## Sanhedrin Daf 68b

###### Sanhedrin 68b:1
[Sanhedrin 68b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/68b:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, מֵאֵימָתַי נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The Torah describes the punishment given to a son who steals money from his parents to eat a gluttonous meal of meat and wine in the company of lowly men. If his parents bring him to court for this act, he is exhorted to desist and is punished with lashes. If he repeats the same misdeed and is again brought to court by his parents within the same three-month period, he is considered a stubborn and rebellious son [*ben sorer umoreh*]. He is liable to receive the death penalty, which in this case is execution by stoning. **From when does a stubborn and rebellious son become** liable to receive the death penalty imposed upon **a stubborn and rebellious son?**


###### Sanhedrin 68b:2
[Sanhedrin 68b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/68b:2)

מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, וְעַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְלֹא הָעֶלְיוֹן, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בִּלְשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן״ – בֵּן וְלֹא בַּת, בֵּן וְלֹא אִישׁ. קָטָן פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לִכְלַל מִצְוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From when he grows two** pubic **hairs,** which are a sign of puberty and from which time he is considered an adult, **until he has grown a beard around.** The reference here is to **the lower** beard surrounding his genitals, **and not the upper** beard, i.e., his facial hair, **but the Sages spoke in euphemistic terms. As it is stated: “If a man has** a stubborn and rebellious **son”** (Deuteronomy 21:18), which indicates that the penalty for rebelliousness is imposed upon **a son, but not** upon **a daughter;** and upon **a son, but not** upon a fully grown **man. A minor** under the age of thirteen is **exempt** from the penalty imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son, **because he has not** yet **reached** the age of **inclusion in mitzvot.**


###### Sanhedrin 68b:3
[Sanhedrin 68b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/68b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** קָטָן מְנָלַן דְּפָטוּר? מְנָלַן?! כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא: שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לִכְלַל מִצְוֹת! וְתוּ, הֵיכָא אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּעָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב, דְּהָכָא לִיבְעֵי קְרָא לְמִיפְטְרֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara inquires about the source of the *halakha* taught in the mishna: **From where do we** derive **that a minor** is **exempt** from the punishment imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son? The Gemara comments: This question is puzzling: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? **The reason** is **as is taught** in the mishna: **Because he has not** yet **reached** the age of **inclusion in mitzvot. And furthermore, where do we find that the verse punishes** a minor, **so that** a special **verse should be required here** in order **to exempt him?**


###### Sanhedrin 68b:4
[Sanhedrin 68b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/68b:4)

אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: אַטּוּ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה עַל חֶטְאוֹ נֶהֱרָג? עַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ נֶהֱרָג! וְכֵיוָן דְּעַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ נֶהֱרָג, אֲפִילּוּ קָטָן נָמֵי? וְעוֹד, ״בֵּן״ וְלֹא אִישׁ – קָטָן מַשְׁמַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **This** is what **we are saying: Is this to say** that **a stubborn and rebellious son is killed for a sin** that he already committed? But, as will be explained (71b), **he is killed for what** he will become **in the end.** The Torah understands that since the boy has already embarked on an evil path, he will continue to be drawn after his natural tendencies and commit many offenses that are more severe. It is therefore preferable that he should be killed now so that he may die in relative innocence, rather than be put to death in the future bearing much more guilt. **And since he is executed for what he will** become **in the end,** one might have thought that **even a minor as well** can be sentenced to the death penalty as a stubborn and rebellious son. **And furthermore,** the exclusion: **“A son,” but not a man, indicates** that **a minor** is in fact included in the *halakha*, as he is not yet a man.


###### Sanhedrin 68b:5
[Sanhedrin 68b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/68b:5)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: דְּאָמַר קְרָא, ״וְכִי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן״ – בֵּן הַסָּמוּךְ לִגְבוּרָתוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** A minor is exempt from the punishment imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son, **as the verse states: “If a man has a son”** (Deuteronomy 21:18), which indicates that the *halakha* applies to **a son who is close to** the stage of having **the strength of a man,** i.e., close to full maturity, but not to a younger boy.


###### Sanhedrin 68b:6
[Sanhedrin 68b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/68b:6)

וְעַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן כּוּ׳. תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף עֲטָרָה. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: הַקָּפַת גִּיד, וְלֹא הַקָּפַת בֵּיצִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that a boy can be sentenced as a stubborn and rebellious son only **until he has grown a lower beard. Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches** a *baraita* that states: **Until** the hair **surrounds the corona. When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia **he said** in explanation of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement: The reference in the mishna is to hair **surrounding the penis and not** to hair **surrounding** the sac holding the **testicles,** which grows later.


###### Sanhedrin 68b:7
[Sanhedrin 68b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/68b:7)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: קָטָן שֶׁהוֹלִיד, אֵין בְּנוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן״ – לְאִישׁ בֵּן, וְלֹא לְבֵן בֵּן. הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה בֵּן לְאִישׁ״. מַאי ״כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְכִדְרַב חִסְדָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥisda says:** In the case of **a minor who fathered** a child, **his son cannot become a stubborn and rebellious son, as it is stated: “If a man has** a stubborn and rebellious **son,”** which indicates that the *halakha* applies only if **a man has a son, but not** if **a son,** i.e., one who is not yet a man, **has a son.** The Gemara asks: How can Rav Ḥisda derive his *halakha* from this verse? Doesn’t **he require this** verse **to** teach us that **which Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says,** namely, that a minor is exempt from the punishment imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son? The Gemara answers: This verse teaches two *halakhot*, as, **were** the intention to teach only the *halakha* that a minor is exempt, **let the verse say: If there be a son to a man.** For **what** reason does the verse introduce a change into the normal word order and state: **“If a man has a son”? Conclude from it** that the verse serves **to** teach the ruling **of Rav Ḥisda.**


###### Sanhedrin 68b:8
[Sanhedrin 68b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/68b:8)

וְאֵימָא: כּוּלֵּיהּ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא ״בֶּן אִישׁ״. מַאי ״לְאִישׁ בֵּן״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **say** that **the entire** verse **comes to** teach us **this,** i.e., what Rav Ḥisda said, and that it does not teach that a minor is not included in the *halakha* of a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara answers: **If so, the verse should have stated:** If there be **the son of a man. What** is the meaning of: “If **a man has a son”? Conclude two** conclusions **from it,** both that a minor cannot become a stubborn and rebellious son and that if a minor fathered a son, the son cannot become a stubborn and rebellious son.


###### Sanhedrin 68b:9
[Sanhedrin 68b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/68b:9)

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: קָטָן אֵינוֹ מוֹלִיד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל״. וְכִי יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גּוֹאֵל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** Rav Ḥisda’s statement **disagrees with** the opinion **of Rabba, as Rabba says** in connection with one who returns stolen property after having taken a false oath that he did not steal it: **A minor cannot father** a child, **as it is stated: “But if the man has no relative** to whom restitution may be made, let the trespass that is recompensed to the Lord be the priest’s” (Numbers 5:8). **And is there any man in the Jewish people who does not have a relative?** All members of the Jewish people are related, as they all descend from the patriarch Jacob, and therefore every person has a relative who is fit to inherit from him.


###### Sanhedrin 68b:10
[Sanhedrin 68b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/68b:10)

אֶלָּא, בְּגֶזֶל הַגֵּר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, the verse is speaking of the robbery of a convert,** who is treated like a newborn child and considered to have no ties to his natural parents or relatives. If he did not father any children after his conversion, he is a man with no relatives at all, and therefore if he dies, property that had been stolen from him must be returned to a priest.