To not eat or to drink in the way of a glutton and a drunkard: To not indulge in much eating and drinking in the days of youth, according to the conditions described with a rebellious son (ben sorrer u’moreh) in Scripture, with what the Sages, may their memory be blessed, explained about it in Tractate Sanhedrin. And the warning to us about this is from that which is written (Leviticus 19:26), “You shall not eat upon the blood.” As so did they say explicitly in Sanhedrin 63a, “From where is the warning for a rebellious son? [Hence] we learn to say, ‘You shall not eat upon the blood’” — meaning to say, do not eat an eating that leads to shedding blood, and that is the eating of the rebellious son, such that he is liable the death penalty for such a bad eating. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 195), “And even though this is a general negative commandment as we have explained in the ninth principle, it is not distant [to say] that when the punishment is explicit — meaning to say the punishment of the rebellious son, the statute of which is stoning, being explicit in Scripture — we are not concerned about whether the warning is from the general negative commandments.” And he gave a reason for his words, as it is written in his book, Negative Commandment 195, and in the ninth principle. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrangled with him greatly about this. However they both concede that the negative commandment of “You shall not eat upon the blood,” and anything similar to it that includes many things — as we will write here — and their content and the reason for their prohibition is not the same, except that Scripture forbids them all in one negative commandment and in one category (literally, with one name), is called a general negative commandment. And it is a law that we do not administer lashes for a general negative commandment. But Rambam, may his memory be blessed, would say that because of this is the rebellious son punished with the death penalty for this eating — since Scripture explicitly revealed that his punishment is stoning in another place. And he elucidated at the introduction to his book (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 14 at the end) that anything about which Scripture makes liable for excision or the death penalty of the court is a negative commandment, except for the Pesach sacrifice and circumcision — as they have excision but they are positive commandments. And from this principle was it derived by the Rabbi that the law of the warning of the rebellious son — even though it is learned from a general negative commandment — is like the law of other warnings, since Scripture made the punishment of the death penalty about it explicit.
And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, does not hold of this approach and he does not lean towards it; but [rather] he holds that there always be an explicit warning about the one to be lashed or about the one being killed — and not from a general negative commandment. And even if Scripture makes his death penalty explicit a hundred times, the Rabbi will still say that it does not punish unless it warns (and not from a general negative commandment). And he does not consider a general negative commandment as a warning in the place of lashes, because of that which is a famous law in our hands, “We do not administer lashes for a general negative commandment.” And therefore he, may his memory be blessed, said that they already clarified in the Gemara from which verse we learned to administer lashes to the rebellious son: And they said in Sanhedrin 71b, “It is like Rabbi Abahu, as Rabbi Abahu said, ‘We learned lashes for one who puts out a bad name, as it is written about him (Deuteronomy 22:18), “and they shall chasten him,” from “and they chastised him” (Deuteronomy 21:18) that is written about the rebellious son; and “son” from “son” [in] “And if the evildoer be a son of (liable for) lashing” (Deuteronomy 25:2).’” And there is also a difficulty for Rambam, may his memory be blessed, in this, [since] he writes in the second root, that we do not give lashes by the power of a comparison (which is what seems to be indicated here). And he also challenged the Rabbi about his statement that the rebellious son is liable for the death penalty for his indulging in much eating and he did not distinguish between the first eating and the second. But they said explicitly in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 71 that we do not punish the first eating of the rebellious son with the death penalty, but rather lashes, as they said, “We warn him in front of two [witnesses] and we lash him in front of three. [If] he goes back and goes bad, he is judged by twenty-three [judges for the death penalty].” He, may his memory be blessed, also wrote and this is his language, “And what is fit to take out from this is that the first eating is prevented (forbidden) and its punishment is lashes, and the punishment of the second is death, and they are two preventions (negative commandments) in the tally of commandments, and they are [both] included in ‘You shall not eat upon the blood.’” To here [are his words].
And behold I will mention to you from the things that they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Sanhedrin 63a) are included in this negative commandment: They, may their memory be blessed, said that there is a warning to [not] eat an animal before its soul departs; and also to [not] eat consecrated meat before the sprinkling of the blood, and like they said (Sanhedrin 63a), “Do not eat the meat and the blood is still in the bowl.” And so [too,] did they learn from it that we do not provide a consolation meal over those killed by the court; and so [too,] that a Sanhedrin that killed a soul not taste anything all of that day; and that a person not taste anything before he prays (Berakhot 10b); and so [too] the warning to the rebellious son, as we said.
It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because most sins of people are done as a result of much eating and drinking, as it is written (Deuteronomy 32:15), “And Yeshurun grew fat and kicked.” And so [too,] “you became fat, you became thick, you became covered; and he abandoned the God that made him, etc.” And so [too,] did they, may their memory be blessed, say [about a man’s cow] (Berakhot 32a), “Who caused you to kick (rebel against) me? The vetch which I fed you.” And more generally they said, “Filling his stomach is a type of sin” — meaning to say after filling the stomach, a person comes to do bad sins. And the matter is that foodstuffs are the dough for the physical, whereas contemplation of the intellect and of the fear of God and His precious commandments is the dough of the soul. And the soul and the physical are complete opposites, as I have written at the beginning of the book. And so with the strengthening of the dough of the physical, the dough of the soul is weakened a little. And from this root there were some of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, that would only benefit from foodstuffs just what they required, only to keep their souls alive; and as it is written (Proverbs 13:28), “A righteous person eats to the satiation of his soul.” And therefore, for our good, did our perfect Torah prevent us from indulging in eating and drinking more than is necessary — lest the physical overcome the soul greatly, until it makes it ill and destroys it completely. And so in order to distance this matter fully, it warned us about this with a strong punishment — and that is the death penalty. And this is what appears [correct] to me about the topic. And a man is warned about this at the start of the power of the passion of his youth and at the beginning of his obligation to guard his soul (to observe the commandments) — and these are the first three months from when he begins to grow two [pubic] hairs until [the hair] surrounds the whole member. And from that time, he is to take ethical teaching for all of his days. As in that foods are a constant matter with man — it is impossible for him without it — the Torah did not command about it at every instance, but rather it ‘teaches him early’ at one time, to benefit him for all of the times.
From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 70a) that a rebellious son is not liable until he steals from his father and buys meat and wine on the cheap; he eats them outside of his father’s domain in an assemblage where they are all empty and lowly people; he eats meat raw but not [fully] raw, like the thieves are wont to eat, and drinks the wine diluted but not [fully] diluted, like the guzzlers are wont to drink; and he eats the weight of fifty dinar of this meat in one mouthful and drinks half a log of this wine at once. And that which they said (Sanhedrin 70a) that if he eats this ugly eating from forbidden meat or on a day that it is forbidden to eat — and even on a rabbinic fast — he is not liable, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 21:20), “he does not listen to our voice” — one who only transgresses their voice with this eating, to exclude this one that also transgresses words of Torah. And that which they said, if he ate from any other food but did not eat the meat of a [domesticated] beast [or] drank from any drink but did not drink wine, he is exempt. And the reason is from the root that we wrote, as the nature [of a person] is not drawn to anything so much as to these. And the law of how we judge him, how they warn him (Sanhedrin 71a) and how we proclaim about him. And that which they said (Sanhedrin 71a) that the law of the rebellious son is not enacted unless both the father and the mother want it, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 21:19), “And his father and mother shall grab him.” And if one of them was stump-armed or mute or blind, he is not made a rebellious son, as it is stated, “shall grab him” — and not stump-armed people; “and bring him out” — and not lame people; “And they shall say” — and not mutes; “This son of ours” — and not blind people; “he will not obey our voices,” — and not deaf people. And because of all these matters, there were some of the Sages that said in the Gemara that the law of the rebellious son was never executed. But there is one that testified that he saw him and even sat on his grave. And that which they said (Sanhedrin 71a) that at the beginning we lash him, as it is stated, “and they disciplined him” — and they, may their memory be blessed, explained “they disciplined him” is lashes. And the rest of its details are in the eighth chapter of Sanhedrin.
And it is practiced in the Land of Israel alone — as we only judge capital cases there, and with a court of at least twenty-three. And this law is only practiced by males and not by females, as it is not their way to be drawn to eating and drinking like men. And that is what is stated, “a gluttonous and drunkard son” — and not daughter, and not [a child the sex of which is in doubt]. And even [one] who was cut open and found to be a male, does not become a rebellious son, as it is stated, “When there is to a man a gluttonous son” — until he is a son from the time that he existed. And one who transgresses this and becomes a rebellious son, according to all of the things that we wrote, is stoned. And behold, he is like all those killed by the court, such that their money [goes] to their inheritors — as even if his father caused him stoning, behold, he inherits all of his properties.
שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ זוֹלֵל וְסוֹבֵא – שֶׁלֹּא לְהַרְבּוֹת בַּאֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה בִּימֵי הַנַּעֲרוּת בַּתְּנָאִים הַנִּזְכָּרִים בְּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה בַּכָּתוּב עִם מָה שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בְּמַסֶּכֶת סַנְהֶדְרִין. וְהָאַזְהָרָה לָנוּ עַל זֶה מִדִּכְתִיב (ויקרא יט כו) לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם. שֶׁכֵּן אָמְרוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין (סג, א) אַזְהָרָה לְבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם. כְּלוֹמַר, לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ אֲכִילָה שֶׁהִיא מְבִיאָה לִשְׁפֹּךְ דָּם, וְהִיא אֲכִילַת זוֹלֵל וְסוֹבֵא, שֶׁחַיָּב עַל אוֹתָהּ אֲכִילָה רָעָה מִיתָה. וְכָתַב הָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (בסהמ"צ ל"ת קצ"ה). וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה הַלָּאו הוּא לָאו שֶׁבַּכְּלָלוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בָּעִקָּר הַתְּשִׁיעִי, אֵינוֹ רָחוֹק כִּי כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָעֹנֶשׁ מְפֹרָשׁ, כְּלוֹמַר עֹנֶשׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, דְּהַיְנוּ מִשְׁפָּטוֹ שֶׁהוּא בִּסְקִילָה מְפֹרָשׁ בַּכָּתוּב, אֵינִי חוֹשֵׁשׁ עַל הָאַזְהָרָה אִם הִיא מִן לָאו שֶׁבַּכְּלָלוֹת, וְנָתַן טַעַם לִדְבָרָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּסִפְרוֹ מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה קצ"ה וּבָעִקָּר הַתְּשִׁיעִי. וְהָרַמְבַּ"ן זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (שם), תָּפַשׂ עָלָיו הַרְבֵּה בְּכָאן. וְאוּלָם שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים, כִּי זֶה הַלָּאו דְּלֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ שֶׁכּוֹלֵל דְּבָרִים רַבִּים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּכְתֹּב כָּאן, וְאֵין עִנְיָנָם וְטַעַם אִסּוּרָן שָׁוֶה, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכָּתוּב אֲסָרָם כֻּלָּם בְּלָאו אֶחָד וְשֵׁם אֶחָד, כִּי לָאו שֶׁבַּכְּלָלוֹת הוּא נִקְרָא, וַהֲלָכָה הִיא לָאו שֶׁבַּכְּלָלוֹת אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. אֲבָל הָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה יֹאמַר, כִּי מִפְּנֵי כֵן יֵעָנֵשׁ הַבֵּן מִיתָה בַּאֲכִילָה זוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאַזְהָרָה מִזֶּה הַלָּאו, לְפִי שֶׁהַכָּתוּב גִּלָּה בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁעָנְשׁוֹ בִּסְקִילָה בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, וְהוּא בֵּאֵר בְּהַקְדָּמַת סִפְרוֹ (סהמ"צ שורש יד בסופו) שֶׁכָּל מָה שֶׁיְּחַיֵּב הַכָּתוּב בּוֹ כָּרֵת אוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין, הוּא מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, חוּץ מִפֶּסַח וּמִילָה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן כָּרֵת וְהֵן מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וּמִן הַכְּלָל הַזֶּה יָצָא לוֹ לָרַב, שֶׁאַזְהָרַת בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא לְמוּדָה מִלָּאו שֶׁבַּכְּלָלוֹת, דִּינָהּ כִּשְׁאָר אַזְהָרוֹת, מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהַכָּתוּב פֵּרֵשׁ בּוֹ עֹנֶשׁ מִיתָה.
To not eat or to drink in the way of a glutton and a drunkard: To not indulge in much eating and drinking in the days of youth, according to the conditions described with a rebellious son (ben sorrer u’moreh) in Scripture, with what the Sages, may their memory be blessed, explained about it in Tractate Sanhedrin. And the warning to us about this is from that which is written (Leviticus 19:26), “You shall not eat upon the blood.” As so did they say explicitly in Sanhedrin 63a, “From where is the warning for a rebellious son? [Hence] we learn to say, ‘You shall not eat upon the blood’” — meaning to say, do not eat an eating that leads to shedding blood, and that is the eating of the rebellious son, such that he is liable the death penalty for such a bad eating. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 195), “And even though this is a general negative commandment as we have explained in the ninth principle, it is not distant [to say] that when the punishment is explicit — meaning to say the punishment of the rebellious son, the statute of which is stoning, being explicit in Scripture — we are not concerned about whether the warning is from the general negative commandments.” And he gave a reason for his words, as it is written in his book, Negative Commandment 195, and in the ninth principle. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrangled with him greatly about this. However they both concede that the negative commandment of “You shall not eat upon the blood,” and anything similar to it that includes many things — as we will write here — and their content and the reason for their prohibition is not the same, except that Scripture forbids them all in one negative commandment and in one category (literally, with one name), is called a general negative commandment. And it is a law that we do not administer lashes for a general negative commandment. But Rambam, may his memory be blessed, would say that because of this is the rebellious son punished with the death penalty for this eating — since Scripture explicitly revealed that his punishment is stoning in another place. And he elucidated at the introduction to his book (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 14 at the end) that anything about which Scripture makes liable for excision or the death penalty of the court is a negative commandment, except for the Pesach sacrifice and circumcision — as they have excision but they are positive commandments. And from this principle was it derived by the Rabbi that the law of the warning of the rebellious son — even though it is learned from a general negative commandment — is like the law of other warnings, since Scripture made the punishment of the death penalty about it explicit.
וְהָרַמְבַּ"ן זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה, לֹא יַחֲזִיק בְּזֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ וְלֹא יִטֶּה אֵלָיו, וּלְעוֹלָם יְחַזֵּר לִהְיוֹת הָאַזְהָרָה מְפֹרֶשֶׁת עַל הַלּוֹקֶה אוֹ עַל הַמּוּמָת וְלֹא מִלָּאו שֶׁבַּכְּלָלוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ יְפָרֵשׁ הַכָּתוּב מִיתָתוֹ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים, עֲדַיִן יֹאמַר הָרַב לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר, וְלָאו שֶׁבַּכְּלָלוֹת לֹא יַחְשְׁבֵהוּ לְאַזְהָרָה בִּמְקוֹם מַלְקוּת מִמָּה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ הֲלָכָה רוֹוַחַת, אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבַּכְּלָלוֹת. וְעַל כֵּן אָמַר הוּא זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה, כִּי כְּבָר הֵעִירוּ בַּגְּמָרָא מֵאֵי זֶה מִקְרָא לָמַדְנוּ לְהַלְקוֹת בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה? וְאָמְרוּ בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין (עא, ב) מַלְקוּת בְּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה הֵיכָא כְּתִיבָא, כִּדְרַבִּי אַבְהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבְהוּ לָמַדְנוּ מַלְקוּת בְּמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע דִּכְתִיב בֵּהּ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ מִוְיִסְּרוּ דִּכְתִיב בְּבֵן סוֹרֵר, וּבֵן מִבִּן, וְהָיָה אִם בִּן הַכּוֹת הָרָשָׁע. וְעוֹד בָּזֶה קֻשְׁיָא לָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר בָּעִקָּר הַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁאֵין מַלְקִין מִכֹּחַ גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה. וְעוֹד הִקְשָׁה עַל הָרַב מַאֲמָרוֹ, כִּי הַבֵּן הַסּוֹרֵר יִתְחַיֵּב מִיתָה עַל רִבּוּי הָאֲכִילָה, וְלֹא חִלֵּק כְּלָל לַהֲמִיתוֹ בֵּין אֲכִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לַשְּׁנִיָּה. וּבְפֵרוּשׁ אָמְרוּ בַּגְּמָרָא בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין (שם, א) שֶׁאֲכִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, אֵין עוֹנְשִׁין מִיתָה אֶלָּא מַלְקוּת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ (שם, ב) מַתְרִין בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וּמַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה, חָזַר וְנִתְקַלְקֵל, נִדּוֹן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְעוֹד כָּתַב הוּא זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה, וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ, וְהָרָאוּי לְהַעֲלוֹת מִזֶּה שֶׁאֲכִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה נִמְנַעַת, וְעָנְשָׁהּ מַלְקוּת, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה עָנְשָׁהּ מִיתָה, וְהֵן שְׁתֵּי מְנִיעוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן הַמִּצְוֹת, וְנִכְלְלוּ בְּלֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם, עַד כָּאן.
And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, does not hold of this approach and he does not lean towards it; but [rather] he holds that there always be an explicit warning about the one to be lashed or about the one being killed — and not from a general negative commandment. And even if Scripture makes his death penalty explicit a hundred times, the Rabbi will still say that it does not punish unless it warns (and not from a general negative commandment). And he does not consider a general negative commandment as a warning in the place of lashes, because of that which is a famous law in our hands, “We do not administer lashes for a general negative commandment.” And therefore he, may his memory be blessed, said that they already clarified in the Gemara from which verse we learned to administer lashes to the rebellious son: And they said in Sanhedrin 71b, “It is like Rabbi Abahu, as Rabbi Abahu said, ‘We learned lashes for one who puts out a bad name, as it is written about him (Deuteronomy 22:18), “and they shall chasten him,” from “and they chastised him” (Deuteronomy 21:18) that is written about the rebellious son; and “son” from “son” [in] “And if the evildoer be a son of (liable for) lashing” (Deuteronomy 25:2).’” And there is also a difficulty for Rambam, may his memory be blessed, in this, [since] he writes in the second root, that we do not give lashes by the power of a comparison (which is what seems to be indicated here). And he also challenged the Rabbi about his statement that the rebellious son is liable for the death penalty for his indulging in much eating and he did not distinguish between the first eating and the second. But they said explicitly in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 71 that we do not punish the first eating of the rebellious son with the death penalty, but rather lashes, as they said, “We warn him in front of two [witnesses] and we lash him in front of three. [If] he goes back and goes bad, he is judged by twenty-three [judges for the death penalty].” He, may his memory be blessed, also wrote and this is his language, “And what is fit to take out from this is that the first eating is prevented (forbidden) and its punishment is lashes, and the punishment of the second is death, and they are two preventions (negative commandments) in the tally of commandments, and they are [both] included in ‘You shall not eat upon the blood.’” To here [are his words].
וְהִנֵּה אַזְכִּיר לְךָ מִן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ לָנוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שם סג, א), שֶׁנִּכְלָלִין בַּלָּאו הַזֶּה: אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַזְהָרָה לְאוֹכֵל מִבְּהֵמָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ וְכֵן לְאוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קֹדֶם זְרִיקַת הַדָּם, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ (שם) לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ הַבָּשָׂר וַעֲדַיִן דָּם בַּמִּזְרָק, וְכֵן לָמְדוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁאֵין מַבְרִין עַל הֲרוּגֵי בֵּית דִּין, וְכֵן סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁהָרְגוּ אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, שֶׁאֵין טוֹעֲמִין כְּלוּם כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, וְשֶׁלֹּא יִטְעַם אָדָם כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּתְפַּלֵּל (ברכות י ב), וְכֵן אַזְהָרָה לְבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ.
And behold I will mention to you from the things that they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Sanhedrin 63a) are included in this negative commandment: They, may their memory be blessed, said that there is a warning to [not] eat an animal before its soul departs; and also to [not] eat consecrated meat before the sprinkling of the blood, and like they said (Sanhedrin 63a), “Do not eat the meat and the blood is still in the bowl.” And so [too,] did they learn from it that we do not provide a consolation meal over those killed by the court; and so [too,] that a Sanhedrin that killed a soul not taste anything all of that day; and that a person not taste anything before he prays (Berakhot 10b); and so [too] the warning to the rebellious son, as we said.
מִשָּׁרְשֵׁי הַמִּצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁרֹב חַטֹּאות בְּנֵי אָדָם יֵעָשׂוּ בְּסִבַּת רִבּוּי הָאֲכִילָה וְהַשְּׁתִיָּה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (דברים לב טו) וַיִּשְׁמַן יְשֻׁרוּן וַיִּבְעָט. וְכֵן שָׁמַנְתָּ עָבִיתָ כָּשִׂיתָ וַיִּטֹּשׁ אֱלוֹהַּ עָשָׂהוּ וְגוֹ'. וְכֵן אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (ברכות לב, א) מִי גָּרַם לָךְ שֶׁתִּבְעֲטִי בִּי? כַּרְשִׁינִין שֶׁהֶאֱכַלְתִּיךְ. וְדֶרֶךְ כְּלָל אָמְרוּ מְלֵי כְּרֵיסָא זְנֵי בִּישָׁא, כְּלוֹמַר אַחַר מִלּוּי הַכָּרֵס, יָבֹא בֶּן אָדָם לַעֲשׂוֹת חֲטָאִים רָעִים. וְהָעִנְיָן הוּא, לְפִי שֶׁהַמְּזוֹנוֹת הֵם עִסַּת הַחֹמֶר, וְהִתְבּוֹנְנוּת בַּמֻּשְׂכָּל וּבְיִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים וּבְמִצְוֹתָיו הַיְּקָרוֹת, הוּא עִסַּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ וְהַחֹמֶר, הֲפָכִים גְּמוּרִים הֵם כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַבְתִּי בְּרֹאשׁ הַסֵּפֶר. וְעַל כֵּן בְּהִתְגַּבֵּר עִסַּת הַחֹמֶר תֵּחָלֵשׁ קְצָת עִסַּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, וּמִזֶּה הַשֹּׁרֶשׁ הָיוּ מִן הַחֲכָמִים זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ נֶהֱנִין בַּמְּזוֹנוֹת רַק לְמָה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ, לְהַחֲיוֹת נַפְשָׁם לְבַד, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (משלי יג כה) צַדִּיק אֹכֵל לְשֹׂבַע נַפְשׁוֹ. וְעַל כֵּן תִּמְנָעֵנוּ תּוֹרָתֵנוּ הַשְּׁלֵמָה לְטוֹבָתֵנוּ מֵהַרְבּוֹת בַּאֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי, פֶּן יִתְגַּבֵּר הַחֹמֶר עַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַרְבֵּה עַד שֶׁיַּחֲלִיאָהּ וִיאַבֵּד אוֹתָהּ לְגַמְרֵי. וְלָכֵן לְהַרְחִיק הָעִנְיָן עַד תַּכְלִית, הֻזְהַרְנוּ עַל זֶה בְּעֹנֶשׁ חָזָק, וְהוּא עֹנֶשׁ הַמִּיתָה. זֶה הַנִּרְאֶה לִי בָּעִנְיָן. וְהֻזְהַר הָאָדָם עַל זֶה בִּתְחִלַּת תֹּקֶף חֹם בַּחֲרוּתוֹ וּבְרֵאשִׁית בּוֹאוֹ בְּחִיּוּב שְׁמִירַת נַפְשׁוֹ, וְהֵם שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מִשֶּׁהִתְחִיל לְהָבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף כָּל הַגִּיד. וּמֵאוֹתוֹ הַזְּמַן יִקַּח מוּסָר לְכָל יָמָיו, כִּי מִהְיוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַמָּזוֹן עִנְיָן תְּמִידִי בָּאָדָם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ זוּלָתוֹ, לֹא חִיַּבְתּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה עָלָיו בְּכָל עֵת, רַק שִׁחֲרוֹ מוּסָר בִּזְמַן אֶחָד, לְהוֹעִילוֹ לְכָל הַזְּמַנִּים.
It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because most sins of people are done as a result of much eating and drinking, as it is written (Deuteronomy 32:15), “And Yeshurun grew fat and kicked.” And so [too,] “you became fat, you became thick, you became covered; and he abandoned the God that made him, etc.” And so [too,] did they, may their memory be blessed, say [about a man’s cow] (Berakhot 32a), “Who caused you to kick (rebel against) me? The vetch which I fed you.” And more generally they said, “Filling his stomach is a type of sin” — meaning to say after filling the stomach, a person comes to do bad sins. And the matter is that foodstuffs are the dough for the physical, whereas contemplation of the intellect and of the fear of God and His precious commandments is the dough of the soul. And the soul and the physical are complete opposites, as I have written at the beginning of the book. And so with the strengthening of the dough of the physical, the dough of the soul is weakened a little. And from this root there were some of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, that would only benefit from foodstuffs just what they required, only to keep their souls alive; and as it is written (Proverbs 13:28), “A righteous person eats to the satiation of his soul.” And therefore, for our good, did our perfect Torah prevent us from indulging in eating and drinking more than is necessary — lest the physical overcome the soul greatly, until it makes it ill and destroys it completely. And so in order to distance this matter fully, it warned us about this with a strong punishment — and that is the death penalty. And this is what appears [correct] to me about the topic. And a man is warned about this at the start of the power of the passion of his youth and at the beginning of his obligation to guard his soul (to observe the commandments) — and these are the first three months from when he begins to grow two [pubic] hairs until [the hair] surrounds the whole member. And from that time, he is to take ethical teaching for all of his days. As in that foods are a constant matter with man — it is impossible for him without it — the Torah did not command about it at every instance, but rather it ‘teaches him early’ at one time, to benefit him for all of the times.
