MISHNAH: The deviant and rebellious son¹. When can one become a deviant and rebellious son? From the moment he grows two [pubic] hairs to when he sports a beard, the lower, not the upper², because the Sages used clean language³. For it is written: If a man have a [deviant and rebellious] son⁴21:18.. A son but not a daughter, a son but not a father⁵. The underage [son] is not liable since he does not have any obligation⁶.

footnotes: ¹ Who has to be stoned according to Mishnah 7:5. ² If the pubic area is fully covered by hair. ³ To avoid mentioning genitals. ⁴ Deut. ⁵ From the moment that a son is sexually mature, he can no longer be tried as deviant and rebellious son. ⁶ An underage child never has any obligation; his parents have the duty to educate him.

HALAKHAH: “The deviant and rebellious son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. It is written: If a man would concoct against his neighbor to kill him slyly⁷. 21:14. The argument is an almost untranslatable pun, identifying the two meanings of the root זוד “to plot, to be mischievous” and “to cook” (Babli 69a). (Gesenius-Buhl also notes the two meanings for the root; modern Jewish lexicographers following Ben Jehudah prefer to derive the hapax “to cook” from a root נזד.). When does he become a man? When he concocts. When is he done cooking? When his palm⁸ as anatomic detail denotes the mons veneris of a woman (Yebamot 1:2, Note 143); it is used here for the corresponding pubic area of the man. expands. A simile: If the seed is fully cooked inside, the pot becomes black on the outside. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Bina stated: If a man have a son, not that the son be a father. From the moment that he may come to a woman and make her pregnant, he is a potential father, not a son⁹ 3:10 Note 143), he cannot be held responsible for his actions before he reaches age 13. Therefore, he can be a responsible father only at age 13. The Babli (68b,69b) and the Yerushalmi (Yebamot 10:14, Notes 209–211; copied Qiddušin 1:2 59c l. 26, p. 73) recognize the fact that an underage male may become a father. The son born to an underage father can never become deviant and rebellious since he is not the son of a man as required by the verse.. But the Torah said, a son, not a father. It parallels what Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: The entire period of a “deviant and rebellious son” is only six months¹⁰.

footnotes: ⁷ Ex ⁸ Palm ⁹ While it is accepted that from the age of 9 years a male may be able to have full intercourse with a woman (Yebamot ¹⁰ Since everywhere in talmudic literature the period between onset of female puberty and full feminine development is taken to be six months, the same is asserted here for the male. In the Babli, 69a, R. Sabbatai determines this period as three months.

Rebbi Yasa said, all these rules would be reasonable if they were the opposite. It was stated: You should know that this is the case. Who according to reason should be guilty, son or daughter? One would say, a daughter¹¹. But the Torah freed the daughter and declared the son guilty¹². Who according to reason should be guilty, the younger or the older? One would say, the older. But the Torah freed the older and declared the younger guilty¹². Who according to reason should be guilty, one who steals from others or one who steals from father or mother? One would say, one who steals from others. But the Torah freed the one who steals from others and declared the one who steals from father or mother guilty¹³. To teach that all of these [rules] are only the King’s decisions¹⁴.

footnotes: ¹¹ Who in her youth has to be obedient to her parents and later in life to her husband. ¹² As stated in the Mishnah. ¹² As stated in the Mishnah. ¹³ Mishnah 5. ¹⁴ Even though this seems to contradict Halakhah 7.

MISHNAH: When is he guilty? From the moment he eats a fourfold¹⁵ in the Babli (Pesahim 86b, Besah25b) states that a civilized person drinks a cup of wine (a quarter log, about 130 cm³) in two sips. One becomes deviant in drinking half a log in one gulp; this is the fourfold amount of a civilized person. The “fourfold amount” of meat is defined in the Halakhah (and the Babli) as half a Roman pound. Therefore, a civilized person will eat meat in portions no larger than 1½ Roman oz. per bite. The amount mentioned in the Mishnah refers to a single bite or sip, not the total amounts consumed during a meal (Maimonides Mamrim 7:2). The form טרטימר instead of טטרמור is not unusual since Greek words copied into Aramaic or Hebrew often exhibit metathesis if one of the consonants λμνρ is involved [H. and E. Guggenheimer, למילון התלמודי יב Lešonenu 39(1975) 59–60.] portion of meat and drinks half a log of wine. Rebbi Yose says, a mina of meat¹⁶ of 100 drachmas, not a Semitic maneh of 60 šeqels (between 120 and 240 drachmas), cf. Note 20. and a log of wine. If he ate in a company of obligation¹⁷, or at the lengthening of a month¹⁸, or ate Second Tithe in Jerusalem, or ate torn or carcass meat, abominations and crawling things, i. e., if he ate anything which either is an obligation or anything forbidden, or ate any food but not meat, or drank any drink but not wine, he does not turn into a deviant and rebellious son unless he ate meat and drank wine, since it is said: gorging and drinking to excess⁴21:18.. Even if it is not proof, there is a hint in what is said: Do not be among those who drink wine excessively, nor with those who are gorging themselves on meat¹⁹. 23:20..

footnotes: ¹⁵ Greek τετραμοιρία “fourfold portion”, cf. H. and E. Guggenheimer, תרטימר בשר Sinai 83(1978) p. 191. A baraita ¹⁶ A Greek mina ¹⁷ In modern Hebrew this is called סְעוּדַת מִצְוָה “a meal of obligation”, the festive meal at religious occasions such as weddings, circumcisions, redemption of firstborns, etc. ¹⁸ Before the publication of the calendar computations the Synhedrion, and its successor, the Academy of Tiberias, had to determine for every month whether it should have 29 or 30 days. This meeting always was the occasion of a festive meal. ⁴ Deut. ¹⁹ Prov

HALAKHAH: “When is he guilty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said²⁰ in the Eastern Roman Empire was the name of the silver denar, one has to assume that mina as a weight simply was a name for the Roman pound. [D. Sperber (Roman Palestine 200–400, Money and Prices, Ramat Gan 1974) consistently writes mina for the weight and maneh for the coin. But since a talmudic מנה always denotes 100 denars, there is no reason not to read the word as Μνᾶ, מְנָה.], the fourfold portion is half a Roman pound.

footnotes: ²⁰ The Amora R. Yose determines the amount required by the Sages as half that indicated by the Tanna R. Yose, a statement ascribed in the Babli to his teacher’s teacher R. Zeˋira. His statement implies that, as a weight, a mina (100 drachmas) was identified with the pound of 12 ounces, i. e. 96 denars. Since other talmudic data indicate that as a coin, drachma

He is guilty only it he ate it rare²¹. If he ate it raw, he is a dog. If he ate it cooked, he is a human. If he ate cartilage²² and probably corrupt. It is translated as if it were written חסוכים., what is the rule? What is the rule about soft sinews? ²³7:11 (35a l. 62); the final result there and here is that the discussion is irrelevant for the rules regarding the deviant and rebellious son, which implies that for the fourfold portion nothing can be included that is not regularly counted as food. The paschal lamb may be eaten only by persons who had subscribed to it, i. e., who were part of the group for whom the lamb was slaughtered during the afternoon of the 14 of Nisan. The lamb should be eaten in small quantities at the end of the meal; the minimum quantity per person is the volume of an average olive (כְּזַיִת). The question now arises whether barely edible parts, such as cartilage and soft sinews, can be used to fulfill the duty of eating from the paschal lamb and the number of subscribers increased accordingly. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed about what is stated there²⁴ 9:2. Mishnah 9:1 states that in general the hide of an animal is subject to the rules of impurity of food, but not to those of impurity of carcasses. Then Mishnah 2 lists some animals whose hides follow the rules of flesh in all respects (general consensus exists only for humans and domesticated pigs.) R. Johanan holds that for eating pigskin one never can be prosecuted, while R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that eating pigskin, not yet transformed into leather, is as punishable as eating pork.: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but not for flogging. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, not only for prohibition and regarding impurity²⁵ it is stated explicitly that the differences among the rabbis are about whipping offenders.. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat²⁶.. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden²⁷, not so much more? Rebbi Abbahu²⁸” R. Abun”. said, the reason of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi is: they shall eat the meat in that night²⁹. 12:8, a verse about the paschal lamb, irrelevant for the rules about the deviant and rebellious son., not sinews.

