Why Children Rebel

The Argument Between Moses and G-d

by: Rabbi YY Jacobson

Two Phases

In a military class the professor asked the students, "What is the difference between an engagement and a battle?"

No one in the group offered any answer. The professor was frustrated. “Didn’t anyone read the material in the book?” he thundered.

Finally, one guy said that he knew the answer.

"An engagement is the thing that came before marriage," he said, "while the battle is what followed it."

The Fight

It is a daring Kabbalistic story, and its origin is in the foundational text of Kabbalah, the Zohar.
 
It tells of a moment when Moses argued with G-d over a particular Torah law. The five books of the Pentateuch were dictated by G-d to Moses, who then transcribed them. This explains the endless and infinite layers of meaning contained in each word, law and episode of the Bible, reflecting the endless and infinite “mind” of its author.
 
Yet, says the Zohar
(1), at a particular point, G-d dictated a law to Moses, and Moses refused to transcribe it into the Torah.
 
It was the strange and painful law recorded in this week’s Torah portion. It reads like this
(2):
 
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey the voice of his father and the voice of his mother, and does not listen to them when they discipline him; then his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He does not obey our voice. He is a profligate and a drunkard.'
 
“Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.”
 
"G-d says to Moses," the Zohar recounts, "‘write!’ To which Moses responds: ‘Master of the universe! Leave this out. Will there ever be a father who would do this to his son?!
'"
 
"G
-d tells Moses, ‘I understand your view, yet you should still write it and you will be rewarded. You know [a lot], but I know more.' Moses would still not budge. He cannot accept this seemingly horrible law.
 
Only after G-d shows Moses the deeper mystical interpretation of this Torah law, as it describes the dramatic history of the Jewish people, does Moses acquiesce. He transcribes the law into the biblical text. Only after learning that this law was attempting to convey mystical, rather than literal, truths does Moses find comfort with this mandate.

Impossible Conditions

Interestingly, these sentiments of Moses recorded in the Zohar are echoed by the Talmudic sages living in the second century CE. The harshness of the law led these sages to conclude (3) that "there never was nor ever will be a stubborn and rebellious son," i.e. this Torah law was a matter of theory rather than practice.
 
The rabbis derive from the biblical text so many conditions that were required for this law to be enacted, that its practical application was an impossibility (3).
 
T
o cite just a few examples: Both parents must consent to have their son declared as a “stubborn and rebellious son” and receive the death penalty. The boy must be within three months of his bar mitzvah in order to receive this penalty, not a day younger or older (younger than that, he was still a minor; older, he was not a child). He must have stolen money from his parents, used it to buy a tremendous amount of meat and Italian wine, eaten and drunk it in one go, in a place other than his parents' house, and so on.
 
This is not enough. For the law to be applied, the Talmud states, both parents need to have identical voices, a similar appearance and profess equal height
(4). Since it is virtually impossible to have all of these conditions in place (unless the father and mother were twin siblings, which would prohibit them from marrying each other anyhow (5)), this particular Torah law could never be applied in the real word.
 
Why then was it written? The sages answer
(3), “So that we should expound the law and receive reward." What the Talmud seems to be suggesting is that expounding this law in depth will be rewarding for parents; it would enrich parenting and educational skills.

When we focus on these verses, we can thus deduce extensive psychological, emotional and practical guidance on the goals and methods of a moral education. Today, I wish to focus on one aspect.

How Many Voices in Your Home?

As usual in biblical study, a discrepancy in the text intimates deeper meanings. This text too, contains such a discrepancy.
 
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey the voice of his father and the voice of his mother,” is how the case is introduced in the Bible. His parents are described as having two distinct voices: “the voice of his father and the voice of his mother.” Yet later on, when the parents bring their son to court to mete out the penalty, we encounter a slight, but meaningful, variance: “They shall say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He does not obey our voice.” No more “the voice of his father and the voice of his mother.” Now it has become “our voice.” Their distinct voices merged into one.
 
What is the meaning behind this subtle textual change?
 
The message, it has been suggested (6)
, is critical in education. The phrase “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey the voice of his father and the voice of his mother,” hints to one possible reason for this son becoming stubborn and rebellious. In his home there was not one voice, but two distinct and dichotomous voices. The voice of the father was not the voice of the mother. Each of them went his or her own way. The parents never managed to merge their distinct “voices” to create a unified and integrated vision for themselves and their children. Each of the parents was pulling the home in a different direction, and the poor children were stuck in the middle, torn by the discord of people they love so dearly.
 
