Are we the "rebellious sons?"
A selection of commentaries on a difficult Torah commandment, with a surprising twist at the end.
We read in our Parasha the wondrous parsha of the בן סורר ומורה: ‘the wayward and rebellious son
The Torah relates:(21:18-21)’ if a man will have a wayward and rebellious son, who does not hearken to the voice of his father and the voice of his mother, and they discipline hin, but he does not hearken to them; then his father and mother shall grasp him and take him to the elders of his city and the gate of his place. They shall say to the elders of his city: ‘This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not hearken to our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ All the men of his city shall pelt him with stones and he shall die; and you shall remove the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear and they shall fear.’
Rashi, on the earlier psukim: (21:10-11):’If you go out to war against your enemies..and you take his captives, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her, you may take her for yourself as a wife’, comments:’The Torah, in permitting this, is speaking against the yetser ha’ra, for if Hashem would not take permit her to him, he would take her illicitely (however the Torah teaches, that) if he marries her, he will ultimately come to despise her, as it says after this; moreover, he will ultimately father through her a wayward and rebellious son.
‘For this reason , these passages are juxtaposed.’
Rav Eliyahu Shlezinger wonders:’ Why is this the ‘punishment’ of the man who takes this beautiful woman, that he should have a this son who is wayward and rebellious?
‘It is clear from our Sages, and as Rashi brings, that this was completely permitted, and, if so, why does he merit such a severe punishment?
‘If you were to answer that he should have been severe on himself, and despite the matter being permitted, not to have succumbed, and married her, it is a great wonder that because he was not one of the few who are stringent on themselves, he should be so punished, to father this ‘wayward and rebellious son’.
‘We need, therefore, to say that this wayward and rebellious son is not a punishment for having taken the beautiful captive, but is the natural and logical result of what is likely to be borne to this father from their union - for the son sees that his father gives free rein to his desires, and this assuredly is expressed in their home in other matters; in this environment, it is only to be expected that the son should be ‘wayward and rebellious), and he cannot be expected to act otherwise.
‘We therefore conclude, that this ‘wayward and rebellious son’ is not a punishment because the father took the beautiful captive woman, but the result of the example and education that he saw in his father’s house, till it was impossible to expect otherwise.
‘May we add, by way of expounding on what the Torah says here, that the parents declare, on their son:’He does not hearken to our voice’, to say: He could have heard the voice of his father, in prayer, or in the zmirot around the Shabbat table, speaking respectfully, as is merited; and could have heard the sweet voice of his mother, starting each day with the son and mother saying the Mode Ani - but he didn’t hear those voices, only the voices of desire, of the yetser ha’ra, and one who only hears those voices, cannot but be a ‘wayward and rebellious son’, instead of a loyal servant of Hashem, in proper awe of Him.’
Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl brings the exposition of the Gemara ( Sanhedrin 72. ):’For what reason is the ‘wayward and rebellious son’ killed by stoning? Could it be because he stole and consumed meat and wine?!
‘Even one who stole all his life, pays a penalty of double and more, and, at the very most, is ultimately sold as a Hebrew slave; but where do we find that a person is stoned for theft?’.
Expounds the Rav:’True, the stoning is not for stealing meat and wine, so, if so, why is it inflicted?
‘Answer:For the trait which has taken root in his heart! The Torah has descended to the depths of the soul of this son, and said: if at such a young age he has become a slave to his desires; if his yetser ha’ra has such complete control of him - he will assuredly, when he dissipates all of his father’s property, turn to robbery, and, should his victims refuse to hand over their money - he will kill them.
‘Therefore, better he die whilst still ‘innocent’, and not as a ‘guilty’ person - as the Gemara there concludes.
‘The stoning, thus, is not for actual theft, but for what has taken root in him, which led him to totally unrestrained acts, to uncontrollable desire, already at this young age.’
Rav Ahron Kotler offers a different explanation for the harsh decree:’We learn from the exposition of the Ramban, that the decree is because this son has transgressed the Mitzvah of ‘you shall be קדושים: holy’, and for transgressing ‘You shall cleave to Hashem’, which he said is ‘to know Hashem in all our ways’: meaning that all of our physical activities of eating, drinking and even sleeping, should be for the ‘sake of Heaven, to best enable us to serve Hashem.
‘The category of a ‘wayward and rebellious son’, is only applicable in the first three months of the son’s manhood, as only then can he be adjudged on his being far from ‘holy’, and from ‘cleaving to Hashem’ - as we have brought - and subject to such a severe punishment, as he has shown himself - by his actions - to be the very opposite of the purpose for which he came to this world.
‘The fact that he has engaged in robbery, only magnifies his sins of gluttony: that he is so in thrall of this trait, until he turns to robbery, as his whole necessity is to satisfy his craving.
‘However, his real sin and punishment is for his essence.
‘We can now understand the reason for the words:’All Israel shall hear and they shall fear’, as we might wonder, in view of the very narrow time window and preconditions, which render the whole parsha relevant to very few - if any, and according to our Sages, to have never occurred.
‘Why, then, did the Torah see the need to write this Parsha, and, more so, that ‘All Israel shall hear and they shall fear’?
‘It must be because the Torah wanted us all to contemplate on the importance of seeking to attain the exalted levels of ‘be holy’ and of ‘cleave to Hashem’.’
The Shvilei Pinchas introduces his exposition on our subject, by noting:’ The singular punishment decreed by the Torah on the ‘wayward and rebellious son’, who is to be killed even though, at this time, he is still זכאי: ‘innocent’, yet, despite this, is killed because of its divination that, in the end, he will rob people, and kill them.