footnotes: ²¹ Superficially grilled. Eating grilled meat rare is not human. In the Babli (70a) this is called “cooked and uncooked”. ²² The word הסוקים is a hapax ²³ This text to the end of the paragraph is a shortened form of a discussion in Pesahim ²⁴ Mishnah Ḥulin ²⁵ In Pesaḥim ²⁶ “There” is Ḥulin, “here” is Pesaḥim ²⁷ Animal hide will become inedible; soft sinews and cartilage will remain edible after cooking. ²⁸ In Pesaḥim ²⁹ Ex

“If he ate in a company of obligation¹⁷, or at the lengthening of a month¹⁸, or ate Second Tithe in Jerusalem.” They would discipline him, but he does not listen to their voice³⁰. 21:18, for: but he does not listen to the voice of his father or his mother.. This excludes one who listens to the voice of his Father in Heaven³¹ 1:2, Note 630..

footnotes: ¹⁷ In modern Hebrew this is called סְעוּדַת מִצְוָה “a meal of obligation”, the festive meal at religious occasions such as weddings, circumcisions, redemption of firstborns, etc. ¹⁸ Before the publication of the calendar computations the Synhedrion, and its successor, the Academy of Tiberias, had to determine for every month whether it should have 29 or 30 days. This meeting always was the occasion of a festive meal. ³⁰ A slight misquote from Deut ³¹ Cf. Qiddušin

³² 2:3 (81b l. 33). There it was stated that one is permitted to earn money on the intermediate days of a holiday in order to have more money to spend on festive meals. The connection to this Chapter is that the deviant and rebellious son is absolved if he partakes of festive meals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if you were nominated for the city council, may the Jordan be the master of your border³³, one is permitted to leave the Land of Israel.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one complains to the government to be freed from the city council³⁴. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one borrows against interest for a company of obligation and the sanctification of the month. Rebbi Joḥanan used to go to the assembly hall in the morning³⁵, collect the crumbs, and eat them, saying: May my part be with those who in the evening were sanctifying the month.

footnotes: ³² This paragraph does not belong here. It is a slight reformulation of a paragraph in Mo`ed qatan ³³ Since the Roman government never allowed local taxes, it appointed rich people to the council (βουλή); these had to provide public services at their own expense. To avoid such an onerous leiturgia ³⁴ While in general one should avoid contact with Roman imperial officials, it is permitted to file complaints to make oneself undesirable, so as not to be considered for a council appointment. ³⁵ Before he became a member of the body fixing the calendar.

“Or ate torn or carcass meat, abominations and crawling things.” They would discipline him, but he would not listen to their voice³⁰. 21:18, for: but he does not listen to the voice of his father or his mother.. This excludes one who even to the voice of his Father in Heaven³¹ 1:2, Note 630. does not listen³⁶.

footnotes: ³⁰ A slight misquote from Deut ³¹ Cf. Qiddušin ³⁶ Babli 70b.

MISHNAH: If he stole from his father and ate at his father’s property, or from others and ate at others’ property, or from others and ate at his father’s property, he is not treated as deviant and rebellious son unless he stole from his father and ate at others’ property³⁷. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, unless he stole both from his father and his mother³⁸.

footnotes: ³⁷ That he stole money from his father to which he has easy access and ate at other’s premises where does not have to fear to be easily discovered. The facility of the crime will turn him into a habitual criminal (Babli 71a). ³⁸ Since in the relevant paragraph the Torah insists to mention the mother on equal footing with the father. If the mother has no separate property of her own, there is a question whether according to this opinion the son can never become deviant and rebellious (Note 50).

HALAKHAH: “If he stole from his father,” etc. ³⁹ From where a first warning about stealing: you shall not steal⁴⁰לֹא תִגְנוב, Ex. 20:16. The Ten Commandments only refer to the worst of crimes; stealing referred to there is kidnapping of humans, a capital crime (Babli 86a, Bava meṣia` 61b).. From where a second warning about stealing: you shall not steal⁴¹. 19:11. The remainder of the paragraph is a baraita also in Sifra Qedošim Parašah 2(2), Tosephta Bava qamma10;37–38, Babli Bava qamma 27b (Tanhuma Noah 4). Stealing is forbidden even if one intends to return the stolen goods after teaching the owner a lesson, or to have a pretext to give a poor person money in the shape of a fine.. You shall not steal, in order to aggravate; you shall not steal, in order to pay double restitution, in order to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Ben Bagbag says, do not steal your own property from the thief, lest you be seen stealing.