And if this were indeed the case, this child is not rebellious and stubborn at all.  He is a victim of his parents’ stubborn refusal to work on their emotions and discover peace in their fragmented home. The child need not suffer the consequences for his parents unreadiness to confront their egos and their demons, and build an ambiance of mutual respect and harmony. They may or may not have good reasons for their strife, but the child ought not to be blamed for responding to their wars with stubbornness and rebelliousness. What else do you expect of him?

Of course, even if you did not grow up in an idyllic and loving home, you are accountable for your actions. A human being could overcome his or her past. Yet you can't call this child "stubborn and rebellious." 
 
If we are going to punish this child, we must be sure that his disposition is indeed corrupt from within. Thus, in the continuation of the incident, the Torah states, “They shall say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He does not obey our voice.” To determine that this child has embarked on an irrevocable path to disaster (which is, according to the sages, the reason the Torah imposes such a horrific punishment on him
(7)), we must ensure that the parents spoke in one voice, that the home was filled with serenity and human dignity. If not, if two voices resided in the home  filled with divisiveness and resentment, the blame ought to be placed on the parents, not on the child. Since his distortion is due to his parent's discord, the path of healing is open to the boy.

Mutual Respect

This may be the deeper meaning behind the Talmud’s statement that for this law to be applied, the parents must share identical voices, a similar height and a close resemblance to each other. Only if the voices in this child's life have been integrated by parents who shared an identical value system in life; only when this child observed a father and mother whose spiritual heights were similar; only a child who saw both of his parents projecting a similar vision of themselves, only in such a case may we perhaps conclude that this child, who has demonstrated terrible and destructive inclinations, is turning into a monster. His future may be hopeless (8).

Since these conditions are virtually impossible, for no parents can be perfect, the Talmud is suggesting that we never have the right to proclaim any child as “stubborn and rebellious,” even if we observe in him destructive patterns. The child may be responding, consciously or subconsciously, to the stress and turmoil in his parents’ lives.
 
Parents are not, nor do they need to be, perfect. Yet, as long as we work toward transforming our distinct voices into a single voice, as long as we learn to truly respect the otherness of our spouse and create together a loving ambiance in our homes, we are likely to raise children who will lovingly embrace the morals and values their parents hold dear.

Footnotes:
1) Zohar Balak 197b.
2) Deuteronomy 21: 18-21.
3) Talmud Sanhedrin 71a.
4) The reason for this law is because the Torah states, “He will not obey our voice,” instead of “he will not obey our voices.” The use of the expression “our voice,” a plural pronoun and singular noun, indicates that the two parents must have a single voice, meaning that their voices are similar. “Since they must be alike in voice,” the Talmud concludes, “they must be alike in appearance and stature also." See Maharsha, Toras Chaim and Ben Yehoyada to Talmud ibid. for some explanations on how this follows.
5) See Sefas Emes to Talmud Yuma 62a.
6) Ateres moshe Ki Satzie p. 205. Pardas Yosef Ki Satzie 21:18 section 4.
7) "The Torah foresaw the ultimate destiny of the stubborn and rebellious son. Having dissipated his father's wealth, he would seek to satisfy his wants and be unable to do so. He would then go to a crossroad and rob. Therefore the Torah ordained: Let him die innocent rather than die guilty -- for the death of the wicked benefits both themselves [because they have no chance to commit further crimes] and the world" (Sanhedrin 72b). The law of the stubborn and rebellious son is a form of pre-emptive punishment. He is deemed worthy of punishment not for what he has done but for what he is likely to do in the future.
8) Rabbi S.R. Hirsh, in his commentary to these verses, explains the literal logic behind these conditions. Rabbi Hirsh suggests that the Torah requires the child to have an equal relationship with both his parents. Since this child is extremely physical, the physical features of his parents must be identical. This, of course, is not a practical law; it is symbolic of an idea: before we can deem a child to be rebellious, we must first examine all angles in his relationship to his parents.


Comments (20)

rebellious child

Monday, Aug 24 2009 - ד' אלול תשס"ט
alex
Kudos on an excellent essay.
It seems to me that implicit in the reluctance of Moshe to include this law into the codex was his fear for the Israelites.
On a cosmic level, if the ultimate verdict for such a son is death, then derivatively, Moshe was concerned that given the rebellious nature of the Hebrews, they may be subject to a similar verdict.
I expect that what God revealed to Moshe was His foregone promise on the eternality of the Hebrews. This no doubt mollified Moshe's fears.
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

The very last sentence...

