Shabbat Shalom: Parshat Ki Tetze Deuteronomy 21:10-25:19
By Shlomo Riskin

Efrat, Israel - What defines a “wayward and rebellious” child? How is he to be punished? Whose fault is it - his, his parents’, society’s?

This week’s Torah portion, and especially the Talmudic Sages who comment on it, deal with the tragedy of such a problematic situation with amazing courage and sensitivity - and provide important directions for parenting, even today!

The words of the Bible itself are rather stark, and even jarring to the modern ear: “If a man has a wayward and rebellious child, who does not listen to the voice of his father and the voice of his mother, and they warn and flog him, but he still does not obey them; Then his parents may take him out to the judges of the city, telling them that “this our son is wayward and rebellious, he does not obey our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard,” upon which all the people of the city pelt him with stones and he dies, so that you rout out the evil in your midst, and all of Israel will take heed and be frightened” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

The Sages of the Talmud (B.T. Sanhedrin Chapter 8, especially pages 68b - 71) initially take the approach that here is a youngster who seems to be growing into a menacing murderous, monster. They limit the time period of the case in question to three months following the onset of puberty, insist that he must have stolen a large amount of meat and wine from his parents which he himself consumed, and conclude that “this youth is punished now for what will inevitably happen later on; it is better that he die (more or less) innocent rather than be put to death after having committed homicide.”

Despite these limitations, the case still seems rather extreme. Many modern commentaries argue that our Bible is actually limiting an ancient practice in which parents had unlimited authority over their children, even to the extent of putting their rebellious children to death, and here the waywardness is defined, the time span is limited, and the Judges must be brought into the situation. Nevertheless, the very axiom of “punishing now for what will inevitably happen later on” runs counter to everything else in our entire Biblical and judicial system, and is even countermanded by a famous midrash:

The Bible tells us that Sarah, the wife of Abraham, saw Ishmael, the son of Abraham’s mistress Hagar, “sporting (metzahek)”; she believes that he be a bad influence on her son Isaac, and G-d agrees with her that the mistress and her son are to be banished into the desert. An angel sees them wandering and suffering, hungry and thirsty, and comforts Hagar: “Do not fear; G-d has heard the (crying) voice of the lad from where he is now” (Genesis 21:9-17). On these last Biblical words, Rashi cites the midrash which seems to defy the Talmudic position of the wayward child:

“’From where he is now.’ He is judged in accord with his present actions and not for what he will eventually do. The angels in heaven began to prosecute (Ishmael), saying, ‘Master of the Universe, for someone whose children will eventually slay your children (the Israelites) with thirst, You are miraculously providing a well with water (in the desert)?! And (G-d) responded, ‘Now what is he, righteous or wicked?’ They responded, “Righteous’ (in the sense that he was not yet worthy of capital punishment). (G-d) answered, ‘In accordance with his present actions do I judge him, from where he is now.’”

If G-d is then explaining the foundations of Jewish jurisprudence, how do we explain the previous Talmudic explanation of “punishment now for what will eventually happen”?

The fact is that the Talmud continues to set many more limitations upon the case of the wayward and rebellious child based upon a very literal interpretation of the verses just quoted, making it virtually impossible to even execute judgment against him. First of all, the parents must have their hands, legs, and full ability of hearing and seeing in order to punish the youth (after all, they “take him” with their hands, “to the judges,” with their legs, claim “he does not obey our voice,” so they cannot be mute, etc.) which I have always interpreted as the necessary parental hands to embrace as well as to chastise, the necessary parental legs to accompany him to places of learning, inspiration and fun as he was growing up, the necessary parental ears to hear his dreams, fears and frustrations and the necessary parental eyes to see what he’s doing, what he’s not doing, and whom he is befriending. Children deserve to receive time and attention from parents - and quantity time is the real definition of quality time! If parents are not personally and significantly involved in the development of their child, then the child cannot be blamed, or punished, for becoming wayward or rebellious according to the Talmud.

Moreover, the mother and father must be “equal in voice, appearance and stature”: they must provide a single message of values and life-style to which they themselves subscribe, and they must act in concert and harmony in providing a unified household. Father and mother must be “fit for each other” - otherwise, mixed parental messages and models will also remove culpable guilt from the child. Finally, if either of the parents demurs, expressing unwillingness to bestow such a punishment, the punishment is not executed.

All of this leads to a ringing Talmudic declaration: “The case of the wayward and rebellious child never was and never will be. Expound the verses and you will receive reward.” (B.T. Sanhedrin 71a). Apparently, the limitations were so great that they obviated the possibility of ever executing the punishment; nevertheless, especially parents have much to learn about the seriousness of parenting by taking to heart, mind and action the rabbinic explication of the verses.

I would merely add a few words regarding Ishmael. There were many reasons for his expiation by the Almighty: after all, Abraham and Hagar did not provide a unified standard of behavior and values, the two were certainly not fit for each other, there was a primary wife who had a son with Abraham who was apparently slated to be the familial heir and recipient of the birthright and Ishmael himself repents at the end of his life. Even more importantly, it is G-d who ultimately forgives Ishmael. The Talmud teaches that there are three parents to every child, mother, father and G-d. If flesh and blood parents can prevent execution - in most instances, because they realize that they share the blame - our Divine Parent must certainly have the right to stay the execution. Only G-d knows that sometimes the genetic make-up of the child is of such a nature, or a traumatic event caused such a rupture in his personality, that neither he nor his flesh-and-blood parents can be held to be culpable. But whatever the case may be, its crucial that parents do everything they can, to the best of their ability, to give their children the basic three things which every child deserves from his/her parents: love, limits and personal involvement.

Shabbat Shalom.