footnotes: ³⁹ This Halakhah also is Halakhah 11:2 (א); only the second paragraph is relevant here. ⁴⁰ As in 11:2 one should read do not steal ⁴¹ Stealing as a civil offense is prohibited in Lev

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav⁴² Hoshaia: he is guilty only if he steals money. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: he is guilty only if he shows contempt for money. What means showing contempt for money? Where do we hold? If about him who says, here you have five and give me for three, he is an idiot. Here you have three and give me for five, he is a regular person. But we deal with one who says, here you have five and give me for five⁴³.

footnotes: ⁴² With 11:2 read “Rebbi”. ⁴³ Since he has money, he has the urge to spend all of it even if it means that he buys more than he actually needs.

What is a thief and what is a robber⁴⁴? Rebbi Hila said, if he stole in the presence of witnesses, he is a thief, in the presence of the owners he is a robber. Rebbi Zeura asked⁴⁵: but if he intended to rob in front of its owners, he is not a robber. What is a robber according to Rebbi Zeura? Rebbi Samuel ben Sosarta in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: only if he rob in the presence of ten people. The prototype for all these: He robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian and killed him with his own spear⁴⁶. 23:21. R. Zeˋira insists that the characteristic of the robber is not that he takes by force, even in the presence of the owners, but that he does it in public. As always, “in public” is defined as in the presence of ten adult males. Babli Bava qamma 79b..

footnotes: ⁴⁴ With 11:2 read: “R. Zeˋira said.” ⁴⁵ While the thief pays double to quintuple restitution, the robber only has to return the robbed goods. The distinction between thief and robber has far-reaching consequences. The thief takes by stealth, the robber in public. The question is, what is the definition of “in public”? ⁴⁶ 2S

MISHNAH: If his father was willing but not his mother, or his father unwilling but his mother willing, he cannot be treated as deviant and rebellious son unless both be willing⁴⁷. 21:20 where the parents have to complain that the son does not listen to their voice. The singular used, voice, implies common voice. (The Babli 71a infers that the parents actually have to speak with one voice; their voices have to sound the same. This is not mentioned in Yerushalmi or Sifry.). Rebbi Jehudah says if his mother was inappropriate for his father⁴⁸, he cannot be treated as deviant and rebellious son.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ The son can be brought before the court only by unanimous consent of his parents. This usually is derived from Deut ⁴⁸ Usually this means that his mother is (biblically or rabbinically) forbidden to his father. Here one could not exclude the disqualification of a mismatch.

HALAKHAH: “If his father was willing,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if his mother was not suitable for his father⁴⁹. But is not all of his mother’s property also his father’s⁵⁰? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it about one who took in lodgers, made repasts, and he stole from there.⁵¹ many exceptions are noted to the rule that the husband has the usufruct of the wife’s property or the right to her earnings.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ Practice should not follow R. Jehudah. ⁵⁰ Only if his mother be married to his father; an illegitimate son is not excluded either from inheritance or filial obligations. The question is relevant only for R. Jehudah in Mishnah 3, who requires that the son had stolen from his mother’s property which was not his father’s. ⁵¹ This explanation really is unnecessary; in Tractate Ketubot

MISHNAH: If one of them⁵² was one-armed, or lame, or mute, or deaf, he cannot be tried as deviant and rebellious son, as it is said:⁵³. 21:19. His father and mother shall grab him, not one-armed ones, bring him out, not lame ones, and say, not mute ones, this son of ours, and not blind ones⁵⁴, he does not listen to our voice, not deaf ones. One warns him before three [judges] and whips him. If he becomes a repeat offender, he is tried by 23 but cannot be stoned unless the original three were present, since it is said this son of ours, this is the one who was whipped before you⁵⁵.

footnotes: ⁵² Of the parents. ⁵³ Deut ⁵⁴ Blind persons cannot point their fingers at the accused, they cannot know where in the room he is. ⁵⁵ The original judges become the witnesses who can testify to a proper warning given to the deviant son.

HALAKHAH: “If one of them was one-armed.” etc. Just as one explains for his father and mother, so one explains for the Elders of the Court,⁵⁶ as it is said ⁵⁷. 21:2.: They shall go out, to exclude lame ones; and say ⁵⁸. 21:7., to exclude mute ones; our hands did not spill, to exclude one-armed ones; and our eyes did not see, to exclude blind ones. The verse tells you that just as the Elders of the Court must be unblemished morally, so they must be unblemished physically⁵⁹.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ The Supreme Court. ⁵⁷ Deut ⁵⁸ Deut ⁵⁹ Rejected by the Babli, 36b. Moses, the president of the first Supreme Court, had a speech defect.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one of the first [judges] died, he cannot be stoned. Is that not the Mishnah: “he cannot be stoned unless the original three were present”? Rebbi Hoshaia said, you should not say that the second trial should become the first⁶⁰; therefore, one had to state this.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ If a member of the original court had died, the second court cannot warn and whip the deviant son and set him up to be executed by a third court.

MISHNAH: If he escaped before sentence was passed and then grew the lower beard, he is not liable⁶¹; but if he escaped after sentence was passed and then grew the lower beard, he is liable.

footnotes: ⁶¹ If he is recaptured, he needs a new trial. But since by then he already is an adult able to have children, he cannot be tried as a deviant and rebellious son. If sentence already was passed, no new trial is needed; the prior sentence can be carried out.

HALAKHAH: “If he escaped before sentence was passed,” etc. ⁶² 4:3, Notes 39–41. This is one of the few cases where the Leiden ms. does not copy the text but simply refers to it by “etc.” The parallel quotes in the Babli are Sotah 25a, Sanhedrin88a. Rebbi Joshia said, Zeˋira told me in the name of the people of Jerusalem: In three cases, if they want to forgive, they may forgive. These are: The suspect wife, the deviant son, and the Elder rebelling against the [Supreme] Court.

footnotes: ⁶² This paragraph is quoted in Sotah

The suspect wife, is that not a Mishnah, “one whose husband refuses to let her drink”? They wanted to say, before the scroll was written. He comes to tell, even after the scroll was written. But it does not apply to the case where the scroll had been erased⁶³.

footnotes: ⁶³ In the ordeal of the suspected adulteress, if the text of the curses involving the Divine Name has been erased, the procedure is irreversible, just as a judicial procedure is after judgment was passed.

The deviant son, is that not a Mishnah, “if his father was willing but not his mother, or his mother willing but his father unwilling”? They wanted to say, before he was tried. He comes to tell, even after he was tried. But it does not apply to the case where judgment had been passed.

The rebellious Elder⁶⁴. 17:8–13. Even if he is not executed, he has to be stripped of his judicial functions.; that means not to kill him. But they cannot let him return to his place.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ Who refuses to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court sitting on the Temple Mount, Deut

⁶⁵ But when I came to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra at Nisibis, he agreed with me in two cases and disagreed in one. He disagreed about the rebellious Elder, lest quarrels increase in Israel⁶⁶.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ This continues the statement of Rebbi Joshia which was interrupted by the discussion of the three cases. In the Babli, the dissenters are “my colleagues in the South.” ⁶⁶ The suspected adulteress and the deviant and rebellious son can be prosecuted only on request of the injured party; refusal to obey the instructions of the Supreme Court must be prosecuted automatically.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? “Bring me my husband and I shall drink.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since there is no husband to let her drink, the Torah returns her to a state of doubt, which induces another doubt, which remains a doubt⁶⁷ 4:3. It was omitted there together with the preceding four paragraphs. If a husband suspects his wife of adultery and warns her in the presence of two adult witnesses not to be with her suspected paramour, then if there is circumstantial evidence of adultery but no proof which would hold up in court, the wife is forbidden to her husband until she undergoes the ordeal by drinking the magic water in the Temple court (Num. 11:5–31). If the ordeal confirms her adultery, she is divorced as adulteress without any money.The ordeal must take place in the presence of the husband. If the husband dies before the ordeal can take place, the woman cannot drink. The House of Shammai rules that she is a widow, entitled to all benefits due to a widow, since the death of her husband barred her from clearing her name without her fault. The House of Hillel hold that as suspected adulteress she cannot go to court to collect money from the heirs to the estate since only valid claims can be enforced in court; it is not the heirs’ doing that she cannot prove her case (Soṭah 4:1 Notes 13–16)..

footnotes: ⁶⁷ This paragraph has nothing to do with the current subject but belongs to Sotah

⁶⁹ 9:7, Notes 167–185. It has no connection with the theme in Sanhedrin, only a tenuous one with the previously quoted text from Sotah. The text here is secondary as shown by a few omissions. There, we stated: “If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” It was stated “compromised”, not that she reduced [her ketubah]. How? If her ketubah was 200 but she claims a mina, she is paid without an oath. What is the difference between one who did compromise and one who claims less? Rebbi Ḥanina said, if she compromises there was a transaction between them; if she claims less there was no transaction between them.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ The text from here to the end of the Halakhah is mainly from Ketubot

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Since we stated there: “If one witness testified that [the ketubah] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath”; should it be similar that if one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was reduced, she shall not be able to collect the reduced amount without an oath? Rebbi Yose said, at the moment when one witness testified that it was paid, he does not contradict two [witnesses]; but when he testifies that it was reduced he would contradict two [witnesses.]

⁷⁰ 9:9, Notes 200–204. It was stated: “If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” Can one collect from a person in his absence? Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it about a contract for which interest is due. Would the court collect interest? Explain that it was guaranteed for a Gentile.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ This paragraph is from Ketubot

It was stated: If an heir’s father held a partially paid promissory note, the son collects without swearing. In this the son’s power is greater than the father’s since the father can collect only by swearing. Rebbi Eleazar said, nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents stating that this note was paid.” Therefore, if there was a document, the note was paid. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.” Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: bring my husband and I shall drink! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear. They instituted this for him, but not for his son. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.

If a father became obligated to swear in court and died, his son cannot collect. If it were otherwise, what could we say? Can a man let his son inherit an obligation to swear? Rebbi ⁷¹: Abun. Ba said, it was said as follows: if a man compromised his document in court, his son cannot collect. ⁷² 7:6 (38a l. 25). Rav Ḥisda asked: Because he walked two steps, does he lose? If he compromised it outside the court, he collects. Because he compromised it in court, he cannot collect?

footnotes: ⁷¹ In Ketubot ⁷² This is also quoted in Ševuot

MISHNAH: The deviant and rebellious son is judged because of his end; the Torah said, it is better that he should die innocent rather than guilty, for death of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world. Wine and sleep of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world. Scattering of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world. Coming together of the evildoers is bad for them and bad for the world, but concerning the just it is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world. Quiet of the evildoers is bad for them and bad for the world, but concerning the just it is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world.

HALAKHAH: “The deviant and rebellious son,” etc. The Holy One, praise to Him, saw that this one in the end will waste his father’s and his mother’s properties, will sit at road crossings, rob people, and kill them, and in the end will forget all he has learned⁷³. Therefore, the Torah said, he should die innocent rather than die guilty, for death of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world.

footnotes: ⁷³ And therefore descend to the level of animals. While the opinion voiced in the Babli (71a) that “the case of the deviant and rebellious son never happened and never will happen” is not found in the Yerushalmi, the detailed rabbinic rules certainly are intended to make sure it never can happen in rabbinic Judaism. But apart from offering ample material for sermons, the rules clearly are intended to show that in biblical law the father has no power over the life of his children; any action against a child needs not only the consent of the mother but a court proceeding, in stark contrast to ancient Roman law (Babli 72a).

“Wine and sleep of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world.” Rebbi Abbahu said, only wine with an excess of sleep⁷⁴. Rebbi Jonathan said, they sleep a little so they can concentrate better.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Even the just have to sleep and to drink some wine, as long as one does not drink so much that he has to sleep off his alcohol.

MISHNAH: The intruder by stealth is judged because of his end⁷⁵. 22:1 permits the residents of a house to kill the stealth intruder since it is assumed that he would kill anybody offering resistance to his burglary.. If in the course of a burglary he broke an amphora, if he has blood-guilt attached to him⁷⁶. 22:2., he is liable⁷⁷. 22:2.; if he has no blood-guilt attached to him, he is not liable⁷⁸.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ Ex ⁷⁶ If the sun shone on him, Ex ⁷⁷ Ex ⁷⁸ Since he can be killed, his burglary is the equivalent of a capital crime cf. Note 102.

HALAKHAH: “The intruder by stealth,” etc. ⁷⁹ 13, dR. Simeon ben Iohai p. 192, Sifry Deut. 217; partially Yerushalmi Ketubot 4:4 (Notes 88–93). Rebbi Ismael stated: This is one of three verses⁸⁰. 21:19 and 22:2 mentioned here one has to add Deut. 22:17. which in the Torah have been formulated as a simile: If he gets up and walks outside on his support⁸¹. 21:19.. If the thief is found in the digging, if the sun shone on him, he has blood⁷⁷. 22:2.. Does the sun shine only on him? Does the sun not shine on all beings in the world? But just as sunshine is special in that it brings peace to the entire world, so in any case in which you know that you are at peace with him, whether it be day or night his killer will be killed⁸². If sometimes he comes to steal, sometimes he comes to kill, you say that if certainly he comes to steal, his killer will be killed⁸³? Since sometimes he comes to kill, he may be killed. From here you argue about danger to life, to say that just as (foreign worship)⁸⁴ has to be deleted since Mishnah 9 states clearly that a person intent on idolatry cannot be killed before he acts. One must read שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים “bloodshed” which defiles the Land (Num. 35:33; Babli Šabbat 33a, Yoma 85a); by Mishnah 9 a person intent on committing murder may be killed by any bystander before he commits the murder. If a person with a drawn sword runs after another, it is only a surmise but one which allows the bystander to kill the attacker; maybe the pursuer would not kill his victim. This is the “action in doubt“ referred to in this sentence. is special in that it defiles the Land, desecrates the Name, removes the Divine Presence, and doubts are disregarded, so much more that doubts have to be disregarded in cases of danger to life⁸⁵.

footnotes: ⁷⁹ Parallel texts are in the Babli 72a, Mekhilta dR.. Ismael Mišpaṭim ⁸⁰ To the verses Ex ⁸¹ Ex ⁷⁷ Ex ⁸² The Babli, 79b, states that if a father intrudes in the son’s home, the son does not have the right to kill him. The Yerushalmi does not have this good opinion of family relationships, cf. the next paragraph. ⁸³ In Tosephta 11:9, this is a declarative sentence; the next sentence is missing there. ⁸⁴ Obviously, foreign worship ⁸⁵ The Sabbath must be desecrated for the possibility of saving a life. For example, if there was a landslide on the Sabbath and it is only surmised that somebody was buried in it, one starts digging without delay.

It is written: If the thief was found in a tunnel, was smitten, and died, there is no blood-guilt⁷⁵. 22:1 permits the residents of a house to kill the stealth intruder since it is assumed that he would kill anybody offering resistance to his burglary.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In the tunnel⁸⁶ there is no blood-guilt, outside the tunnel there is blood guilt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Even outside the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, for a person’s property is beloved by him like his own soul. He⁸⁷ sees him⁸⁸, that he⁸⁸ comes to take his⁸⁷ money away from him, stands up against him⁸⁸ and kills him¹⁸⁹ 85b.. Rav Huna said, if he took a wallet, turned to leave and went, if then one stood up against him and killed him⁸⁸ the killer will not be killed. What is Rav Huna’s reason? For his temper is hot⁹⁰. 19:6, another case of non-prosecutable homicide.. Rav said, I would kill anybody who would come against me, except Ḥanania ben Shila⁹¹ 10:8)., of whom I know that he would come only to take his meal from me. Rebbi Isaac said, if he has the temerity to do something like that, he cannot be Ḥanania ben Shila⁹².

footnotes: ⁷⁵ Ex ⁸⁶ From חתר “to undermine”. The thief digs under the wall to enter the house. ⁸⁷ The property owner. ⁸⁸ The thief. ⁸⁸ The thief. ⁸⁷ The property owner. ⁸⁸ The thief. ¹ The thief. ⁸⁹ A similar statement is anonymous in the Babli, Yoma ⁸⁸ The thief. ⁹⁰ Deut ⁹¹ A cousin of Rav, lover of roast pigeon (Babli Pesaḥim ⁹² Therefore, any their caught in a house may be killed by the owner.

MISHNAH: The following ones one saves at the cost of their own persons⁹³: He who purses another to kill him, the male⁹⁴, or the preliminarily married virgin girl⁹⁵. 22:26.. But he who pursues an animal⁹⁶., or who desecrates the Sabbath, or who worships strange worship, one may not save at the cost of their own persons.

footnotes: ⁹³ Preferably by injuring him; if this is not possible by killing him (Babli). ⁹⁴ In order to commit homosexual rape. ⁹⁵ Whose rape is equated with murder, Deut ⁹⁶ To commit bestiality. It is not permitted to kill a person intending to commit a capital crime; only a person bent on committing murder or a crime against a human comparable to murder has to be killed if caught in flagranti

HALAKHAH: “The following ones one saves at the cost of their own persons” etc. ⁹⁷“He who pursues another to kill him, whether in a house or on the field one saves at the cost of his own person, both him who pursues another to kill him or him who pursues any of the transgressions⁹⁸ make it likely that one should not read עֲבֵירוֹת “transgressions” but עֲרָיוֹת“nakednesses; acts of incest and adultery which constitute either capital crimes or deadly sins.” in the Torah one saves at the cost of his own person. But if it was a widow for a High Priest, a divorcee or one who had received ḥalîṣah for a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite for an Israel, an Israel woman for a bastard or a Gibeonite, one does not save him at the cost of his own person⁹⁹. If the deed had been done, one does not save him at the cost of his own person¹⁰⁰. If there are people to save her, one does not save him at the cost of his own person¹⁰⁰. Rebbi Jehudah says, if she¹⁰¹ said, let him do it, one does not save at the cost of his own person. For if they would injure him, they through him would come to spill blood.”

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Similar texts are in the Babli 73a, Tosephta 11:10–11. ⁹⁸ The parallel texts and the continuation of the baraita ⁹⁹ Sexual offenses which are simple misdemeanors cannot be prevented by killing the offender. ¹⁰⁰ This is a case for the police and regular administration of justice. ¹⁰⁰ This is a case for the police and regular administration of justice. ¹⁰¹ The victim of sexual agression who is afraid she might be killed.

The following is obvious: A murderer who broke vessels or otherwise caused damage is liable to pay¹⁰² 7:1 Notes 3–73, Ketubot3:1 Note 29; Babli Ketubot 32b, Bava qamma 36a, Makkot 7b, 13b), any damage done during the commission of a crime cannot be recovered from the criminal. Any damage caused before and after the crime has been committed can be recovered. The only question, the subject of the next two sentences, is whether the pursuit of the victim is part of the crime and protects the murderer from damage claims or not.. If he continued to break until he came to the town, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hoshaia: One said, he pays, the other said, he does not pay. If the pursuer becomes the pursued, may one save the pursuer through the person of the pursued¹⁰³? An adult (who became)¹⁰⁴ 14 (14d l. 67), the question is attributed to Rav Hisda, mentioned later here also. a minor, may one save the adult through the person of the minor? Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state¹⁰⁵ 7:6. If the life of the mother is endangered during childbirth, the attendants must kill the fetus by cutting it into pieces and removing it. But if head and torso are already outside, so that the baby is breathing on his own, he cannot be killed even if he is endangering his mother’s life. This is a case of a minor pursuing an adult.: “If his head and most of his body were born, one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life for another.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is different there since you do not know who is killing whom¹⁰⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁰² Since no crime can be punished more than once (Terumot ¹⁰³ If the intended victim gets hold of a weapon and turns against the agressor, is there any cause for the uninvolved to act? The question is not answered. ¹⁰⁴ From the following text it seems clear that one has to read: If an adult was pursued by a minor, may one save the adult through the minor’s life? In a parallel text, Šabbat ¹⁰⁵ Mishnah Ahilut ¹⁰⁶ Since the life of the baby is equally endangered, one cannot conclude that a minor intent on murder may not be killed by bystanders.

It was stated¹⁰⁷: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, one who goes to worship a strange worship is saved at the cost of his own person.“ If one saves at the cost of his own person to protect the honor of flesh and blood¹⁰⁸, so much more because of the Life of the World¹⁰⁹ 12:7. The vocalization חַי is standard Sephardic; traditional Ashkenazic is חֵי (cf. M. Hershler, Siddur of R. Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise including the Siddur of the Haside Ashkenas, Jerusalem 1971, pp. 21–22.).

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ Tosephta 11:12 in the name of R. Eleazar ben R. Ṣadoq. ¹⁰⁸ To save a woman from being raped. ¹⁰⁹ Cf. Daniel