Here's a short recap on the Ben SU"M (דברים כ"א י"ח) Mitzvah order:
A boy does not listen (rebels against) to his parents in general (no details on how exactly)
He steals his father's money
He buys a large amount of meat and wine with this money specifically
He consumes it "half-done" in a company of bad guys, "looking like a thief".
As we can see, each one is (more or less) a prohibition on its own.
So what exactly is the prohibition (as it is a לא תעשה) in this Mitzvah as it seems a combination of 4 independent Lavim (as the Gemmorah says many time עבר על שתים or עבר חמישה לאוים)?
Can it be a unique Mitzvah of a combination and that's why the Sages say it can never occur?
(Please make a pause and think on your own answer before continuing)
Turns out Rambam is not clear about the Mitzvah either:
- In Mishne Torah Hilhos Mamrim (intro) he summarises it as a prohibition to rebel:
(ט) שלא יהיה הבן סורר ומורה על קול אביו ואמו.
9. For a son not to rebel against his father's and mother's instruction.
In other words, we're forbidden to rebel THRU/BY doing #2-4, so rebelling is the main part and stealing, buying, and eating are the details.
- In Sefer Hamitzvot (לאו קצה also Hinuch רמח) he writes the opposite:
" הזהירנו מהיות זולל וסובא במאכל ובמשתה בימי הנערות ובתנאים מתוארים בדין סורר ומורה. והוא אמרו לא תאכלו על הדם."
In other words, we're prohibited to eat [the meat and the wine] in such a way described above. So eating is the main part and the rest are details.
So which prohibition is it - rebelling or eating?
Mishnah Sanhedrin 8,5 says:
"בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה נִדּוֹן עַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ, יָמוּת זַכַּאי וְאַל יָמוּת חַיָּב,"
The wayward and rebellious son is judged on the basis of his end. He should die innocent and not liable.
So according to this Mishnah he does not transgress anything and dies innocent - so there's no such negative Mitzvah at all! So here's where I'm stuck.
Please help me to understand what Mitzvah is it.