Return To TorahWeb.org Homepage
Parshat Ki Teze introduces the intriguing and disturbing figure of the ben sorer u-moreh (rebellious minor) who is publicly (Sanhedrin 89a) executed, notwithstanding his age and the relatively minor magnitude of his transgressions. While the Talmud (Sanhedrin 72a) declares that he is punished in anticipation of his dangerous future (nidon al sheim sofo), it does characterize his present incorrigible behavior that foreshadows a bleak future, albeit in very ambiguous terms. The Torah records that he is both "sorer" and "moreh" as well as "zollel and sovei". How does this conduct justify such a harsh assessment and punishment?
Ibn Ezra suggests that "sorer" and "moreh" signify respectively a rejection of Hashem and of his parents, representing human authority. Alternatively, or additionally, Ibn Ezra asserts that these terms convey both the neglect of positive commandments, as well as the violation of negative prohibitions. Clearly Ibn Ezra projects that this juvenile's rebellion is impressively comprehensive. Moreover, he adds, the ben sorer's excessive focus on hedonistic pursuits qualify him as an apikores, deserving of a harsh fate.
However, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 70a) identifies excessive gluttony as the prime violation of the ben sorer u-moreh. Why would such a relatively minor infraction trigger such a draconian evaluation and punishment? The Ramban further remarks that the combination of abusive treatment of parents and the violation of "kedoshim tihyu" (or/and the almost certain future neglect of "u-bo tidbakun [Devarim 13:5] la-daat Hashem be-chol darkeinu"!) are the basis of ben sorer u-moreh's surprising fate. How are we to understand this combination, and why is the neglect of the ambitious imperative to refrain from even that which is permissible (kadeish azmecha be-mutar lecha) sufficient grounds for this remarkable law? The Seforno posits that the parental rebellion does not trigger the punishment, but it precludes the likelihood of any turnaround. The Ramban, in contrast, seems to perceive sorer and moreh as a real combination accounting for this law.
Perhaps, Ramban's own celebrated view of "kedoshim tihiyu" may provide an insight into the ben sorer u-moreh's fatal flaw, as well as into the combination of zolel-sovei and "einenu shomeia be-koleinu (or sorer and moreh). According to the Ramban's doctrine (beginning of parshat Kedoshim) of "al tihiyu naval be-reshut ha-Torah (not to take advantage of technical halachic allowances or leniencies to circumvent the halachah's true intent and values), the imperative of kedoshim tihiyu crystallizes the Torah's capacity to refine and cultivate personalities and its ambition to convey and inculcate values that transcends particular prohibitions - major or minor. The ben sorer u-moreh not only neglects or violates this mitzvah, he emphatically denies and categorically rejects it. Hence the flamboyant excessiveness of his gluttony may be interpreted as constituting a challenge to the halachah's very scope. His flaunting of parental authority in this manner, too, is not perceived simply as a series of ad hoc breeches of parental etiquette, but as an unequivocal dismissal of the very notion of authority- Divine or human. While the technical and narrow transgressions or infractions are, indeed, relatively minor, the implied perspective underlying these decisions challenge the very foundations of halachic life. The blatant, flagrant, and cavalier conduct is actually more disturbing and more reflective of a deeply rooted orientation by virtue of his youthful status.
Moreover, the minor's behavior and attitude toward even parental authority reflect a posture that perceives the Torah as a burden, as a series of narrow obligations, and as transgressions that are defined only by technical reward and punishment.
Finally, the very capacity to cultivate halachic values and especially to develop a meaningful halachic persona, embodied by the ambition of "kedoshim tihiyu", requires, or at the very least is significantly facilitated by, the guidance and influence of impressive role models and authority figures. Hence, the ben sorer's contemptuous attitude toward even his parents is tantamount to an emphatic dismissal of that very goal, so central to halachic life. The ben sorer's very existence is antithetical to the telos of "mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh".
Chazal debate whether the laws of ben sorer are practical or theoretical ("lo hayah ve-lo nivra".) Either way, the concept that the ben sorer's egregious perspective is absolutely inconsistent with halachic life is of great spiritual value. Thus, "derosh ve-kabel sechar" (there is great benefit and reward for studying this topic). For this reason, it is also important to publicize the execution of the ben sorer, as the Torah (Devarim 21:21) notes. [However, see Ramban's alternative explanation of this phenomenon.]
If the ben sorer u-moreh is viewed harshly because his actions are incompatible with the core ideas of halachic values and a halchic personality, it is unsurprising that these very themes are also vital to the process of teshuvah. This is particularly so with respect to the teshuvah of Elul and Tishrei which transcends the neutralization of particular infractions, requiring a holistic reassessment of the whole of one's spiritual persona. Reviewing the chapter of ben sorer u-moreh during this propitious period of teshuvah is beneficial, indeed.