Sanhedrin 136

Chapter 136

א מתני׳ <big><strong>בן</strong></big> סורר ומורה מאימתי נעשה בן סורר ומורה
1 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. 'A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This chapter continues the exposition of the Mishnah on 53a. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב 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:
2 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 18. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> קטן מנלן דפטור מנלן כדקתני טעמא שלא בא לכלל מצות ותו היכא אשכחן דענש הכתוב דהכא ליבעי קרא למיפטריה
3 '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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the stage of moral responsibility involved on reaching the age of 13 years and one day; v. Ab. V, 24. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד 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
4 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Whence do we know that A MINOR IS EXEMPT? (Whence do we know? The Mishnah states the reason, viz that HE DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE COMMANDMENTS. 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: Now, is then a 'STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON' executed for his actual iniquity? Surely he is rather slain on account of his ultimate end;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 72a. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב דאמר קרא וכי יהיה לאיש בן בן הסמוך לגבורתו של איש:
5 and that being so, even a minor should be executed? Moreover, [the interpretation,] 'a son', but not a man, implies a minor?) Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Scripture saith, If a man have a son [that is stubborn and rebellious], implying, a son near to the strength of manhood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The interpretation is based on the fact that 'son' is stated (in the Heb.) in immediate proximity to 'man'__ [H]. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו ועד שיקיף זקן התחתון כו': תני רבי חייא עד שיקיף עטרה כי אתא רב דימי אמר הקפת גיד ולא הקפת ביצים
6 UNTIL HE GROWS A BEARD RIGHT ROUND, etc. R. Hiyya taught: Until he grows a beard round the corona. When R. Dimi came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 390, n. 1. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז אמר רב חסדא קטן שהוליד אין בנו נעשה בן סורר ומורה שנא' כי יהיה לאיש בן לאיש בן ולא לבן בן האי מיבעי ליה לכדרב יהודה אמר רב א"כ לימא קרא כי יהיה בן לאיש מאי כי יהיה לאיש בן ש"מ לכדרב חסדא
7 he explained it thus: It means, until the hair surrounds the membrum, but not until it grows round the testicles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The other occurs much later. But once the former has taken place, he is a man, and no longer liable. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח ואימא כוליה להכי הוא דאתא אם כן נימא קרא בן איש מאי לאיש בן שמע מינה תרתי
8 R. Hisda said: If a minor begot a son, the latter does not come within the category of a stubborn and rebellious son, for it is written, If a man have a son, but not if a son [i.e., one who has not reached manhood] have a son. But is not that verse needed for the deduction made by Rab Judah in Rab's name?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט ופליגא דרבה דאמר רבה קטן אינו מוליד שנא' (במדבר ה, ח) אם אין לאיש גואל וכי יש לך אדם בישראל שאין לו גואל
9 — If so, the verse should read, If there be a son to a man: why state, If a man have a son? — To teach R. Hisda's dictum.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the verse merely teaches that the son must be just before the age of manhood, son should have immediately preceded man. By reversing the order, the manhood of the father (when begetting the son) is emphasized: only if a man beget a son but not if a minor beget one, though he is already a man when his son transgresses. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י אלא בגזל הגר הכתוב מדבר
10 Then let us say that the entire verse teaches this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, how is Rab's dictum deduced? ');"><sup>10</sup></span> — If so, Scripture should have said, 'If there be the son of a man who [sc. the son] is stubborn,' etc.: Why state, If a man have a son etc.? Hence both are deduced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the verse wished to intimate only the manhood of the father, 'son' should have been in the weak, construct form ([H]) so that the entire emphasis should be upon 'man'. By putting son in the absolute form ([H]) and in immediate proximity to 'man', the manhood of both is emphasised, as taught in the dicta of Rab and b. Hisda. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> Now, R. Hisda's statement conflicts with Rabbah's. For Rabbah said: A minor cannot beget children, for it is written, But if the man hath no kinsman [to recompense the trespass unto].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 8. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> Now, is there any man in Israel that has no kinsman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since all Israel are related, being the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> Hence the Writ must refer to the robbery of a proselyte,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who died before it could he returned. A proselyte has no relationship whatever with his pre-conversion relations; v. p. 394. n. 1. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter