never committed, or punishable merely by a fine, consider the law of the רודף, someone observed chasing a second person with clear intent to murder that person unless stopped in time. Jewish law not only permits, but expects us to kill this potential murderer before he can carry out his evil intention. Do not quote me Genesis 21,17 when Yishmael is about to perish from thirst and an angel is dispatched to save him, (against the protestations of other angels who predict the harm his descendants will do to the descendants of Avraham), and where G-d explains that He cannot allow him to die now as now is not guilty. [The comparison is very lopsided when examined closely and with reference to a period when no Torah had as yet been given. Ed.]

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).

ויסרו אותו, “and they shall discipline him.” They administer corporal punishment after having duly warned the guilty party of what is in store for him if he persists (Sanhedrin 71).

Do not be among the wine guzzlers, among those who gluttonously consume meat [for themselves], etc. This indicates that the terms זולל וסובא applies to meat and wine. Rashi then asks: Why should he be killed for stealing and eating a tartamor of meat and drinking a half log of wine? He explains, “The wayward, rebellious son is executed in consideration of his [ignoble] end, etc.” You might ask: Why is the wayward and rebellious son singled out that “the the Torah penetrates to the logical conclusion of his thought” and is executed in consideration of his ignoble end? But regarding Yishmael it is written (Bereishis 21:17), “in the place where he is,” and Rashi explains, “He is judged according to his present deeds and not according to what he will do in the future, etc.” See Rashi there in parshas Vayera. The answer is that there regarding Yishmael who was still a child, so he had not started doing anything connected to that [future] sin of killing Israel by thirst. But the wayward and rebellious son began [doing things that will ultimately lead] to that sin [of robbery], because he ate a tartamor of meat. Another answer is that the Heavenly court does not judge [a person] in consideration of his end, but it is a mitzvah for the Beis Din below [i.e., our court system] to judge a person in consideration of his end.

.כי יהיה לאיש בן, es heißt nicht einfach: ׳כי יהיה בן סורר ומורה וגו, auch nicht: כי יהיה לאב בן wie בן הייתי לאבי (Prov. 4, 3), in welchen beiden Fällen der Sohn ganz allgemein als Kind seiner Eltern zu begreifen wäre, sondern: כי יהיה לאיש בן, ähnlich wie das vorhergehende כי תהיין לאיש שתי נשים, und ist damit der Sohn in seinem Verhältnis zum Vater als Mann begriffen, als ein Kind, in welchem der Mann bereits einen einstigen Nachfolger und Fortträger seiner Mannespersönlichkeit zu erblicken berechtigt sein sollte, einen "Baustein und Fortbauer" seines Hauses, wie das Wort ja eigentlich sagt. Ein Gedanke, der durch den Gegensatz um so schärfer hervortritt, in welchem der hier zu besprechende בן סורר ומורה zu dem im vorigen Gesetze besprochenen Sohne steht, der als ראשית אנו bezeichnet ist. Dort erblickt der sterbende Vater in seinen Söhnen die vermögensrechtlichen Fortträger seines Haus und Familie ernährenden Mannesstrebens. Hier sieht er in dem זולל וסובא den einstigen Vergeuder des väterlichen Vermögens, שסוף מגמר נכסי אביו (Sanhedrin 72 a). Während daher בן an sich den Sohn auch im Kindesalter umfassen würde, bezeichnet: כי יהיה לאיש בן den Sohn in demjenigen Altersstadium, in welchem der Vater als Mann in ihm schon den künftigen Mann, den ihm, dem Manne, schon näher gerückten erkennt, כי יהיה לאיש בן בן הסמוך לגבורתו של איש (daselbst 68 b), es sind dies nach der Halacha die ersten drei Monate nach erlangter Jünglingsreife, nach zurückgelegten dreizehn Jahren. כל ימיו של בן ס׳ו׳מ אינן אלא ג׳ חדשים בלבד daselbst 69 a).

מורה, “rebellious;” compare Genesis 26,35: מורת רוח, “of rebellious spirit.”

Station himself near an intersection and plunder, etc. I.e., and he will kill them. You might ask: Why is he punished with stoning, which is a more severe form of death? But the [death of] a murderer is [execution] by the sword! The answer is that he sometimes robs and kills on Shabbos. Thus he desecrates Shabbos and is therefore liable to be executed by stoning because of taking a life [and he is punished with stoning for desecrating Shabbos].

Einen höchst bedeutsamen Wink, glauben wir, gibt das Gesetz mit dieser Beschränkung allen um die sittliche Zukunft ihrer Zöglinge ernst bedachten Erziehern. In den ersten Monaten nach erreichter בר מצוה erblickt das Gesetz die über die sittliche Zukunft entscheidende kritische Zeit. Gerade in der Zeit, in welcher nach gewöhnlicher Anschauung mit der erwachenden Sinnlichkeit das "Böse" im Menschen wach wird, erwartet das Gesetz den entscheidenden Durchbruch des "Guten", das eben im Kampfe mit der Sinnlichkeit לגבורתו של איש, sich zu der sittlichen Mannesstärke emporarbeitet. Der Menschenschöpfer, der dem Menschenjüngling die Zeit des Kampfes gegeben, hat dieselbe Zeit zu einer Weckerin des Geistes geschaffen, der für alles sittlich Edle und Große erglüht und sich von allem Gemeinen und Niedrigen mit empörtem Ekel abwendet. Und vor allem der jüdische Menschenjüngling, wenn die Eltern an ihm ihre Pflicht getan und ihn "auf den Knieen der Lehre und der Pflicht", der תורה und מצוה haben heranwachsen lassen, so dass sie ihn nun als בר מצוה, als "Sohn der von Gott gebotenen Pflicht" eben der weiter erziehenden Macht dieses Pflichtbewusstseins überantworten können, von ihm heißt es in noch höherem Grade: בראתי יצר הרע ובראתי לו תורה תבלין (Kiduschin 30 b). An dem Gehorsam, den der zum Jüngling gereifte Sohn in dieser ersten Zeit seines Jünglingsadels seinen Eltern zollt, an dem Maße, in welchem er sich in dieser Zeit von dem Gemeinsinnlichen entfernt und dem Geistigsittlichen sich zuwendet: will das Gesetz die Macht erkennen, die der Geist der "Mizwa" über ihn hat, zu deren Fahne er jetzt mit Mannesernst und Jünglingsfreude getreten sein soll. Es scheint uns nicht fern zu liegen, dass dies auch der Gedanke der Mischna (Sanhedrin 68 a) sei, die nicht sagt: בן ולא איש קטן פטור שלא בא לכלל עונשין sondern קטן פטור שלא בא לכלל מצות; denn nicht so sehr von der Furcht vor Strafe, als von der Macht des freudigen Mizwageistes erwartet das Gesetz den sittlichen und sittigenden Einfluss auf den Menschenjüngling. So fasst auch die erläuternde Gemara בא לכלל מצות und בא לכלל עונשין als zwei getrennte Momente (daselbst).

סורר ומורה, während סרר wie סור das beharrliche Weichen von einem angewiesenen Wege, das Nichteingehen auf denselben bezeichnet, so: פרה סוררה (Hosea 4. 16), ein störrisches, unlenksames Tier, liegt in מרה auch das positive Zuwiderhandeln (siehe Bereschit S. 361). So auch ומורה שמורה לעצמו דרך אחרת :ספרי und: סורר על דברי אביו ומורה על דברי אמו סורר על דרכי תורה ומורה על דברי הדיינים (nach Lesart im Jalkut). Dem Vater folgt er nicht und der Mutter handelt er zuwider, ebenso tut er nicht, was Gott geboten, und das gerade Gegenteil von dem, was Menschen fordern.

איננו שומע בקול אביו ובקול אמו: nur wenn das Kind einen Vater und eine Mutter hat, und nur, wenn sowohl der Vater als die Mutter ihren erziehlichen Einfluss auf ihn geltend machen, und nur, wenn, wie dies V. 20 heißt: איננו שומע בקולנו, Vater- und Mutterstimme eine Stimme ist, beide dem Kinde in gleichem Ernst, in gleicher Würdigkeit und vor allem in übereinstimmendem, einheitlichem Meinen und Wollen gegenüberstehen: nur dann können sie sich sagen, ihre Schuld sei es nicht, wenn ihr Kind missraten. Wo eines dieser Momente fehlt, wo vor allem Übereinstimmung, die Einheit in der Erziehung zwischen Vater und Mutter fehlt, da ist das Missraten des Kindes noch kein Beweis für die sittliche Verderbnis seiner Natur — unter einer wirklichen, besseren väterlichen und mütterlichen Erziehung wäre das Kind vielleicht ein anderes geworden und was die Eltern verfehlt, kann vielleicht das Leben und die Erfahrung bessern. —

Diese völlige Übereinstimmung zwischen Vater und Mutter als unerlässliche Vorbedingung dieses Problems ist auch allen folgenden Bestimmungen aufgeprägt, so: