Results tagged ‘ Ki Seitzei ’
Ki Seitzei #2
Ki Seitzei
In this week’s parsha we have the laws regarding marrying a female captive (21;11) and a wayward/rebellious son (21;18).
Rashi (21;11) states that one is permitted to marry a woman taken captive at war “for if the Holy One, Blessed is He would not make her permissible he would marry her in a forbidden manner.” Meaning, he would be unable to conquer his evil inclination and marry her anyway. However, regarding all commandments one must conquer their evil inclination in order to fulfill them! Why does the torah only make an exception by a female captive?
Additionally, the commentators explain that only the righteous fought in wars. If that’s the case, how could righteous jews be interested in non-jewish female captives?
Thirdly, Rashi (21;11) states that one who marries a female captive will eventually father a wayward/rebellious son from her. However, why should he be punished for marrying her if the torah permits it?!?
Fourthly, the torah (21;21) states that the wayward/rebellious son gets stoned. Rashi (21;21) explains that he gets killed because “the end will be that he will exhaust his father’s money and seek to maintain his habit and not find the money he needs. He will then stand at the crossroads and rob the people (and kill them).” However, how could the torah guarantee us that a wayward/rebellious son will eventually kill people?
Fifthly, the Gemara (Rosh Hashana, 16b) states: “A person is judged according to his deeds at that time.” Therefore, why do we kill the wayward/rebellious because of something that is going to happen in the future?
Sixthly, the Gemara (Rosh Hashana, 16b) learns out that every person is judged according to their deeds at that exact moment from Ishmael–when he was miraculously saved from thirst in the desert by a well full of water. However, at that time Ishmael had already attempted murder, committed sexual immorality and idol worshipping. In our case, the wayward/rebellious son hasn’t done any of that–so why do we kill him?
Lastly, the torah (21;18) describes a wayward/rebellious son as one “who does not listen to the voice of his father and to the voice of his mother.” However, why does one have to rebel specifically against their parents in order to be considered a wayward/rebellious son?
Rashi (24;9) states: “Remember what Hashem, your God, did to Miriam–If you wish to take care that you not be stricken with tzaraas do not speak derogatory talk (lashon hara). However, wouldn’t it have been better for Rashi to say “Remember Miriam and don’t speak derogatory talk”?
Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that we see from here how the natural human condition is to speak lashon hara. However, what’s the reasoning for this? Rabbi Zweig explains that the drive of people who speak lashon hara is to take away their feeling of non-existence. One who lacks existence feels completely empty inside and therefore speaks lashon hara in order to give them a quick charge and fix their feeling of non-existence. This, however, isn’t the only way for one to deal with non-existence. The other way, explains Rabbi Zweig, is to pursue pleasure (e.g. drugs, alcohol, etc.). In contrast to speaking lashon hara, all pleasures have limits and are therefore stoppable. When one speaks lashon hara, however, it could go on forever.
Similarly, Rabbi Zweig explains that the righteous warriors were interested in female captives because they were living in a reality of non-existence. Therefore, in order to combat that feeling they sought to marry non-jewish women. However, they chose the wrong way of dealing with their feeling of immortality by going after physical pleasure (female captives) instead of other alternatives (drugs, alcohol, etc.). Therefore, because they chose the wrong way of dealing with their feeling of non-existence, Rashi (21;11) states that they would eventually father a wayward/rebellious son from her. Meaning, the reason the righteous warriors were punished with wayward/rebellious sons isn’t because of their actual sin of marrying a non-jewish woman–rather, they were punished merely for dealing with their feeling of non-existence incorrectly.
Rabbi Zweig explains that a wayward/rebellious son will only go against his parents if he’s driven by pain (and not pleasure). One who feels that they don’t exist and therefore being alive is painful gets angry at their parents for bringing them in to the world. We therefore see that a wayward/rebellious son is one who is driven by pain. Thus, the torah (21;18) describes a wayward/rebellious son as one who specifically goes against their parents because otherwise they are driven by pleasure (not pain) and won’t come to attempt murder.
Further, Rabbi Zweig explains that Ishmael was miraculously saved in the desert because he was simply driven by pleasure (not pain). We could see that he wasn’t driven by pain from the fact that he had no problems with his father (Avraham). He merely wanted to kill Yitzchak because he was driven by pleasure. Pleasure, however, has limits and is stoppable. We could actually learn out that pleasure has limits from Ishmael himself, as Rashi (Bereishis, 25;9) relates that Ishmael repented.
Lastly, Rabbi Zweig explains that one who desires a female captive is clearly driven by pleasure which is stoppable. Therefore, the torah permits one to marry a female captive only because it’s a temporary desire. If, however, one desires a female captive out of pain for feeling non-existent then he will end up keeping her as a wife and be punished with a wayward/rebellious son.
Ki Seitzei
Ki Seitzei
In this week’s parsha we have the laws regarding a wayward and rebellious son (21;18).
Rashi (21;18) explains: “A wayward and rebellious son is not liable to punishment until he steals (from his father) and eats approximately 8 ounces of meat and drinks 12-20 fluid ounces of wine.” (See Gemara: Sanhedrin, 71a, for a lot more requirements in order for one to be considered a wayward/rebellious son)
The torah (21;21) states that the wayward/rebellious son gets stoned. Rashi (21;21) explains that he gets killed because “the end will be that he will exhaust his father’s money and seek to maintain his habit and not find the money he needs. He will then stand at the crossroads and rob the people (and kill them). The torah says, “Let him die as an innocent person and not die as a guilty person.”
However, if we kill him so he could die innocent then why do we kill him through stoning-the most stringent of death penalties? The worst thing hes done is stole from his father–at most he should receive strangulation!?!
Additionally, the Gemara (Rosh Hashana, 16b) states: “A person is judged according to his deeds at that time.” Therefore, why do we kill the wayward/rebellious because of something that is going to happen in the future?
Furthermore, the Gemara (Rosh Hashana, 16b) learns out that every person is judged according to their deeds at that exact moment from Ishmael–when he was miraculously saved from thirst in the desert by a well full of water. However, at that time Ishmael had already attempted murder, committed sexual immorality and idol worshipping. In our case, the wayward/rebellious son hasn’t done any of that–so why do we kill him?
Moreover, the Gemara (Sanhedrin, 71a) states: “There was never a wayward/rebellious son and there never will be.” Rabbi Yonason then said that he saw a wayward/rebellious son and sat on his grave. The Maharal explains that he wasn’t a real wayward/rebellious son–he just came very close to being one. However, if someone once came very close to becoming a wayward/rebellious son then how could the Gemara (Sanhedrin, 71a) guarantee us that there will never be one?
Further, Rashi (21;11) states that one who marries a woman taken captive at war will eventually father a wayward/rebellious son from here. However, how could that happen if the Gemara (Sanhedrin, 71a) guarantees us that there will never be one?
Even further, the Rambam states that a wayward/rebellious son needs to be at least 13 because he needs to be obligated in mitzvot. Why didn’t the Rambam just say that a minor can’t be held responsible?
Lastly, Rashi (21;18) relates that the wayward/rebellious son gets warned before a court of 3 judges and if he transgresses despite the warning then he gets flogged. If he continues then he goes to court again and gets stoned. The Rambam relates that the 3 judges from the first court case must be present by the second court case. What’s the reasoning for that?
Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that one receives the title of a “wayward/rebellious son” as soon as he steals from his father the first time. Therefore, anyone who marries a woman taken captive at war will eventually father a wayward/rebellious son, as the son will only commit the crime once and get flogged. Meaning, when the Gemara (Sanhedrin, 71a) said “There was never a wayward/rebellious son and there never will be”–it meant a wayward/rebellious son who gets stoned for his actions. Rabbi Yonoson saw one who got flogged for stealing from his father–but not one who got stoned for it.
Rabbi Zweig explains that if a wayward/rebellious son doesn’t learn from his punishment of being flogged then he’s eventually going to get killed. In Ishmael’s case, however, he was already punished for attempting murder and committing sexual immorality/idol worshipping. Therefore, Hashem performed a miracle for him and saved his life because he had learned from his punishments. A wayward/rebellious son, however, is one who doesn’t learn from his punishment and therefore gets stoned for his merits at that time.
Similarly, Rabbi Zweig explains that a wayward/rebellious son gets stoned even though we judge every person according to their deeds at that time (Rosh Hashana, 16b) because of what hes become now–a rebel. He’s not just addicted to wine/meat–he’s driven against his parents. Therefore, it comes out that a wayward/rebellious son doesn’t get stoned because he’s eventually going to kill others–but because of the person he is now.
Further, Rabbi Zweig explains that the 3 judges from the first court case must be present by the second court case because the wayward/rebellious son isn’t just rebelling against his parents–but he’s rebelling against the judges also. Therefore, similar to his parents, they must be present.
Even further, Rabbi Zweig explains that the Rambam said that a wayward/rebellious son must be 13 because he needs to be obligated in the mitzvot (instead of just saying that he can’t be held responsible as a minor) because one can’t be considered a rebel until they are obligated to perform mitzvot.
Lastly, Rabbi Zweig explains that a wayward/rebellious son receives the most stringent death penalty of stoning, even though he has yet to commit a serious crime, simply because in the end we know he’ll kill others (even on Shabbat) because hes changed the person and become a rebel.
mlblogsjasonbehar
Recent Comments