As we explained yesterday, our current sugiyah (issue, unit) is all about making the horrific biblical edict of stoning rebellious son as unenforceable as possible. After all, if we were to be Deuteronomical about boys who are rude to their parents and eat them out of house and home, there would be bloodshed in pretty much every household I know, including, occasionally, ours (what did happen to that huge yogurt container we just got a couple of days ago?). To further this aim, on today’s daf, the rabbis are trying an interpretive maneuver by which they narrow the range of ages for fathering a child who might grow up to be rebellious. After all, the biblical law says that the rebellious son is born to a man–אִישׁ–rather than to a child. So what counts as a “man” for this purpose?
This leads to a rather crass conversation about puberty, in the context of the minimal age at which someone could potentially father a son. The sages launch into a discussion of viable sperm that would surprise and amuse any urologist, and as is our custom in this enterprise, we’re going to pass on that to get to the more savory and interesting stuff. But at some point, they mention that Rabbi Yishmael’s school observed that the biblical rule applies to “sons” rather than “fathers”:
וְהָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״בֵּן״ – וְלֹא אָב?
They deduce that someone who is a stubborn and rebellious son cannot be a father himself. And we have already pointed out that the rebellious son must be a teenager but cannot be an adult. This allows the sages to narrow down the people to whom the law applies: they must be teenagers, but under no circumstances can they be teenagers who can father children. Which leads to a second round of reproductive science from at least a millennium and a half ago, some of it, of course, leaning into unsavory and misogynistic scenarios that I will spare you, gentle readers. Suffice to say, there is immense curiosity about the growth of pubic hair. They conclude that the minimal age for fathering a son, rebellious or not, is nine. Onward.
Where things get interesting is when the sages start mining biblical stories to figure out how old various biblical characters were when their children were born, which turns out to be a pretty wacky enterprise, given that the timelines in the stories do not really make sense. The conflict is between the schools of Shammai and Hillel: Beit Shammai maintains that we learn from earlier generations, in which the stories sometimes tell of people who could father sons at a rather tender age, whereas Beit Hillel maintains that we must not deduce anything from these stories. To draw a comparison to our contemporary legal philosophies, Beit Shammai is advancing an originalist perspective (what the foundation text says is relevant today) whereas Beit Hillel is advancing a more pragmatic, spirit-of-the-law perspective.
Let’s be originalists for a moment and follow the calculus. Exhibit A is the story of Batsheba, King Solomon’s roof-bathing mother who was the daughter of Eliam, son of Ahitophel. Grandpa Ahitophel, you’ll recall, had offered advice to Absalom, and when Absalom did not follow Ahitophel’s advice and decided to rebel against his father, the latter committed suicide (incidentally, the Hebrew colloquialism “Ahitophel’s advice” for bad advice is mistaken; the advice to reconcile was good, and Absalom’s course of action, the rebellion, yielded tragic consequences. But we digress). At this time, Solomon would have already been about seven years old, and Ahitophel, true to a baraita based on a psalm, was thirty-three at his death. Give that Ahitophel is Solomon’s great grandpa, and with the deduction of a couple of years for the three pregnancies, you end up with a family dynasty in which each man fathered a child at the age of eight. If you don’t like the math, perhaps you’ll agree with the dissenters, who argue that Bathsheba might’ve conceived at an even more tender age–say, six–whereas Eliam and Ahitophel became fathers at the ripe age of nine. Ugh.
Exhibit B has to do with Terah’s three sons from Genesis 11: Abraham (age x), Nahor (age x-1), and Haran (age x-2). Abram and Nahor both married their nieces, Milka and Iscah, who were the daughters of Haran. Rabbi Yitzhak says that Iscah was actually Sarah, and therefore the math works out as follows: Abraham was ten years older than Sarah (age x-10). Ergo, Haran was eight when he fathered Sarah.
All this, of course, assumes that the three sons of Terah were indeed listed by birth order (cue Alfred Adler and sibling psychology), which the sages think is not always the case in the bible. Naturally, if Abraham was younger than Haran, the latter might have fathered Sarah at an older age. Which is interesting, because I’ve noticed that, when I ask people with multiple children about their kids’ ages, they usually list them starting with the youngest (e.g., “Persephone is three, Shamus is five, and Buttercup is eight.”) If you have multiple children, how do you list them, and why? The sages suggest that biblical sources sometimes list kids in order of wisdom–do you think Alfred Adler might report you to CPS if you did that with your kids?
There’s also an Exhibit C, involving the family of Caleb, father of Hur, father of Uri, father of the legendary artist Bezal’el (Exodus 38 and I Chronicles 2), where they piece together the age in which Bezal’el must have made the tabernacle and calculate backwards they also find some pretty young fathers. But I think you get the point.
The last thing on the agenda for today is that the penalty for rebelliousness, according to Rabbi Shimon, applies only to sons, not to daughters (בֵּן, וְלֹא בַּת). Rabbi Shimon concedes that daughters might well behave in rebellious ways, but states that the scripture only applies to sons (אֶלָּא גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא: ״בֵּן״, וְלֹא בַּת). He knows this doesn’t make any sense, and says that explicitly but, as we’ve already seen, the name of the game is to narrow the application of this horrendous law as much as possible.
No comment yet, add your voice below!