Bavli Sanhedrin

[If] his father wishes [to hold him liable to prosecution under Deuteronomy 21’s law of “a stubborn and rebellious son”—ed.] but his mother does not wish [that, or if] his father does not wish [to hold him liable—ed.] but his mother wishes [that], he does not become [liable for conviction as—ed.] a stubborn and rebellious son, unless they both wish [that he be held liable—ed.]. R. Judah says: If his mother was not suited for his father, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

What [does R. Judah mean when he speaks of the mother as being] not suited [for the father]? If we say [that their union is forbidden and places them in the category of—Ed.] those who are liable to [receive] karet [excision—Ed.], [in which case the marriage does not take effect,] and [certainly if their union is forbidden and places them in the category of—Ed.] those who are liable to [receive one of the types of] court[-imposed] death [penalty, in which case the marriage also does not take effect, there is a difficulty: Why should it matter if they are not married] [legally—Ed.]? Ultimately, his father is [still] his father and his mother is [still] his mother, [and the verses concerning the stubborn and rebellious son can be fulfilled].

Rather, [R. Judah] is saying [“suited” in the sense that the boy’s mother must be—Ed.] identical to his father [in several aspects].

This is also taught [in a baraita]: R. Judah says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become [liable for prosecution under the law of—Ed.] a stubborn and rebellious son. What is the reason? As the verse states: He will not obey our voices (Deuteronomy 21:20). [And] since we require [that they be] identical [in] voice, we also require [that they be] identical [in] appearance and height.

In accordance with whose [opinion] is that which is taught [in a baraita]: There has never been [a successful conviction of—Ed.] a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be [one] in the future. And why, [then], was [the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son] written [in the Torah]? [So that] you may expound [it—Ed.] and receive reward [for your learning]. In accordance with whose [opinion is this]? It is in accordance with [the opinion of] R. Judah.

If you wish, say [that this baraita] is [in accordance with the opinion of] R. Simeon. As it is taught, R. Simeon says: And is it due to [the fact] that [the boy] ate a tartemar of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine [that] his father and his mother shall take him out to stone him? Rather, there has never been [a successful conviction of a stubborn and rebellious son—Ed.], and there will never be [one] in the future. And why, [then], was [the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son] written? [So that] you may expound [it—Ed.] and receive reward. R. Jonathan says: [This is not so, as] I saw [one], and I sat on his grave.

In accordance with whose [opinion] is that which is taught [in a baraita]: There has never been [a case of a city condemned under Deuteronomy 13’s law concerning—Ed.] an idolatrous city and there will never be [one] in the future. And why, [then,] was [the passage] written? [So that] you may expound [it—Ed.] and receive reward. In accordance with whose [opinion is this? It is] in accordance with [the opinion of] R. Eliezer, as it is taught [in a baraita that] R. Eliezer says: Any city that has even one mezuzah cannot become an idolatrous city. What is the reason? The verse states: And you shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the open space of the city, and shall burn with fire [both the city and the entire plunder taken in it](Deuteronomy 13:17). And since if there is a mezuzah it is impossible [to burn all the contents of the city], as it is written: [And you shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their asherim with fire . . .] This you shall not do to the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 12:3–4). [From this verse, one learns that it is forbidden to burn a sacred item such as a mezuzah.—Ed.] R. Jonathan says: I saw [an idolatrous city that was condemned to destruction under the law of Deuteronomy 13—Ed.], and I sat on its ruins.

In accordance with whose [opinion] is that which is taught [in a baraita]: There has never been a house afflicted [with a leprous plague and requiring destruction according to Leviticus 14—Ed.] and there will never be [one] in the future. And why, [then,] was [the passage] written? [So that] you may expound [it—Ed.] and receive reward. In accordance with whose [opinion is this? It is] in accordance with [the opinion of] R. Eleazar, son of R. Simeon, as we learned: R. Eleazar, son of R. Simeon, says: A house never becomes impure [with a leprous plague—Ed.] until [a mark] about the size of two split beans is seen on two stones in two walls [that form] a corner, [the mark being] about two split beans in length and about one split bean in width. What is the reason [for the statement] of R. Eleazar, son of R. Simeon? [The verse states: And he shall look at the leprous mark, and, behold, if the leprous mark be in the walls of the house, in greenish or reddish depressions, which in sight are lower than the wall (Leviticus 14:37). In one part of the verse] it is written wall, and [in another part] it is written walls. Which wall is like [two] walls? You must say this is a corner.

It is taught [in a baraita]: R. Eliezer, son of R. Tsadok, says: There was a place in the area of Gaza, and it was called the leprous ruin.

R. Simeon of the village of Akko said: I once went to the Galilee, and I saw a place that was being marked off [as an impure place], and they said [that] stones [from houses—Ed.] afflicted [with a leprous plague—Ed.] were cast there.