Sanhedrin 111

2:
The Reisha is, in a sense, an attempt at a justification of the whole law of the "riotous and rebellious son". The sages, it seems, were just as aware as we are of the problematica of the Torah law. Having spent the whole of the chapter so far in creating an interpretation of the dictates of the Torah that to all intents and purposes nullify its purposes, they now address the one question which remains. We have been so concerned with the details of the law – details which were a necessary adjunct of the elucidatory process – that we have ignored the obvious issue. We have been so occupied with the "what" that we have ignored the "why". Why does the Torah condemn such a person to death? If we did not have the benefit of rabbinic interpretation, in all probability we, as Conservative Jews, would have seen the law of the "riotous and rebellious son" as just one more example of the Torah legislating for a bygone age which had a system of social values different from ours. But the sages, of course, took the Torah law seriously and proceeded to "understand it" out of existence!

3:
The sages created the following scenario: parents have a son who, when he is between the age of thirteen years and thirteen years and three months, steals from his parents a small amount of meat and wine, consumes them where his parents will not see, and refuses, on more than one occasion, to accept their admonition on this matter. His parents warn him in the presence of competent witnesses that if he does it once more they will take him to court! He accepts their dare and his parents, acting in concert, present their son before a court of three judges. The judges warn the lad that if he repeats his acts of theft and clandestine consumption he will be liable to the death penalty, and have him flogged as a warning shot across his bows. The boy steals meat and wine yet once more and his hauled before a court of twenty-three. If they find him guilty on the evidence they must condemn him to be stoned to death. In order to fully appreciate this achievement of interpretation I suggest that we remind ourselves of the exact text upon which this interpretation was based:-

5:
I must admit that, against my will almost, I find a certain logic in the interpretation of the sages: in our day and age we find young people killing others "for the fun of it", "for the experience"; we find young people robbing banks and killing innocent citizens because of their uncontrollable craving for drugs; and so forth. It is most tempting to see a convincing rationale in the words of Rabbi Yosé ha-Gelili: "The Torah perceives the ultimate end of such a youngster: wanting to satisfy his accustomed appetites and not finding the wherewithal he will go out to the crossroads and there rob the public." "Better that he die innocent than guilty" is the conclusion of our mishnah (echoed by Rabbi Yosé ha-Gelili in the Gemara): better that he die innocent of murder and robbery. (This is not the understanding of the Gemara of this phrase in our mishnah, but I let it stand.)

6:
However, this conclusion of the sages (that the culprit die to prevent future crimes) is not only contrary to the spirit of other legal systems, but it is also contrary to the spirit of the legal system of the Torah itself! The Torah [Genesis 21] contains the story of how Hagar and Ishmael are forced out of the household of Abraham and Sarah. I relate the story here with the embellishments of Rashi [Rabbi Shelomo ben-Yitzchak, Western Europe, 11th century CE]. Abraham acquiesced to Sarah's demand that Ishmael be expelled because he saw that the boy was developing bad habits and he did not want Isaac to learn from him. Hagar and her son wander in the desert, get lost, and their food and water gives out. God promises Hagar that He will save Ishmael, and the angels protest!

Shabbat Shalom and Ĥag Samé'aĥ to everybody.