Monday, Aug 24 2009 - ד' אלול תשס"ט
Lenore Roberts
First, thank you so much for this fine essay - as usual, it is one of your many excellent lessons. I do have a question about the word 'angels' see footnotes #8, the very last sentence. Is this meant as written or is 'angles' the word you intended to write? If it is 'angels", please explain.
Thank you again,
Mrs. Roberts
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

great insight - yasher koakh

Monday, Aug 24 2009 - ד' אלול תשס"ט
מנדי
how great are the Sages and those who teach them so well.Yasher koakh, R' Jacobson.
What a delightful Zohar, squeezing honey from coarse words.
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Monday, Aug 24 2009 - ד' אלול תשס"ט
you are brilliant but find you too long winded
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Monday, Aug 24 2009 - ד' אלול תשס"ט
Tzivia
Despite your wonderful explanation, I still find it disturbing that Hashem would deem any child of any age, whether our own children, or Hashem's children as in the Bnei Yisrael, could be seen as so wayward and beyond teshuva that they no longer deserve to live. Jews have always lived by the concept "where there is life there is hope". In fact as I understand it chassidic philosophy is all about rehabilitation of the wicked and teshuva.
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Thanks

Tuesday, Aug 25 2009 - ה' אלול תשס"ט
Moshe
One of your best essays ever.
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

good stuff

Tuesday, Aug 25 2009 - ה' אלול תשס"ט
Devorah
This essay might work well in some child psychology class
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Sheduchim

Tuesday, Aug 25 2009 - ה' אלול תשס"ט
A
Why You don't speak about shiduchim this is more important than any other topic
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

parental unity

Tuesday, Aug 25 2009 - ה' אלול תשס"ט
Esther
Your essay is very perceptive. I will add, that i takes two to make peace, but only one to make war or discord. If one parent becomes abusive, disrespectful of he other and is prone to rages, more often than not characteristics more prevalent in males, the partner may have no control over the other, no influence, yet there may be other reasons why they must continue to stay under the same roof. In certain cases, one parent can be at fault and the other suffers together with the children, until such a time that separation is possible. I had a husband like this who had to be "right" all the time, and could only issue decrees, promote fear and resist any discussion.
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Enough justification for such a law?

Tuesday, Aug 25 2009 - ה' אלול תשס"ט
Daniel
Dear Rabbi, you have drawn positive life insights from a seemingly irrelevant, cruel law.

While you make a good argument, I don't think this insight is enough justification for the creation of such a dark law by a benevolent G-d. We can learn already from other portions of the Torah about the need for Shalom Bayis and respect between couples and the need to respect ones parents.

It appears more plausible that this law was indeed intended as a real law written by the Jewish leaders in the biblical period between the time of Moses and 450 BCE.

It also appears most plausible to me that the Rabbis of the Talmud were more civilised and sophisticated than previous generations and wisely added so many conditions that this law would never be enacted again.

I believe your belief in the divine authorship of the Torah, along with your desire to find positive, useful insights in the laws drawn from Torah motivates you to draw conclusions which possibly the original authors never thought of.

The talmudic clarifications of the law are entertaining & puzzling -
'He must have stolen money from his parents, used it to buy a tremendous amount of meat and Italian wine' - Does this really mean that Hashem & Moses at Mt Sinai could appreciate the allure of good Italian wine in future Talmudic times?
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Wow

Tuesday, Aug 25 2009 - ה' אלול תשס"ט
Chayamiriam Taurog
Just wow; it's great. Thank you, Rabbi Jacobson
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Group

Friday, Aug 28 2009 - ח' אלול תשס"ט
Y Chaim
Together with a group of parents from the school we learned together your essey. It was a very special event. Yesher Cochachá!
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

To ponder...

Thursday, Sep 24 2009 - ו' תשרי תש"ע
Rabbi Reuven Cohen
BH
It appears Moshe Rabeinu was also taking the stance of a "rebellious son" by challenging G-d on this issue. Perhaps he considered that if he would have won the argument it would vindicate any potential "rebellious sons" - lieral and figurative - in the future.
Yasher koach for this site. and a gemar chasima tova.
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Parents vs. child

Friday, Sep 09 2011 - י' אלול תשע"א
It misses the mark
But what if the parents merged their voices and raised a child in an ambience not especially upholding Torah values? The degree of parental homogeneity should not make or break a case for a rebelling child. There is something lacking in the argument.
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Getting ready for Shabbos

Friday, Sep 09 2011 - י' אלול תשע"א
Eli Bear
Great! Living in Eretz Yisroel, sometimes the emails arrive a bit late Friday afternoon, something many in America perhaps never thought of. This week, it was waiting fresh and early. Thank you
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

ALSHICH

Friday, Sep 09 2011 - י' אלול תשע"א
Lazer
See Torah Moshe (Alshich) where the idea you explained is presented and he goes further. He explains why the Torah primarily blames the Ish for the Ben. The father was self centered and helped himself to another's delights (yefas Toar) just to gratify his own Taavah. He felt entitled to another's goods if he needed to quench his thirst. It can be no surprise then that the son learned from the father
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Rebellious Son

Friday, Sep 09 2011 - י' אלול תשע"א
Roxanne Perri
Thanks Rabbi for another wonderful essay about the Rebellious son.  As a marital
 therapist and graphologist, I find many young children being pulled between the dissenting attitudes of the parents and through their own angst and argument, they produce troubled children.  However, on the flip side, Isaac and Rebecca who were of one voice had the righteous Jacob and the warrier Esau.  Go figure!
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Rebellious son

Friday, Sep 30 2011 - ב' תשרי תשע"ב
Reuven
I think that the text in Deuteronomy is very clear about the conditions to be met for one to be called 'stubborn and rebellious' : profligate and drunkard. These conditions involve immorality ( which is also punishable by death) and a lifestyle which will eventually prove unworthy of (everlasting) life if nothing is done to reverse this bad life. 
I think that is commandment was given by G-d as a warning to parents of what might (eventually) happen. The child might child  into a villain fearing no authority  if they fail to educate him right. And then even if no parent is willing to bring his own child to be judged and punished by the elders of the people,the idea is that the same punishment is likely to be inflicted   later in his age without any 'help' of the parents.
Just think of what happens today in the world: whoever heard of a murderer to be deemed innocent for his crimes just because while he was a child he experienced a lot of disharmony and strife in his family?!
And oftentimes the parents should bear most of the guilt for having distroyed the balance of mind of the child and then have thrown him into the world to manage in living a good life.   
 
We, humans are often rebbelious and stubborn, we should admit it, even if sometimes we are not fully to blame. The Prophet Jeremiah has called the people 'stubborn' for not turning back to G-d, and meanwhile G-d was admonishing the people to give up their bad life in order to be forgiven. Stubbornness is an inherent trait of our fallen nature, we should be honest and admit it.

Whoever has read the book of Jeremiah understands how much foregivenness Hashem was willing to show to the people of Israel even though they had violated many laws for the transgression of which the punishment was death.

So it is not so much about a pre-emtive punishment, but a warning leading to a pre-emtive conduct, to the awareness of the consequences of disharmony in the family, which are to affect negatively children.

 
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Stubborn ...

Friday, Sep 30 2011 - ב' תשרי תשע"ב
Reuven
Sorry, I meant
The child might            turn             into a villain....
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Issac & Rebekka

Monday, Oct 31 2011 - ג' חשון תשע"ב
Joe Sol
To Roxanne perri.

According to normative 'peshat'

Unlike Abraham and Sarah, Issac and Rebbeka were not an ideal couple.

Besides the age difference being one of the many  barriers between them.

Issac was known for his stern and harsh manner, perhaps the outcome of  trauma from his brush with death by his very  fathers hands, at the Akeida.

The narrative itself shows ample proof of a strong  discord and of total breakdown in communication between them.

otherwise Issac would have known from Rebeka, about Esav's antics.

 she would also not need to go behind her husbands back and promote her son Jacob to lie, steal , cheat  and commit wrongful impersonation, and hurt his brother as well.

This lead to  many negative  ramifications, and all involved suffered immensly because of Rebbeka's backhanded insistence.

Which would have been redundant , had she  lovingly relayed information over the true spiritual status of their children!
Quote Reply
Login or Register to follow conversation

Add Comment


Name: Subject:
Message:
Reply Comments must be approved before being published. Thank You!
archivelog