Sanhedrin 106

1:
Before we begin our review of our present mishnah I would like to re-emphasize a point that has been made throughout our study of this tractate. The best way that I can make this emphasis is to suggest that you do the following: read through the Torah reading for last Shabbat (Parashat Ki-Tetzé). First of all think about the literal meaning of some of the mitzvot that you find there – and there are many to choose from that are topics that we have covered in our study in this tractate. After that, re-read the mitzvot you have chosen and try to recall how the sages re-interpreted them. I think that you will then realize the true power of "The Unwritten Torah" [Torah she-b'al-Peh]. In many cases the sages completely revolutionized the implications of the mitzvah; in many more cases they reduced its scope or applicability almost to non-existence. It will then become clear that, compared with the literal meaning of the biblical text, the sages were liberal in their outlook (though I do not think that this was their conscious intent). Hermeneutic interpretation was, perhaps, one of the greatest gifts that the sages collectively possessed.

2:
There is no topic that illustrates this point better than the topic of our present mishnah (and most of the present chapter). It is an object lesson in inventive re-interpretation. The literal implications of the biblical law seem almost horrendous.

Imagine: two parents demanding the death sentence for their own son because he does not obey them and leads a riotous way of life! What the sages did with this mitzvah by their interpretation was so revolutionary that they themselves admitted that it was well nigh impossible for it ever to be put into effect!

3:
The first mishnah of the chapter begins the process of re-interpretation. The first task the sages set themselves was to restrict the application of the text. Approximately half the total population are removed out of this category by their insistence that the Hebrew word ben must be understood literally – a male child and not just a child. The Talmud [Sanhedrin 69b] admits that this is an illogical interpretation:

4:
The second task is to define the other implications of the word ben, a son. The sages insist that it does not mean all male offspring, but it defines someone who is neither a minor nor an adult: the "son" cannot be a minor since "no minor is subject to the commandments" at all; but the "son" cannot be an adult either, because the Torah uses the Hebrew word ben and not the Hebrew word Ish [man]. This leads to a physiological definition of the period during which, in theory, a youngster could possibly enter the category of "riotous and rebellious son": "from the moment he produces two hairs until the whole beard is grown" – and, as our mishnah is quick to point out, this euphemistic expression refers to genital hair. From the Halakhic point of view, the male leaves childhood and becomes adolescent with the onset of puberty, which is defined as when he has produced at least two hairs around the genitalia. (Strictly speaking, this physiological criterion applies to the status of Bar-Mitzvah and Bat-Mitzvah, and presumably, in much earlier times a physiological examination was made to check for the onset of puberty. When this examination later became an embarrassment, it was accepted that on average girls reach puberty at the age of twelve and boys a year later. At this age they are considered – regardless of the actual physiological phenomena – to have left childhood and to have embarked on the often tempestuous journey of adolescence towards adulthood.)

5:
The Gemara [Sanhedrin 69a] is thus able to note:

by which, presumably, he seeks to define the terminus ad quem by which the genital hair may be considered to be fully grown. Having circumscribed some of the parameters mentioned in the biblical text, the sages have now reduced the applicability of the text as follows:

If a man has a riotous and rebellious son [but not daughter, and who happens to be between the ages of 13 years and 13 years and three months] who will not obey his father and his mother…

The next task of the sages is to define the terrible sin of this "riotous and rebellious son". But that is the subject of the next mishnah.

Mark Lehrman writes:

Regarding "prestidigitation" which was addressed in Sanhedrin 105, I was once told that the word "abracadabra" is derived from the Hebrew a b'racha c'daber (or perhaps some Aramaic cognate). Do you know if there is any truth to this?

I respond:

Mark has hit upon one of the (many) areas of human knowledge in which my education is lacking! My (meagre) sources yield the following information:

The expression is first found in the works of Quintus Serenus Sammonicus [3rd century CE?], where the word is written in Greek letters. It is a Cabalistic word, written in various arrangements, and used as a charm to cures agues etc. A spell; a mysterious word without meaning; gibberish. Thus far one learned opus. Another reads: a spell; a magic formula; gibberish. Cabalistic word supposed when written triangularly, and worn, to cure agues etc.

I suspect that there is not really any connection between this word and Hebrew or Aramaic. Having said that, let me add that I recall once hearing someone declare that the word Abracadabra was two words in Aramaic: Ibra ki-de-vra: "let it be created as said". I think, however, that this is more ingenious than reliable.