Sanhedrin 71a — the Talmud in English

liable for lashes—because he transgressed the prohibition stated: “Do not drink wine or strong drink” (Leviticus 10:9).

—

And although with regard to the prohibition against entering the Temple while having drunk wine, one also transgresses [the prohibition] by eating pressed figs, honey, and milk—

he does not become a wayward and rebellious son if he ate and drank them.

We learned in our Mishna:

He does not become a wayward and rebellious son until he eats meat and drinks wine.

The Sages taught: If he ate every type of food but did not eat meat, [or] drank every type of beverage but did not drink wine—

he does not become a wayward and rebellious son until he eats meat and drinks wine—

as it is stated: “A glutton and a drunkard.” And although there is no proof for the matter—

there is an indication for the matter, as it is stated: “Do not be among wine-drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat for themselves.”

This is explicit in the Mishna.

And

further

it says (Proverbs 23):

“For the drunkard and the glutton will become poor

and rags will clothe slumber.”

[Slumber means excessive sleep, and one who indulges in it—it will clothe him in torn garments and worn-out rags.] That is to say, ultimately every possessor of pleasures will come to poverty.

and drowsiness will clothe you in rags

—drowsiness means excessive sleep, and one who indulges in it will be clothed in torn garments and worn-out rags.” Thus, the end of every person devoted to pleasures is to come to poverty.

And from one matter to another, the Gemara expounds another exposition from this verse.

Rabbi Zeira said: Anyone who sleeps in the house of study—

his Torah becomes for him torn pieces—

he forgets his learning, and his memory of it is fragmented: he remembers part and does not remember part—

as it is stated: “And rags will clothe slumber.”

Mishna:

A wayward and rebellious son is liable only if he stole money from his father, for then he will come to continue and seek his habit, since in that case the money is always available to him to steal it. And likewise, he is liable only if he ate a tartemar of meat and drank half a log of wine on another’s premises, for then he is not afraid to eat; but if he eats on his father’s premises, he is afraid, and will not come to continue after such eating.

He stole

money

from his father

and purchased meat and wine with it

and ate on his father’s premises, or if he stole

from

others and ate on others’ premises ,

and all the more so if he stole

from others and ate on his father’s premises—

he does not become a wayward and rebellious son.

Until,

that is, and when indeed does he become a wayward and rebellious son?—

until he steals from his father and eats on the premises of others.

These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Until he steals from his father and from his mother .

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the Mishna and its reason.

He stole from his father and ate on his father’s premises,

he is exempt,

and

the reason is:

even though

the money

is commonly available to him,

nevertheless—

he is afraid

he fears his father, lest he realize that he is eating from money that he stole.

From others and ate on others’ premises,

he is exempt,

and

the reason is:

even though he is not afraid,

for he does not fear that his father will see him eating, nevertheless—

it is not commonly available to him—

other people’s money does not become available to him to steal.

And all the more so,

if he stole

from others and ate on his father’s premises,

he is certainly exempt, since

it is not commonly available to him, and he is afraid.

Until he steals from his father

and

eats on the premises of others—

for

also

it is commonly available to him

to steal,

and

also

he is not afraid

to eat; and in this manner he will come to continue after his reprehensible deeds.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Until he steals from his father and from his mother.

And we raise a difficulty:

His mother?! From where does she have it—

from where does she have money of her own? After all,

whatever a woman acquires, her husband acquires.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said:

He stole meat and wine

from a meal prepared for his father and his mother,

and since they were prepared for this purpose, it is called that he stole from his mother, for they belong also to her, because her husband is obligated to provide her sustenance.

The meaning of this answer is that he stole meat and wine; therefore we raise a difficulty:

But Rabbi Hanan bar Molada said that Rav Huna said: He is not liable until he

steals money and

purchases cheap meat and eats it, [and] cheap wine and drinks it—

and if he stole meat and wine, he is exempt.

And we answer:

Rather, say

that the intention of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina is that he stole

from the “money” of a meal prepared for his father and his mother.

And if you wish,

if you wish to say,

say

another answer to the difficulty: “His mother?! From where does she have money?”—

There is a case in which she indeed has money, namely:

that he gave it to her—

a certain man transferred to her

another

money,

and said to her: “

I hereby transfer this money to you

on the condition that your husband has no authority over it,”

and in this manner the money does not belong to the husband.

And now the son stole also from his mother.

Mishna:

If his father wished

to make him a wayward and rebellious son—

but his mother did not wish; if his father did not wish but his mother wished—

he does not become a wayward and rebellious son.

Until both of them wish .

Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not fit for his father, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son.

This is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

What

is the meaning of “his mother

was not fit

for his father”?

If you say

that she was not fit to be his wife, and he has no kiddushin with her, such as

those liable for karet,

where his mother is forbidden to his father by a prohibition for which one is liable for karet, for example, she is his sister,

and

likewise

those liable for execution by the court,

such as his mother-in-law [for whom they are liable to burning]—

what difference does it make that she is not fit?

Ultimately, his father

is his father—

his father

they are, and his mother—

, and his mother

is his mother—

his mother they are, and they are his father and mother, for the Torah did not write “a man and a woman,” so that it could be expounded that she must be “his wife.”

Rather,

the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s words is:

equal to his father

in voice, appearance, and stature—

he said.

For Rabbi Yehuda holds, as will be explained below, that only if they are alike in voice, appearance, and stature does he become a wayward and rebellious son.

It was taught

in a beraita

also so,

as we explained:

Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not equal to his father in voice, appearance, and stature—

he does not become a wayward and rebellious son.

What is the reason?

For the verse says: “He does not listen to our voice,”

and Rabbi Yehuda expounds “our voice” as one voice [since it is not written “our voices,” or “our voices” with a yod, whose meaning would be two voices].

From

this

that voice is required

we require that they be

equal—

appearance and stature are also required

that they be equal.

According to whom

according to whose words

does

the following

beraita go,

which we learned:

A wayward and rebellious son never was and is not destined to be, and why was it written in the Torah? Expound and receive reward!

According to whom

according to whose words?

According to Rabbi Yehuda,

for it is something uncommon that his father and mother should be equal in voice, appearance, and stature.

Alternatively,

if you wish to say:

It is Rabbi Shimon.

As it was taught: Rabbi Shimon said: Is it because this one ate

the son

a tartemar of meat and drank half a log of Italian wine—

his father and mother take him out to stone him?!

Would his father and mother agree to take him out to be executed for this?

Rather, he never was and is not destined to be, and why was it written? Expound and receive reward!

Rabbi Yonatan said:

A wayward and rebellious son did exist, and

I saw him and sat upon his grave!

And the Gemara continues in that very matter:

According to whom does the following beraita go:

A condemned city,

where all the inhabitants of the city who worshipped idolatry are judged by stoning and their property is destroyed,

never was and is not destined to be, and why was it written

the passage of the condemned city in the Torah—

Expound and receive reward!

According to whom? According to Rabbi Eliezer.

As it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: Any city in which there is

a Torah scroll, or even one of the Five Books, or one book from the books of the Prophets,

or even one mezuzah—

does not become a condemned city.

What is the reason?

The verse says

in the passage of the condemned city (Deuteronomy 13):

“And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and burn it with fire”—

and since, if there is

in it

a mezuzah

or one of the other books,

it is not possible

to fulfill the mitzva of the Torah to burn all its spoil, since Divine Names are written in them—

for

it is

written (Deuteronomy 12): “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations served there ... And you shall tear down their altars and smash their pillars, and their sacred trees you shall burn with fire ...

(Deuteronomy 12): “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations served there… You shall demolish their altars, smash their pillars, and burn their sacred trees with fire”…

You shall not do so to the Lord your God.”

And according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is an uncommon matter that a city in Israel should not contain even one mezuzah.

Rabbi Yonatan said: I saw it,

the condemned city,

and sat upon its mound,

its ruins.

According to whom does the following beraita go:

A house afflicted with a leprous affliction,

in which there are house afflictions,

never was and is not destined to be, and why was it written

the passage of house afflictions in the Torah—

Expound and receive reward!

According to whom? According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

As we learned: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: A house is never impure—

until there is seen in it

the affliction in the house

like two gris measures

[the measure of the affliction is the size of a gris]

on two stones,

from the stones of the house, as it is stated, “And they shall remove the stones,” which implies at least two stones, each of which contains the measure of an affliction; and those two stones shall be

on two walls,

that is,

at a corner,

as will be explained;

its length

of the affliction

like two gris measures, and its width like one gris,

so that on each stone there will be one gris by one gris.

