Sanhedrin 71a (עא.) — the Talmud in English

liable

for lashes, because he violated the prohibition stated: “Do not drink wine or strong drink.”

And although with regard to the prohibition against entering the Temple while intoxicated by wine, one also violates the prohibition by consuming dried figs, honey, or 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 allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “Do not be among wine drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat.”

This is explicit in the Mishna.

And

further,

it says (

Proverbs 23):

“For the drunkard and the glutton will become poor

—his end will be to become poor and to seek his accustomed pleasures but not find them—

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.

From one matter to another, the Gemara derives an additional homiletic interpretation from this verse.

Rabbi Zeira said: Anyone who sleeps in the study hall—

his Torah becomes for him tattered fragments

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

as it is stated: “And drowsiness will clothe you in rags.”

Mishna:

A wayward and rebellious son is liable only if he stole money from his father, in which case he will become accustomed to seeking his pleasure, since the money will always be readily available to him to steal. Likewise, he is liable only if he ate the half-litran of meat and drank the half-log of wine in another person’s domain, since then he is not afraid to eat. But if he eats in his father’s domain, he is afraid, and will not become drawn after such eating.

If he stole

money

from his father

and purchased meat and wine with it

and ate in his father’s domain, or if he stole

from

others and ate in the domain of others

and all the more so if he stole

from others and ate in his father’s domain—

he does not become a wayward and rebellious son.

Until—

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

he steals from his father and eats in another person’s domain.

These are the words of the Sages.

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

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the Mishna and its rationale.

If he stole from his father and ate in his father’s domain,

he is exempt,

and

the reason is:

although

the money

is readily available to him,

nevertheless—

he is afraid

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

If he stole from others and ate in the domain of others,

he is exempt,

and

the reason is:

although he is not afraid

—he is not afraid because his father does not see him eating—nevertheless

it is not readily available to him

since other people’s money is not readily available for him to steal.

And all the more so,

if he stole

from others and ate in his father’s domain,

he is certainly exempt, since

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

Until he steals from his father

and

eats in another person’s domain—

for

both

the money is readily available to him

to steal,

and

he also

is not afraid

to eat, and in this way he will become drawn after his disgraceful actions.

We learned in our Mishna:

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

And we raise a difficulty:

His mother?! From where does she have it?

How does she have money of her own? After all,

whatever a woman acquires is acquired by her husband.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:

He stole meat and wine

from a meal prepared for his father and mother,

and since it was prepared for them, he is considered to have stolen from his mother as well, since it belongs to her too, as her husband is obligated to provide her sustenance.

The meaning of this answer is that he stole meat and wine. Therefore, we ask:

But Rabbi Ḥanan 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—

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

And we answer:

Rather, say

that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, meant that he stole

from the money designated for a meal prepared for his father and mother.

Alternatively,

if you wish,

say

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

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

a certain person gave it to her,

he transferred ownership to her,

another

person gave her money,

and said to her: “

I hereby transfer ownership of 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.

The son then stole from his mother as well.

Mishna:

If his father wished

to make him a wayward and rebellious son,

but his mother did not wish to; or his father did not wish to, but his mother did wish to—

he does not become a wayward and rebellious son.

Until both of them wish it .

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

does the phrase “his mother

was not fit

for his father” mean?

If you say

that she was not fit to be his wife, and he could not betroth her—for example,

those liable for excision,

such as his mother being forbidden to his father by a prohibition whose violation incurs excision, for example, if she was his sister,

and

likewise

those liable to receive execution by a court,

such as his mother-in-law [who is liable to be executed by burning]—

what difference does it make that she was not fit?

Ultimately, his father

is his father—

his father

indeed,

and his mother,

his mother—

his mother indeed, and they are his father and mother, since the Torah did not write “a man and a woman,” from which one would derive that she must be “his wife.”

Rather,

Rabbi Yehuda’s statement means:

equal to his father

in voice, appearance, and stature—

that is what he said.

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

It was taught

in a beraita

likewise,

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 states: “He does not obey our voice,”

and Rabbi Yehuda expounds “our voice” as one voice [since it does not say “our voices,” which would indicate two voices].

From

this,

we require that their voices

be

equal—

we likewise require that their appearance and stature

be equal.

According to whom

and whose words

does

the following

beraita

accord:

A wayward and rebellious son never existed and never will exist, and why was it written in the Torah? Expound and receive reward!

According to whom

and whose words?

According to Rabbi Yehuda,

because it is an uncommon circumstance for a father and mother to be equal in voice, appearance, and stature.

Alternatively,

if you wish, say:

It is Rabbi Shimon.

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

the son

a half-litran of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine—

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

Would his father and mother agree to have him executed for this?

Rather, he never existed and never will exist, and why was it written? Expound and receive reward!

Rabbi Yonatan said:

There was a wayward and rebellious son, and

I saw him and sat upon his grave!

And the Gemara continues in the very same vein:

According to whom does the following beraita accord:

A city led astray,

where all the inhabitants who worshipped idolatry are judged to be stoned and their property is destroyed,

never existed and never will exist, and why was it written,

the passage concerning a city led astray 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, even a single one of the Five Books of Moses or one of the books of the Prophets,

or even a single mezuzah—

does not become a city led astray.

What is the reason?

The verse states,

in the passage concerning a city led astray (Deuteronomy 13):

“You shall gather all its spoils 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 sacred books,

it is impossible

to fulfill the Torah’s mitzva of burning all its spoils, since they contain references to the Divine Name—

for

it is

written

(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.”

According to Rabbi Eliezer, it is an uncommon circumstance for a city in Israel not to contain even a single mezuzah.

Rabbi Yonatan said: I saw it,

the city led astray,

and sat upon its mound,

its ruins.

According to whom does the following beraita accord:

A house afflicted with leprosy,

containing the afflictions of houses,

never existed and never will exist, and why was it written,

the passage concerning the afflictions of houses 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 appears in it

an affliction in the house

the size of two split beans

[the measure of the affliction is the size of a split bean]

on two stones

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

in two walls,

that is,

at a corner,

as will be explained,

its length

of the affliction

the size of two split beans and its width the size of one split bean,

so that on each stone there is the size of one split bean by one split bean.

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

It is written

there:

“Wall”—

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

and

it is also

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 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.

According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it is an uncommon circumstance for an affliction to have this form.

These are the words of the tanna of the beraita, who maintains the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. 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

the ruined house of the enclosed one,

a ruined and derelict place, where a house afflicted with leprosy had been demolished, as is required for such a house.

And likewise

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

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

and they said

the local inhabitants that the “mark” indicated that

afflicted stones had been cleared there.

According to these tannaim, a house afflicted with leprosy indeed existed.

Mishna:

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

If one of them,

his father or mother,

was missing 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 take hold of him,”

and we expound:

but not those missing hands.

It is also stated:

“And they shall bring him out,”

and we expound:

but not the lame.

It is also stated:

“And they shall say,”

and we expound:

but not the mutes.

It is also stated:

“This son of ours”—

this indicates that they see him, and we expound:

but not the blind.

It is also stated:

“He does not obey our voice,”

which indicates 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 punishment for a wayward and rebellious son.

After he has glutted himself and drunk excessively,

they admonish him,

they rebuke him,

in the presence of three people

[this is not like the warning for other prohibitions in the Torah, for which one is liable to lashes only after witnesses issue a warning; rather, they inform him that if he continues his disgraceful habits, they will bring him before the court and have him executed]. 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,