‘This appears to be the reason that our Sages reveal that, in the way of nature, it is not possible that there should be such a ‘wayward and rebellious son), as the preconditions preclude his existence; this conclusion led our Sages ( Sanhedrin 71. ) to deduce, that this whole subject ‘never was, and will not be in the future, and what was written in the Torah, is only so that נדרוש ונקבל שכר: we should expound, and be rewarded for so doing’.
‘The Gemara there sets out the necessary ‘impossible’ preconditions:’’The appearance of the father and of the mother, physically and in their voice, be identical, as it says:’He does not hearken to our voice’, meaning:Only if the father and the mother have the same voice and the same physical appearance, can it be said, that their son does not hearken to their voice, and be deemed ‘a wayward and rebellious son’, for purposes of our Parasha.
‘Since Hashem, the Giver of the Torah, chose to include these four psukim of our subject, only so that ‘we should expound them, and merit reward’, it is incumbent on us, to fulfill His Will, with the help of our parshanim.’
The Chinuch, noting the very narrow time frame to be deemed ‘a wayward and rebellious son’, expounds: ‘Hashem thereby wished to teach us, that ‘at the onset of the heat of manhood’, at the time that the son becomes obligated in all of the Mitzvot, he should be not over indulge in eating and drinking, as this can lead to him descending to the lowest depths, and to straying from the path of righteousness.
‘The spiritual part of man, and his physical being, are opposite forces, and since we need to indulge our bodies by eating and drinking, this must be balanced by limiting these physical needs, so that our spiritual side is not totally overwhelmed.
‘To this end, the Torah, to distance us from that danger, warns us by the severe fate of the son who overindulges: ‘the wayward and rebellious’ glutton.
‘We are especially adjured against this in the critical period of the son’s entry into manhood, the first three months of that season, so that the lesson stays with him throughout his life.
‘The vital importance of this lesson, can be seen in that the very first Mitzvah which was given to Adam, was to restrict that which he may eat; alas, he failed to resist his desire, and brought death to mankind, to teach us how severe is the consequence of pursuing the desire of food.’
The Maharal focusses on the requirement of the father and the mother being ‘identical’ physically, and in voice.
The Shvilei Pinchas expounds that this is not to be taken literally, as clearly the two are very different in these respects.
He therefore expounds:’This means that they speak with one voice, not one permitting and the other forbidding. This is also expressed in their facial gestures, to give the one impression - if this is not the case, then the blame for the son turning out to be ‘wayward and rebellious’, falls on the parents, and not on the son.’
The Kli Yakar brings a new understanding as to the underlying mussar of ‘the wayward and rebellious son’, which, as we have brought from our Sages, ‘was only written so that we should expound, and be rewarded’.
He comments:’’This passage comes to teach us that we are not to rely on being called ‘sons to Hashem’ - in Parashat Re’eh - and that He will therefore assuredly overlook misbehaviour; rather, that unless we repent from our waywardness, we are likely to be adjudged as the ‘wayward and rebellious son’, in our Parasha.
‘This is why the Torah here writes, that the father is obligated to bring his son to be judged, even to be killed, and, through this, all of the people will hear this parsha, and fear Hashem, in the Bet Din on earth, as in the Bet Din Above.’
Let us conclude our humble endeavours to fulfill the injunction: ‘Expound and be rewarded’, with the intriguing commentary of the Zohar Hakadosh, on our subject:
‘When Hashem commanded Moshe to write the parsha of the ‘wayward and rebellious son’ and his fate, in the Torah, Moshe understood that there is no such eventuality in the world, as what father would bring his son to the Bet Din, for him to be killed.
‘He therefore perceived that the whole parsha of the ‘wayward and rebellious son’, was an allusion to Israel who are ‘sons to Hashem, and, as they are destined to transgress, Hashem will judge them by the judgement of ‘the wayward and rebellious son’.
‘Moshe, therefore, asked Hashem not to write the parsha in the Torah; at that time, Hashem directed the Angel of the Torah, to reveal to Moshe, how to expound the psukim for the benefit of Israel.
‘If a man will have’:this alludes to Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu, who is called ‘man’: Hashem is a MAN of war’; ‘a son’: Israel who are called ‘sons to Hashem’; ‘who is wayward and rebellious’: who has strayed from the laws of Hashem; ‘who does not hearken to the voice of his father and the voice of his mother’: the voice of Hashem, our father, and the voice of the shechina, ‘the mother of the clal Israel;;’and they discipline him’: he is rebuked by the Prophets, with words of mussar; ‘but he does not hearken to them’:and persisted in his bad ways; ‘then his father and mother shall grasp him’: Hashem and the shechina;’and take him to the elders of the city and the gate of his place’: to be judged before the Heavenly Bet Din.
‘They shall say to the elders of his city:This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not hearken to our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard’:these words are intended to teach zechut for Israel, as what caused them to be ‘wayward and rebellious’, is being in galut, amongst the nations that chase the delights of gluttony, and thereby cause Israel to learn from their ways.
‘Therefore, the Torah writes:’’And the men of his city shall pelt him with stones, and he shall die’: meaning: instead of Hashem pouring His wrath on Israel, He pours it on Jerusalem and the Bet Hamikdash, and ‘all the men of his city’: the populace amongst whom Israel are in galut, ‘Will pelt him with stones’: Alluding to Jerusalem, and the stones by which they brought down the walls, and destroyed the Temple, and this will be deemed as if Israel were killed, ‘and you shall remove the evil from your midst; and all of Israel shall hear and they shall fear’.
‘When Moshe heard this exposition from the Angel, he agreed to the parsha being written in the Torah.’
לרפואת חיילי צה"ל וכן נועם עליזה בת זהבה רבקה ונחום אלימלך רפאל בן זהבה רבקה, בתוך
No comments:
Post a Comment