What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?

It is written

there:

“Wall”—

“and its appearance is lower than the wall,” in the singular,

and

further

it is written

there: “

walls”—

“and behold, the affliction is in the walls,” in the plural. “It is impossible to say ‘wall,’ since ‘walls’ is stated, and it is impossible to say ‘walls,’ since ‘wall’ is stated.”

And we expound:

What is a wall that is like walls? You must say: This is a corner.

And according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it is an uncommon matter that the affliction should have this form.

These are the words of the tan n a of the beraita, who holds like Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. But Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, and Rabbi Shimon disagree with him.

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: There was a place within the territory of

the city of

Gaza, and they would call it

this place

Hurveta Segirata,

a ruined and broken-down place, from which they had demolished a house afflicted with a leprous affliction, as is the law of a house afflicted with a leprous affliction, that they demolish the house.

And likewise,

Rabbi Shimon of Kefar Akko said: Once I went to the Galilee, and I saw a place that they marked,

where they had made a “mark,” meaning a sign to keep away from it, since stones removed from a house afflicted with a leprous affliction convey impurity through tent impurity like a corpse,

and they said,

the people of the place, that the “mark” was because

stones afflicted with a leprous affliction had been cleared there.

And according to these tannaim, the house afflicted with a leprous affliction indeed existed.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to explain the characteristics of his father and mother.

If one of them,

his father or his mother, was

without a hand,

his hand having been severed,

or lame, or mute, or blind, or deaf—

he does not become a wayward and rebellious son.

As it is stated: “And his father and mother shall seize him,”

and we expound:

but not those without hands.

And it is further stated:

“And they shall bring him out,”

and we expound:

but not the lame.

And it is further stated:

“And they shall say,”

and we expound:

but not the mute.

And it is further stated:

“This son of ours”—

this implies that they see him, and we expound:

but not the blind.

And it is further stated:

“He does not listen to our voice”—

this implies that at the time of their admonition they heard him say, “I do not accept your words”; therefore we expound:

but not the deaf.

The Mishna explains the order of warning and punishing a wayward and rebellious son.

After he has been a glutton and a drunkard,

they warn him,

they admonish him

in the presence of three [ [A0320]]This is not

like the warning for other transgressions in the Torah, in which one is not liable for lashes except through the warning of witnesses; rather, they inform him that if he continues in his reprehensible habits, they will bring him before the court and execute him]. As it is stated: “And they shall chastise him” .

And

if he did not heed their voice -

they flog him

forty lashes.

If he again corrupted himself

with his disgraceful deeds -

he is judged

for stoning

by twenty-three

judges, like all capital cases.

And he is not stoned until there are present

among the twenty-three -

the first three .

As it is stated: “This our son”

and we expound:

This one who was flogged before you.

Gemara:

Samuel holds in the chapter “The verdict has been concluded” (above 45b): “We require the verse as it is written.” That is, all the laws of the Torah must be fulfilled as they are written in the Torah, and if one detail is lacking, and it is impossible to fulfill it, the entire law is not carried out, and that detail prevents its fulfillment. Therefore, he holds that since the Torah wrote, in the passage concerning idolatry (Deuteronomy 17), “The hand of the witnesses shall be against him first to put him to death,” therefore, if the hands of the witnesses were severed—he is exempt from death.

And in his view, we do not say that the Torah used this wording merely as a mitzva, and that all that is possible to fulfill should be fulfilled.

Apparently, without the words of the Mishna, the fact that the Torah used the wording “and they shall seize him,” “and they shall bring him out,” is merely a mitzva, and does not prevent [the law]. And the Mishna comes to teach a novelty: that if it is impossible to fulfill the law exactly as its mitzva, precisely as it is written in the Torah—for example, if one of them is handless—the entire law of the wayward and rebellious son is not carried out, and he is exempted.

And therefore the Gemara discusses:

you may infer from it

that the tan[n]ay of our Mishna—and it is an anonymous Mishna—holds:

“We require the verse as it is written!”

And our Mishna is proof for Samuel.

The Gemara rejects this proof: even if we say, “We do not require the verse as it is written,” nevertheless -

it is different

here

the law of the wayward and rebellious son is different,