Sanhedrin Daf 71 סַנהֶדרִין דַף 71

The Mishnah requires both the father and mother to want their son to be ruled a בן סורר ומורה. Rebbe Yehudah says that if his mother was not “fit” for his father, he does not become a בן סורר ומורה. In a Baraisa, Rebbe Yehudah explains that his mother must be שוה לאביו בקול ובמראה ובקומה – similar to his father in voice, appearance, and height. Because this is nearly impossible, Rebbe Yehudah may be the Tanna who said: בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות – there never was a בן סורר ומורה, and there never will be, and the reason it was written in the Torah was:דרוש וקבל שכר – Go darshen it and receive reward for doing so! Alternatively, the Baraisa is Rebbe Shimon, who said that no parent would take their son out to be stoned because he ate a תרטימר of meat and drank a לוג of Italian wine. Rebbe Yonasan reports having sat on the grave of a בן סורר ומורה. Another Baraisa says there never was nor will be an עיר הנדחת, which follows the Tanna that if there is even a single מזוזה in the city, it is not destroyed. Another Baraisa says there never was nor will be a house stricken with צרעת, following the Tanna who requires very precise dimensions.

Rebbe Chanina said that a בן נח who “blessed” Hashem and then converted is exempt from execution, הואיל ונשתנה דינו [ונשתנית] מיתתו – since his judgement rules changed (e.g., to now require two witnesses, twenty-three judges, etc.) and his method of execution changed (a בן נח’s execution is always סייף, whereas a Jewish blasphemer receives סקילה). Because his status changed from the time of his transgression, he cannot get either punishment, and is exempt (even though he would be killed for a new transgression). A Baraisa states that a בן נח  who killed another בן נח or had relations with his fellow’s wife, and converted, is exempt (since he would not be executed for doing so now), but if he killed a Yisroel or had relations with a Yisroel’s wife, he is liable, which seems to disprove Rebbe Chanina!? The Gemara answers that one is only exempt if both the judgement rules and his execution method changed; here, his execution did not change, because killing a Jew is punished with סייף, like every בן נח’s transgression. Although the execution for adultery changed to חנק, קלה בחמורה מישך שייכא – the “lighter” punishment (חנק) is included in the stricter punishment (סייף), so it is like he was already subject toחנק  before.

The next Mishnah states that a בן סורר ומורה is נידון על שם סופו – judged based on his ultimate end, because we say: ימות זכאי ואל ימות חייב – let him die innocent, and not die after he becomes guilty of murder. In a Baraisa, Rebbe Yose HaGlili explains: does he deserve to be stoned for consuming a תרטימר of meat and a לוג of Italian wine?! Rather, the Torah foresaw his ultimate end: after depleting his father’s assets, he will seek to maintain his habit, and rob people on the crossroads (and murder those who resist). Therefore, it is better that he should die while he is still innocent, as the Mishnah explains: שמיתתן של רשעים הנאה להן והנאה לעולם – the death of the wicked is beneficial to them (because they can no longer sin), and beneficial to the world (who will no longer suffer from them); לצדיקים רע להן ורע לעולם – however, death for the righteous is detrimental for them (since they can no longer perform mitzvos) and detrimental for the world (who loses their protection and admonishment). The Mishnah proceeds to say that wine, sleep, and פיזור – dispersal are all beneficial for רשעים, but detrimental for צדיקים, whereas כינוס – assembly and tranquility are detrimental for רשעים, but beneficial for צדיקים.