Lessons From The Son

A few lessons from the parsha of ben sorrer u’moreh. 

The Gemorah (Sanhedrin 71a) brings an opinion that ben sorrer u’moreh never happened, rather its written to learn and receive reward.  Why does the Torah have to pick a special example to give us something to learn when there is all the Torah to learn?  Rav Yisroel Salanter (letter 31 in Or Yisroel) explains that this is an example which teaches us the rule.  The point of learning Torah is not to arrive at a conclusion of action but rather the learning itself is sacred.  Therefore, the Torah gives us an example of learning where there is no practical outcome.  Rabbenu Bechai suggests another approach.  He says the Torah wrote the parsha to teach us the extent of ahavas Hashem.  The parent’s love for Hashem must be so great that it will even override their natural close love for their son and they will personally kill him.

The Gemorah (ibid) cites the opinion of Rab Yonasan that he sat on the grave of a ben sorrer umoreh.  Why would he do this strange action? Does he mean to argue with the opinion that it never happened, what’s the machlokes, it’s a mitzious, either it happened or didn’t? Why would the Torah set up the laws of ben sorrer umoreh in a way to make it impossible?  Rav Wolfson explains bederech derush that the Torah comes to teach us that the logic of מות זכאי ואל ימות חייב (Rashi 21:18) has no application because anyone can do teshuva and steer clear of the path of guilt.  The Gemorah says it was written derush lekabal secar.  Derush can mean to search like dirshu Hashem, the parsha teaches that a person can always do teshuva no matter how far off the trajectory he seems.  Rav Yonasan isn’t arguing on the first opinion, he’s supporting it.  The grave Rav Yonason sat on, was the grave of someone who was on the ben sorrer path but subsequently did teshuva and then became such a tzaddik that I (Rav Yonasan speaking) became a tanna because of the help of his neshama.  (Based upon the Arizal that sometimes by sitting near the grave of a tzaddik you get helped by their neshama.)

The Gemorah Sanhedrin (88a) says that the parents can forgive the ben sorrer and this gets him off the hook.  The Shem M'Shmuel (5671) asks, the ben sorrer is a societal risk, so why does the parent’s forgoing of his wrong deeds get him off the hook, how does that keep society safe?  He explains that the reason why a Jew has the power of teshuva is because s/he is connected to the Avos and therefore his/her soul at the core is pure; it just needs the dirt of the averos removed.  The reason why the ben sorrer is guaranteed to become liable of death is because he has lost the connection to his parents, the connection back to the Avos, and therefore won’t do teshuva.  However, as long as the connection remains, if the parents acknowledge their connection, then teshuva is possible and there is no guarantee that he will become guilty and therefore must be spared.   

The Gemorah has a derash on the words annenu shomauh bikolanu that the parents must be able to hear to exclude deaf mutes.  The derash is difficult for the word shomea is referring to the son, not to the parents?  Rav Zilberstein (Alenu Le’shabach) explains that the son will listen to the parents only if he sees them heeding their own words.  If they can’t hear their own words, then he won’t listen.

The Gemorah in Sanhedrin (71a) says that if the meat and wine that the ben sorrer is eating is that of a mitzvah he doesn’t become a ben sorrer.  The Toseftah in Negaim (6:2) says that there was no law of ben sorrer in Yerushalim and has a derash to support this law.  The Meshech Chachma explains that is because most of the eating done in Yerushalim was from kodshim and therefore was an eating of mitzvah.  We see from here the power of a little kedusha, even though this kid is acting like a ben sorrer since his eating is that of kedusha it will not lead head him down a bad path.