3

The source (Dvorim 21:18):

כִּי־יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ
וְיסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם׃ וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ וְאֶל־שַׁעַר מְקֹמוֹ׃

וְאָמְרוּ אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סוֹרֵר וּמֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא׃

If a man has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community.

They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.”

Because the content of the saying is listed explicitly, it looks that the Torah requires that the parents give "a precise statement" in those very words.

This is similar to the Mishnah/Gemmorah in Soyto 32a:

אלו נאמרין בכל לשון פרשת סוטה ווידוי מעשר קרית שמע ותפלה וברכת המזון ושבועת העדות ושבועת הפיקדון ...

מקרא ביכורים כיצד וענית ואמרת לפני ה' אלהיך וכו'

חליצה כיצד: וענתה ואמרה ולהלן הוא אומר וענו הלוים

גמ׳ פרשת סוטה מנלן דכתיב ואמר הכהן לאשה בכל לשון שהוא אומר

וידוי מעשר מנלן דכתיב: ואמרת לפני ה"א בערתי הקודש מן הבית ויליף אמירה מסוטה בכל לשון שהוא אומר

And more. The Sages understand that "אמרת" in the text means giving an exact statement mentioned in the Torah.

However, I could not find anything on Parashat BSU"M, whether the parents MUST follow the exact wording when they bring the son to the court or not. For example, can they just say "Here's our wicked son!". Keep in mind that there are 2 witnesses that testify etc.

So is the parents' statement one of the "fixed statements" that obligate following the exact wording of the Torah (either in Hebrew or any language) or not? If not how exactly the Parashah of BSU"M starts?

  • 2
    This is according to the opinion that this indeed actually is a possible scenario. According to the opinion that this is not an actual case, then the question is moot. – user18155 Nov 12 '18 at 14:58
  • @DannyF The way I understand it, nobody questions if the scenario is plausible. The Gemmorah argues whether all conditions can meet, but the very existence of the Mitzvah assumes that in theory, it could. Therefore דרוש וקבל שכר. – Al Berko Nov 12 '18 at 19:54
  • 2
    @DannyF The question isn't moot because the Mishna does discuss the laws of a rebellious son – b a Nov 12 '18 at 19:59
  • 1
    A relevant point is that the priestly blessing MUST be said exactly as written in the Torah and in Hebrew to boot, because of the wording of that injunction in the Torah. So Al's question is pertinent. However, Tractate Sanhedrin does not say the phrase about the rebellious son must be pronounced as written in the Torah. – Maurice Mizrahi Nov 14 '18 at 22:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .