Study this week's Parashah with Rabbi Jordan D. Cohen (your friendly Reb on the Web). Current Parashah Ki Teitzei Archived Parashiyot Parashah: Ki Teitzei - Deuteronomy 21:10-25:19
	OVERVIEW In Parashat Ki Teitze, our tradition identifies 74 different mitzvot, covering a wide assortment of rules related to ethical warfare, family life, burial of the deceased, property laws, the humane treatment of animals, fair labour practices, and proper economic transactions. Specific topics addressed in this week's portion include treatment of females captured in war, the rights of the first born, the ben soreir - the "wayward and rebellious" son - who is put to death, followed by the treatment of the bodies of the executed. The portion then goes on to discuss our responsibility towards the property of others, men and women’s clothing, guard rails, mixed agriculture, Tzitzit, issues of marriage and adultery, slavery, sexual propriety, interest, vows, workers rights, divorce, kidnapping, consideration for the orphan and the widow, support for the poor, Leverite marriage, the penalty for embarrassing another, and honest weights and measures. Like I said, this portion covers a lot of territory. The parashah ends with the famous command to remember what Amalek did to the Israelites when they left Egypt. IN FOCUS If a man will have a wayward and rebellious son, who does not hearken to the voice of his father and voice of his mother, and they discipline him, but he does not listen to them. Then his mother and father shall grasp him and take him out to the elders of the city... They shall say to the elders of the city: this son of ours is wayward and rebellious, he does not listen to our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard. All the people of the city shall pelt him with stones, and he shall die. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) PSHAT This is part of what I like to call, "Strange but true Torah," and is a highlight of the "Sticky Issues" course here at Kolel. Commonly referred to as the Ben Soreir - the "wayward and rebellious son" - this passage appears deeply troubling on first read, despite the fact that every parent of an adolescent or teenager can probably relate to the sense of frustration that these parents must be feeling. Basically, if a set of parents have a child who refuses to heed them (both the mother and father), the parents have the right to take the child before the elders of the city, which is equivalent to a community court. The parents must both testify that the child is indeed wayward and rebellious, and, to be more specific, they must charge him with being excessive in his consumption of food and alcohol. Hearing this, the child would be taken immediately to be executed by stoning. The passage ends with what appears to be an explanation of this harsh punishment: by such immediate removal of evil, the execution of this child will serve as an example for the rest of the community not to behave in such a way. DRASH I was once working with a university student on a D'var Torah on this parashah and, when she came upon this passage, she got terribly upset and refused to go on, wanting to distance herself from a Torah that would even suggest such a harsh punishment for a rebellious child. "After all," she exclaimed, "isn't it a child's job to rebel against his parents?" She was, essentially, correct, and it was only after I convinced her that our tradition also struggled with this law, and that it was an authentic Jewish act to challenge Torah for deeper meaning, that she agreed to continue with her D'var Torah. But this was what we studied: how could the Torah, which demonstrates such incredible insights into parenting and teaching the young, seemingly give up on a rebellious child and simply solve the problem by killing them? There must be a deeper meaning to this passage. But what could it be? It must be noted first off that the Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) states unequivocally that the case of the ben soreir has never happened and never will. The Rabbinic Sages were very creative in the way that they virtually nullified this law by imposing very stringent parameters on its application. Looking closely at the language of the Torah, the commentators determined that both the mother and father must be willing to accuse the child of being wayward and rebellious, knowing full well what the consequences of their allegation will be. The parents must speak with "one voice," indicating not only agreement in their accusation, but also that they must be well suited for one another and compatible, since a bad marriage most likely contributed to the child's bad behaviour. One commentator even went so far as to say that not only must the mother's and father's words be exactly the same, but the tone and quality of their voices must be identical if the child is to be found guilty of being a ben soreir! This seems to be more an indictment of the parents then the child. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 70a) further explains that the declaration that the child is a "glutton and a drunk" indicates the child must have stolen money from his parents to purchase and consume a large amount of meat and wine, thus compounding his crime. In the end, though, it is explained that rebellious child is put to death not because of any actual sins he committed, but rather to save him from the potential of further sins which will inevitably occur. If he has behaved so badly as a child, he will surely commit much greater sins as an adult. Somehow that does not make it feel much better. Execute someone to avoid the possibility of future sin? That does not sound very merciful, even if it did not take place. So what do we do with this particular piece of Torah? In most cases when we come upon an incident in Torah which the commentators claim "never happened," we should assume that it is basically a hypothetical situation, presented to make a point. No child has been executed to serve as an example, but the passage was included as an example. Execution is prescribed in order to get our attention, to highlight situations which we should take very seriously. Honouring and respecting one's parents, the ones who are responsible for raising us and teaching us the proper way to be, is, obviously, very important. In focusing so much on the role of both the father and the mother, the law of the ben soreir is making an additional point about parenting. The child could only be deemed a ben soreir if he was so charged by both his parents. No matter how frustrated parents may get at time, what good parent could ever be involved in sentencing their child to death? Obviously, the text seems to be telling us, such behaviour in a child can only be a result of poor parenting. While today we recognize that there are many factors that contribute to a child's behaviour, parents cannot be entirely absolved of responsibility. Certainly, if such a child gets to the point of being a ben soreir, he must have been acting out for some time, and the parents should have sought help sooner, before it got to this point. Perhaps the ultimate punishment is for the parents, who were the ones who set this poor child on the path to his inevitable end. DAVAR AHER ...So shall you put away the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear and be afraid (Deuteronomy 21:21). If you eliminate all evil from your own character, others will listen to your words of reproof. But if any evil should still be left in your own conduct, they will not listen to you. (Perot Levanon). Shabbat Shalom, JDC

	[Lobby] [Library] [Classroom] [Office] [Lounge] [Gift Shop] [Site Map] Kolel: The Adult Centre for Liberal Jewish Learning