## Sanhedrin Daf 71a

###### Sanhedrin 71a:1
[Sanhedrin 71a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:1)

חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
he is **liable** for entering the Temple while intoxicated.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:2
[Sanhedrin 71a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:2)

אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר וְיִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָכַל כׇּל מַאֲכָל וְלֹא אָכַל בָּשָׂר, שָׁתָה כׇּל מַשְׁקֶה וְלֹא שָׁתָה יַיִן – אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר וְיִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that the boy **does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he** actually **eats meat and drinks wine. The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If **he ate any** other **food but did not eat meat,** or if **he drank any** other **beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he** actually **eats meat and drinks wine, as it is stated:** “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is **a glutton and a drunkard.”**


###### Sanhedrin 71a:3
[Sanhedrin 71a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:3)

וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָיה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תְּהִי בְסֹבְאֵי יָיִן בְּזֹלְלֵי בָשָׂר לָמוֹ״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״כִּי סֹבֵא וְזוֹלֵל יִוָּרֵשׁ וּקְרָעִים תַּלְבִּישׁ נוּמָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הַיָּשֵׁן בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ תּוֹרָתוֹ נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ קְרָעִים קְרָעִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּקְרָעִים תַּלְבִּישׁ נוּמָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And although there is no** explicit **proof to the matter,** there is **an allusion to the matter** in another verse, **as it is stated: “Be not among wine drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat”** (Proverbs 23:20). **And** the verse **states: “For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags”** (Proverbs 23:21). That is to say, a person who is a glutton and a drunkard, and sleeps a lot due to his excessive eating and drinking, will end up poor and dressed in rags. **Rabbi Zeira** expounds the same verse and **says:** With regard to **anyone who sleeps in the study hall, his Torah shall become tattered, as it is stated: “And drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.”**


###### Sanhedrin 71a:4
[Sanhedrin 71a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** גָּנַב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיו, מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִים, מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיו – אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה עַד שֶׁיִּגְנוֹב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וְיֹאכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּגְנוֹב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וּמִשֶּׁל אִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **he stole that** which belonged **to his father and ate on his father’s property,** or he stole that which belonged **to others and ate on the property of others,** or he stole that which belonged **to others and ate on his father’s property, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he steals** that which belonged **to his father and eats on the property of others. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:** He does not become a stubborn and rebellious son **unless he steals** that which belonged **to his father and** that which belonged **to his mother.**


###### Sanhedrin 71a:5
[Sanhedrin 71a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** גָּנַב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיו. אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁכִיחַ לֵיהּ, בְּעִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara explains the reasons for the various *halakhot* taught in the mishna: If **he stole** that which belonged **to his father and ate on his father’s property, even though this is accessible to him** and it is easy for him to steal, **he is afraid** that his father will see him eating what he had stolen, and therefore he will not be drawn after his action to further evil.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:6
[Sanhedrin 71a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:6)

מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִים. אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא בְּעִית – לָא שְׁכִיחַ לֵיהּ. וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיו, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לֵיהּ וּבְעִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he stole that which belonged **to others and ate on the property of others, even though he is not afraid** of them, as they neither know him nor watch over him, this theft **is not** easily **accessible to him,** as it is performed on someone else’s property, and therefore he will not be drawn to additional sin. **And all the more so** if he stole that which belonged **to others and ate on his father’s property,** in **which** case **it is not accessible to him, and he is** also **afraid** of his father.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:7
[Sanhedrin 71a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:7)

עַד שֶׁיִּגְנוֹב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו, וְיֹאכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִים. דִּשְׁכִיחַ לֵיהּ, וְלָא בְּעִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, he is not liable **unless he steals** that which belonged **to his father and eats on the property of others,** in **which** case **it is** easily **accessible to him, and he is not afraid,** and there is concern that he will be drawn after his action to additional sin.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:8
[Sanhedrin 71a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:8)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּגְנוֹב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וּמִשֶּׁל אִמּוֹ. אִמּוֹ מְנָא לַהּ? מַה שֶּׁקָּנְתָה אִשָּׁה קָנָה בַּעְלָהּ! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִסְּעוּדָה הַמּוּכֶנֶת לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says** that he is not liable as a stubborn and rebellious son **unless he steals** that which belonged **to his father and** that which belonged **to his mother.** The Gemara asks: With regard to **his mother, from where does she have** independently owned property that her son can steal? The basis for this question is the *halakha* that **anything that a woman acquires is acquired by her husband. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says** in answer to this question: The mishna is referring to a case where the boy stole food **from a meal that had been prepared for his father and for his mother.** In such a case the husband grants his wife ownership of the food that she will eat over the course of her meal.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:9
[Sanhedrin 71a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:9)

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חָנָן בַּר מוֹלָדָה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּקְנֶה בָּשָׂר בְּזוֹל וְיֹאכַל, יַיִן בְּזוֹל וְיִשְׁתֶּה? אֶלָּא, אֵימָא: מִדְּמֵי סְעוּדָה הַמּוּכֶנֶת לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty. **But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥanan bar Molada say** that **Rav Huna says:** A stubborn and rebellious son **is not liable unless he purchases inexpensive meat and eats** it, and he purchases **inexpensive wine and drinks** it, which indicates that he becomes liable only if he steals money, not if he steals the actual meat and wine? **Rather, say** that the boy stole **from money** set aside **for a meal that was to be prepared for his father and for his mother.**


###### Sanhedrin 71a:10
[Sanhedrin 71a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:10)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּאַקְנִי לַהּ אַחֵר, וַאֲמַר לַהּ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לְבַעְלִיךְ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents another answer to the question posed concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: **If you wish, say** instead **that another** person **gave** property **to** the mother **and said to her:** This shall be yours **on the condition that your husband shall have no right to it.** In such a case, the woman acquires the property for herself and her husband does not acquire it. Therefore, it is possible for the son to steal from his mother’s property.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:11
[Sanhedrin 71a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ אֵינָהּ רוֹצֶה, אָבִיו אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ רוֹצָה – אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם לֹא הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לְאָבִיו, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **his father wishes** to have him punished **but his mother does not wish** that, or if **his father does not wish** to have him punished **but his mother wishes** that, **he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless they both wish** that he be punished. **Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not suited for his father,** the two being an inappropriate match, as the Gemara will explain, **he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.**


###### Sanhedrin 71a:12
[Sanhedrin 71a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי ״אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה״? אִילֵּימָא חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת וְחַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, סוֹף סוֹף אֲבוּהּ אֲבוּהּ נִיהוּ, וְאִמֵּיהּ אִמֵּיהּ נִיהִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What** does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he speaks of the mother as being **not suited** for the father? **If we say** that due to their union they are among **those who are liable to** receive ***karet*,** in which case the marriage does not take effect, **and** certainly if the union puts them in the category of **those who are liable to** receive one of the types of **court-**imposed **death** penalty, in which case the marriage also does not take effect, there is a difficulty: Why should it matter if they are not married? **Ultimately, his father is** still **his father and his mother is** still **his mother,** and the verses concerning the stubborn and rebellious son can be fulfilled.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:13
[Sanhedrin 71a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:13)

אֶלָּא בְּשָׁוָה לְאָבִיו קָאָמַר. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם לֹא הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ שָׁוָה לְאָבִיו בְּקוֹל וּבְמַרְאֶה וּבַקּוֹמָה, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ״. מִדְּקוֹל בָּעֵינַן שָׁוִין, מַרְאֶה וְקוֹמָה נָמֵי בָּעֵינַן שָׁוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rabbi Yehuda **is saying** that the boy’s mother must be **identical to his father** in several aspects. The Gemara comments: **This is also taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? **As the verse states: “He will not obey our voices** [***kolenu***]” (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that they both have the same voice. And **since we require** that they be **identical** in **voice, we also require** that they be **identical** in **appearance and height.**


###### Sanhedrin 71a:14
[Sanhedrin 71a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:14)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה לֹא הָיָה וְלֹא עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת, וְלָמָּה נִכְתַּב? דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be** one **in the future,** as it is impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this *halakha*. **And why,** then, **was** the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son **written** in the Torah? So that **you may expound** upon new understandings of the Torah **and receive reward** for your learning, this being an aspect of the Torah that has only theoretical value. **In accordance with whose** opinion is this? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who requires that the parents have certain identical characteristics, making it virtually impossible to apply the *halakha*.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:15
[Sanhedrin 71a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:15)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָכַל זֶה תַּרְטֵימָר בָּשָׂר וְשָׁתָה חֲצִי לוֹג יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי, אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְסׇקְלוֹ? אֶלָּא לֹא הָיָה וְלֹא עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת, וְלָמָּה נִכְתַּב? דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: אֲנִי רְאִיתִיו וְיָשַׁבְתִּי עַל קִבְרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** instead that this *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says: And is it** simply **due to** the fact **that** the boy **ate a *tarteimar* of meat and drank a half-*log* of Italian wine** that **his father and his mother shall take him out to stone him? Rather, there has never been** a stubborn and rebellious son **and there will never be** one **in the future. And why,** then, **was** the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son **written** in the Torah? So that **you may expound** upon new understandings of the Torah **and receive reward** for your learning. **Rabbi Yonatan says:** This is not so, as **I saw** one. I was once in a place where a stubborn and rebellious son was condemned to death, **and I** even **sat on his grave** after he was executed.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:16
[Sanhedrin 71a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:16)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת לֹא הָיְתָה וְלֹא עֲתִידָה לִהְיוֹת, וְלָמָּה נִכְתְּבָה – דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כׇּל עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ אֲפִילּוּ מְזוּזָה אַחַת אֵינָהּ נַעֲשֵׂית עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a similar question: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **There has never been an idolatrous city and there will never be** one **in the future,** as it is virtually impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this *halakha*. **And why,** then, **was** the passage relating to an idolatrous city **written** in the Torah? So that **you may expound** upon new understandings of the Torah **and receive reward** for your learning. **In accordance with whose** opinion is this? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says: Any city that has even one *mezuza*** or any other sacred scroll **cannot become an idolatrous city.** It is difficult to imagine an entire city without even one *mezuza*.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:17
[Sanhedrin 71a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:17)

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאֶת כׇּל שְׁלָלָהּ תִּקְבֹּץ אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ וְשָׂרַפְתָּ בָאֵשׁ״. וְכֵיוָן דְּאִי אִיכָּא מְזוּזָה, לָא אֶפְשָׁר, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ וְיָשַׁבְתִּי עַל תִּילָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that a city that has even one *mezuza* cannot become an idolatrous city? The Gemara answers: **The verse states: “And you shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the open space of the city, and shall burn with fire** both the city and the entire plunder taken in it” (Deuteronomy 13:17). **And since if there is a *mezuza*** there **it is impossible** to burn all the contents of the city, **as it is written:** “And you shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their *asherim* with fire…**This you shall not do so to the Lord your God”** (Deuteronomy 12:3–4). It is derived from this verse that it is prohibited to destroy a sacred item such as a *mezuza*. Therefore, in a city that has even one *mezuza*, it is impossible to fulfill the *halakhot* of an idolatrous city, as not all of its contents may be burned. **Rabbi Yonatan says:** This is not so, as **I** once **saw** an idolatrous city that was condemned to destruction, **and I** even **sat on its ruins.**


###### Sanhedrin 71a:18
[Sanhedrin 71a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:18)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: בַּיִת הַמְנוּגָּע לֹא הָיָה וְלֹא עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת, וְלָמָּה נִכְתַּב – דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אֵין הַבַּיִת טָמֵא עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה כִּשְׁתֵּי גְרִיסִין עַל שְׁתֵּי אֲבָנִים בִּשְׁתֵּי כְתָלִים בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית, אׇרְכּוֹ כִּשְׁנֵי גְרִיסִין וְרׇחְבּוֹ כִּגְרִיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks another similar question: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **There has never been a house afflicted** with leprosy of the house **and there will never be** one **in the future. And why,** then, **was** the passage relating to leprosy of the house **written** in the Torah? So that **you may expound** upon new understandings of the Torah **and receive reward** for your learning. **In accordance with whose** opinion is this? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned** in a mishna (*Nega’im* 12:3) that **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: A house never becomes impure** with leprosy **until** a mark **about the size of two split beans is seen on two stones in two walls** that form **a corner** between them, the mark being **about two split beans in length and about one split bean in width.** It is difficult to imagine that such a precise situation will ever occur.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:19
[Sanhedrin 71a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:19)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? כְּתִיב ״קִיר״ וּכְתִיב ״קִירֹת״. אֵיזֶהוּ קִיר שֶׁהוּא כְּקִירוֹת? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה קֶרֶן זָוִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the statement **of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,** that a house does not become impure unless it has a mark precisely in the corner? The verse states: “And he shall look at the leprous mark, and, behold, if the leprous mark be in the walls of the house, in greenish or reddish depressions, which in sight are lower than the wall” (Leviticus 14:37). In one part of the verse **it is written “wall,” and** in another part of the verse **it is written “walls.” Which wall is like** two **walls? You must say this is a corner.**


###### Sanhedrin 71a:20
[Sanhedrin 71a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:20)

תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק, מָקוֹם הָיָה בִּתְחוּם עַזָּה, וְהָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ חוּרְבָּתָא סְגִירְתָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ: פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַכְתִּי לְגָלִיל וְרָאִיתִי מָקוֹם שֶׁמְּצַיְּינִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאָמְרוּ: אֲבָנִים מְנוּגָּעוֹת פִּינוּ לְשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There was a place in the area of Gaza, and it was called the leprous ruin;** that is to say, it was the ruin of a house that had been afflicted with leprosy. Apparently, then, leprosy of the house has existed. **Rabbi Shimon of the village of Akko said: I once went to the Galilee and I saw a place that was being marked off** as an impure place, **and they said** that **stones afflicted** with leprosy **were cast there.** This too indicates that a house afflicted with leprosy has existed.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:21
[Sanhedrin 71a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:21)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם גִּידֵּם, אוֹ חִיגֵּר, אוֹ אִלֵּם, אוֹ סוֹמֵא, אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ – אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ״ – וְלֹא גִּדְמִין, ״וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ״ – וְלֹא חִגְּרִין, ״וְאָמְרוּ״ – וְלֹא אִלְּמִין, ״בְּנֵנוּ זֶה״ – וְלֹא סוֹמִין, ״אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ״ – וְלֹא חֵרְשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **If one of** the parents **was without hands, or lame, or mute, or blind, or deaf,** their son **does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, as it is stated:** “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place. And they shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy 21:19–20). The Sages derive: **“Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him,” but not** people **without hands,** who cannot do this. **“And bring him out,” but not lame people,** who cannot walk. **“And they shall say,” but not mutes. “This son of ours,” but not blind people,** who cannot point to their son and say “this.” **“He will not obey our voices,” but not deaf people,** who cannot hear whether or not he declined to obey them.


###### Sanhedrin 71a:22
[Sanhedrin 71a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:22)

מַתְרִין בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה, וּמַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. חָזַר וְקִלְקֵל – נִדּוֹן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְאֵינוֹ נִסְקָל עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּנֵנוּ זֶה״ – זֶהוּ שֶׁלָּקָה בִּפְנֵיכֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After he is brought before the elders of the city, **he is admonished before three** people **and** then **they flog him** for having stolen. If **he sins again, he is judged by** a court of **twenty-three** judges, **but he is not stoned unless the first three** judges before whom he had been flogged **are** present **there, as it is stated: “This son of ours,” this is** the son **who was** already **flogged before you.**


###### Sanhedrin 71a:23
[Sanhedrin 71a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/71a:23)

**גְּמָ׳** שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: בָּעֵינַן קְרָא כְּדִכְתִיב? שָׁאנֵי הָכָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara draws a conclusion from the mishna: **You** can **learn from** the mishna that **we require** that **a verse** be fulfilled precisely **as it is written,** in strict conformity with its literal sense, and not in looser or more expansive fashion. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There is no proof from here. **Here it is different,**