Yesterday, the Gemara took measures to narrowly define the category of ben sorer u’moreh, the “stubborn and rebellious son” who is stoned to death. In that vein, a mishnah on today’s daf teaches:
If his father wishes to have him punished but his mother does not, or if his father does not wish to have him punished but his mother does, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son — only if they both wish that he be punished.
Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not suited for his father, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.
According to this mishnah, a child cannot become a ben sorer u’moreh unless both parents agree he is worthy of the punishment; either parent can save him from the rage of the other. Beyond that, we also have a puzzling statement from Rabbi Yehuda that if the parents are “not suited” for one another the child is not judged stubborn and rebellious. The Gemara asks what this means. Perhaps the parents’ union is some kind of violation? This explanation doesn’t hold, however, since, as the Gemara points out, they’re still his parents. The Gemara now supplies a beraita which offers an even less probable explanation:
Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance and height, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. What is the reason for this? As the verse states: “He will not obey our voices.” (Deuteronomy 21:20) And since we require that they be identical in voice, we also require that they be identical in appearance and height.
Not only must the parents be identical in their opinion of their son, according to a midrashic reading of Deuteronomy 21:20 they must be identical in appearance and their voices must be indistinguishable. This explanation stands.
Given these rulings, the chances of charging someone with being a ben sorer u’moreh now seem astronomically small. Indeed, the ensuing beraita on today’s daf teaches:
There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future.
The beraita states explicitly what we inferred from the previous legal discussion: The midrashic interpretations of the verses concerning the ben sorer u’moreh reduce the possibility of one being prosecuted to nil. This raises a question:
And why then was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon it and receive a reward.
Why would the Torah include verses that are not meant to be put into practice? The Gemara’s answer is that the verses exist simply to afford us the reward for studying Torah.
It’s certainly true that the talmudic discourse limits parents’ ability to accuse their child of being rebellious and subjecting such a child to capital punishment. And it is comforting to think, as the beraita suggests, that the rabbis prevented this from ever happening. But not every sage agrees the ben sorer u’moreh is purely a theoretical construct:
Rabbi Yonatan says: I saw a stubborn and rebellious son condemned to death and I even sat on his grave.
Rabbi Yonatan refutes the beraita. Not only did a ben sorer u’moreh in fact exist, he witnessed that child’s execution and even sat on his grave. Despite the rabbis’ efforts to turn this into a theoretical category, we now know that at least one child has been prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law. In response, Rabbi Yonatan is moved to show up for the unfortunate child to mourn by his graveside, presumably in the absence of his parents whose accusations led to his demise.
This is not only a moral conundrum, it’s a legal tangle: How might we resolve the tension between the beraita, which states that no ben sorer u’moreh ever existed or ever will, and Rabbi Yonaton, who knew one? The Gemara says that the beraita reflects what would have come to be had Rabbi Yehuda’s narrow definition of what constitutes a rebellious son been reflected in the law. But alas, his opinion is a minority one and is overruled by the majority who hold that the parents have only to be of one mind, perhaps the reason why the case reported by Rabbi Yonatan was allowed to proceed.
For our own understanding of today’s daf, I would suggest that we reinterpret the beraita, transforming it into an aspirational statement: Never should there have been, nor should there ever be a stubborn and rebellious son. This makes the matter incumbent on us: What can we do to ensure that vision is a reality? Should we fail, we’ll find ourselves with Rabbi Yonatan, sitting on a grave and mourning for a lost soul and the injustice that they suffered.
Read all of Sanhedrin 71 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on February 26, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
