Sanhedrin 70

Children do not always cooperate with their parents. And they’re not always so respectful about it. As we now understand, this is often developmentally appropriate, but it still can be a source of frustration for the parents. But is a minor indulging in back talk and defiance a legal matter? The Torah says yes. Deuteronomy 21:18–21 introduces us to the notion of a stubborn and rebellious son (ben sorer u’moreh), a child who has gone so far across the line of parental disrespect — violating the fifth of the Ten Commandments, honor your father and mother — that they are actually executed:

If a householder has a stubborn and rebellious son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Thereupon his town’s council shall stone him to death. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst: all Israel will hear and be afraid.

Since this is a capital offense, it is discussed in Tractate Sanhedrin. In fact, the conversation is significant enough to be assigned to a chapter of its own, the eighth of our tractate, which began a few days ago on page 68.

On today’s daf, a mishnah focused on the particulars of verse 20, in which parents, after having identified their child as stubborn and rebellious, are instructed to take the child to the public square and, before the elders of the town, declare that he is also a glutton and a drunkard. Instead of reading this as a requirement that the parents describe the way in which their son was rebellious, the rabbis understand the Torah to mean that in order to be rebellious, the son must be guilty of the specific offenses mentioned in the verse. In other words, gluttony and drunkenness are not examples of how a son might act out; rather, they are required elements of said acting out.

The mishnah further explains that the child’s overindulgences are not about eating and drinking in general, but must involve specific categories of food and drink:

If he ate any food in the world but did not eat meat, or if he drank any beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son; that is, unless he actually eats meat and actually drinks wine.

A child who indulges in pizza and soda is not stubborn and rebellious — only, quite specifically, a child who over-consumes meat and wine. Meat was eaten rarely in the ancient world, mostly at festivals. However, the Talmud goes on, if the gluttony occurred at, say, a Passover celebration, it does not count as ben sorer u’moreh behavior because gastronomic indulgence is expected in those circumstances. And, if the food or drink that was consumed was forbidden (e.g. food that has been consecrated to the Temple), although the son has violated a prohibition, this behavior does not make them a rebellious child, because their offense is toward God, not their parents.

Now, instead of being a loosely-defined offense, ben sorer u’moreh behavior is limited to a very specific set of unlikely actions. This is typical of much of the rabbinic discussion of ben sorer u’moreh and, more generally, capital punishments. Although they are not explicit about their agenda, the rabbis apparently take every opportunity to reduce the number of instances in which a child can be declared criminally stubborn and rebellious. This results not in providing protection for parents from their difficult children, but protection for children from parents who struggle to keep their cool — or the proper perspective — when their kids act out.

Read all of Sanhedrin 70 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on February 25, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.