Mamrim - Chapter 7

Introduction
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 states: If a person will have a wayward and rebellious son who does not heed the voice of his father or the voice of his mother and they chastise him, but he does not heed them. His father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place. They say to the elders of his city: “This son of ours is wayward and rebellious. He does not heed our voice; he is gluttonous and a lush.” All of the men of his city will clout him with stones, killing him, and you shall remove evil from your midst. All Israel shall hear and fear.
Our Sages (primarily in Sanhedrin 68b ff.) interpret this passage precisely, explaining how each term used in the passage teaches us a different concept. In the chapter that follows, the Rambam summarizes and organizes their teachings, giving us a clear-cut picture of the requirements of the mitzvah. It is important to emphasize that there is a difference of opinion among our Sages if the judgment of “a wayward and rebellious son” ever took place (Sanhedrin 71a). Some maintain that such a judgment was never issued. Indeed, from all the particulars mentioned by the Rambam, one can understand that it could be impossible for such a judgment to have been issued. Others maintain that they know of an instance where an individual was executed because of this transgression.
Sanhedrin 72a asks: Is eating the gluttonous meal (to be described by the Rambam) a sufficient cause for a person to be executed? In resolution, our Sages explain that the Torah considered the ultimate fate of such a person. He will be drawn after his natural tendencies and continue to steal and eat gluttonously. Ultimately, he will become a robber and slay people in order to support his habit. It is preferable, the Torah maintains, for him to be executed early in life, before he commits such severe sins.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 195) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 248) include the commandment not to act as “a wayward and rebellious son” as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

For if it is expensive, it is unlikely that he will develop a habit of eating and drinking in this manner.

Who eat hurriedly lest they be detected and do not wait for their food to cook.

I.e., thinned, but not thinned in the manner that wine was ordinarily consumed. In the Talmudic era, the wines were very strong and it was customary to add water, even as much as three times the measure of the wine itself, to the wine before partaking of it.

According to Shiurei Torah, this would be approximately 200 grams, and 350 grams according to Chazon Ish.

Half a log is slightly more than 172 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 300 cc according to Chazon Ish.

The Radbaz interprets this as meaning in one mouthful. This is what is implied by the expression “eating ravenously” mentioned in Halachah 1. He states that it is possible for this to happen with regard to drinking, but it is almost impossible for a person to put that much meat in his mouth at one time. Therefore he interprets it to mean “without interruption, as if it were one mouthful, that before swallowing the first portion, he stuffed the second in his mouth.”

This implies that he is afraid that his father will notice him. Since he still has a sense of shame, it is not as likely that he will become habituated to stealing. Accordingly, it is less likely that he will ultimately become a robber and murderer (Kessef Mishneh).

It will not always be possible for him to steal from others. Hence, since the habit will not be as strongly ingrained in his personality, it is possible that he will not rob and murder (Ibid.).

E. g., a meal honoring a circumcision or a marriage of which it is a mitzvah to partake.

E. g., the food or wine was not kosher.

For the phrase can be interpreted: “He does not heed our voice alone,” i. e., they are not complaining that their son is transgressing the commandments, only that he is rebelling against them (Radbaz).

For that phrase can also be interpreted as implying “he heeds neither our voice or God’s voice.” Hence when he partakes of the meal while heeding God’s voice, he is not liable. Alternatively, since he is performing a mitzvah while partaking of the food, his actions may not become habitual (Radbaz). The Kessef Mishneh suggests that this second clause is in fact the start of the following paragraph.

For eating the second tithe in the holy city fulfills a mitzvah.

See Hilchot Evel 13:8.

Which are forbidden.

I.e., the meat of a domesticated animal. With regard to the meat of a wild animal, e.g., deer, there is a debate among the later authorities; some hold him liable and some do not.

At which point the flavor of the salt overpowers the flavor of the meat.

Which has not fermented and has no alcoholic content. One opinion in Sanhedrin 70a interprets this as referring to grape juice that has not been left to ferment for 40 days.

I.e., a boy below the age of thirteen.

For the Torah refers to him as a "wayward and rebellious son," i.e., a son and not a man (Sanhedrin 68b).

This is the sign of physical maturity which when manifested indicates that a child has attained maturity.

But not the entire genital area (Kessef Mishneh).

As stated in the following halachah, we are speaking about a period of three months or less.

It takes, however, three months before the fetus reaches a size when it could be recognized. See Genesis 38:24. The Radbaz notes that there are situations where a fetus can be recognized before three months have passed, but this. is not the norm. And the ruling follows the majority.

As stated in the previous halachah.

Who have been granted semichah.

As stated in Deuteronomy 21:20.

For lashes are not administered unless a warning is given.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin chs. 16-17.

Note the Kessef Mishneh who asks why an examination is not made before the youth is lashed. For if he is too old to be classified as a “wayward and rebellious son,” there is no reason that he be lashed either.

I.e., although they brought him to court and initiated proceedings against him, in the midst of the trial, their mercies overwhelmed them and they forgave him. If, however, he already had been sentenced, he is executed even if his parents desire to forgive him.

For his body has undergone a change and he would not be held liable for this act in his present state.

He is not even given the first set of lashes (Or Sameach).

I.e., both acting together in agreement.

The Meiri states that these people have a tendency to cruelty. Hence, they may not condemn their sons in this manner. The verses are merely asmachteot.

The expression “This” implies something that you can point your finger at and say: “This is it” (Rashi, San. 71b).

This reply implies that they hear his obstinate replies to their statements to him (Ibid.).

As stated in the introduction to this chapter, a “wayward and rebellious son” is executed because of his ultimate future. We fear that he will become habituated to stealing, eating, and drinking and will ultimately become a robber and murderer. Since it is less likely for a woman to develop such habits, she is nor judged in this manner.
The commentaries note that in Sanhedrin 69b-70a, Rabbi Simon states that a girl may develop such tendencies and support her habit through prostitution. They question why the Rambam does not mention this point. The Kessef Mishneh uses this as a proof that the command to kill “a wayward and rebellious son” is a Torah decree above the bounds of intellect.

A person whose genital area is covered with a block of flesh and whose gender cannot be determined.

A person with both male and female sexual organs.

I.e., after he was apprehended for stealing and participating in such a feast. It would appear that if the operation is performed beforehand, he is like any other male. There are, however, authorities who do not accept this conception. They even cite manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah which read “from [the beginning of]s existence” instead of “at the time he receives the warning.” The latter opinion is reflected in the wording of the Rambam’s source (Bava Batra 126b).

I.e., his masculinity must be obvious.

For the passage concludes (Deuteronomy 21:21): “All Israel shall hear and fear.” The announcement is circulated after the execution.

Compare to similar statements in Hilchot Edut 18:7.

See Hilchot Evel 1:9.

For the “wayward and rebellious son” has no closer heir. We do not fear that he will have him executed because he desired to inherit his estate (Radbaz).