מִדִּינֵי הַמִּצְוָה. מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (סנהדרין ע, א) שֶׁאֵין בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּגְנֹב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וְיִקְנֶה בָּשָׂר וְיַיִן בְּזוֹל וְיֹאכַל אוֹתָן חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת אָבִיו בַּחֲבוּרָה שֶׁכֻּלָּם רֵיקָנִין וּפְחוּתִין, וְיֹאכַל הַבָּשָׂר חַי וְאֵינוֹ חַי כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַגַּנָּבִים אוֹכְלִים, וְיִשְׁתֶּה הַיַּיִן מָזוּג וְאֵינוֹ מָזוּג כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַגַּרְגְּרָנִים שׁוֹתִין, וְהוּא שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִשְׁקַל חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר מִבָּשָׂר זֶה בְּלֻגְמָא אַחַת וְיִשְׁתֶּה חֲצִי לֹג מִיַּיִן זֶה בְּבַת אַחַת. וּמָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ (שם) שֶׁאִם אָכַל אֲכִילָה זוֹ הַמְּכֹעֶרֶת מִבָּשָׂר אָסוּר אוֹ בְּיוֹם שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּתַעֲנִית דְּרַבָּנָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא כ) אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ, מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּאוֹתָהּ אֲכִילָה אֶלָּא עַל קוֹלָם, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁעוֹבֵר בָּהּ אַף עַל דִבְרֵי תּוֹרָה. וּמָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁאִם אָכַל כָּל מַאֲכָל וְלֹא אָכַל בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, שָׁתָה כָּל מַשְׁקֶה וְלֹא שָׁתָה יַיִן פָּטוּר, וְהַטַּעַם מִן הַשֹּׁרֶשׁ שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ לְמַעְלָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַטֶּבַע נִמְשָׁךְ אַחַר שׁוּם דָּבָר כָּל כָּךְ כְּמוֹ בְּאֵלּוּ. וְעִנְיַן כֵּיצַד דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ, וְכֵיצַד מַתְרִין בּוֹ, (שם עא, א) וְכֵיצַד מַכְרִיזִין עָלָיו וּמָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ (שם) שֶׁאֵין נַעֲשָׂה דִּין סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהָאָב וְהָאֵם שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים בְּכָךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יט) וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְאִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם גִּדֵּם אוֹ אִלֵּם אוֹ סוֹמֵא אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְתָפְשׂוּ בּוֹ וְלֹא גִּדְּמִין, וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא חִגְּרִין, וְאָמְרוּ וְלֹא אִלְּמִין, בְּנֵנוּ זֶה וְלֹא סוֹמִין, אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ וְלֹא חֵרְשִׁין. וּמִפְּנֵי כָּל עִנְיָנִים אֵלֶּה הַצְּרִיכִים בּוֹ, הָיוּ מִן הַחֲכָמִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּגְּמָרָא כִּי מֵעוֹלָם לֹא נַעֲשָׂה דִּין סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהֵעִיד שֶׁרָאָה אוֹתוֹ וְגַם יָשַׁב עַל קִבְרוֹ. וּמָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ (שם) כִּי בַּתְּחִלָּה מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וּפֵרְשׁוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה וְיִסְּרוּ אוֹתוֹ זֶה מַלְקוּת. וְיֶתֶר פְּרָטֶיהָ, בְּפֶרֶק שְׁמִינִי מִסַּנְהֶדְרִין.
From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 70a) that a rebellious son is not liable until he steals from his father and buys meat and wine on the cheap; he eats them outside of his father’s domain in an assemblage where they are all empty and lowly people; he eats meat raw but not [fully] raw, like the thieves are wont to eat, and drinks the wine diluted but not [fully] diluted, like the guzzlers are wont to drink; and he eats the weight of fifty dinar of this meat in one mouthful and drinks half a log of this wine at once. And that which they said (Sanhedrin 70a) that if he eats this ugly eating from forbidden meat or on a day that it is forbidden to eat — and even on a rabbinic fast — he is not liable, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 21:20), “he does not listen to our voice” — one who only transgresses their voice with this eating, to exclude this one that also transgresses words of Torah. And that which they said, if he ate from any other food but did not eat the meat of a [domesticated] beast [or] drank from any drink but did not drink wine, he is exempt. And the reason is from the root that we wrote, as the nature [of a person] is not drawn to anything so much as to these. And the law of how we judge him, how they warn him (Sanhedrin 71a) and how we proclaim about him. And that which they said (Sanhedrin 71a) that the law of the rebellious son is not enacted unless both the father and the mother want it, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 21:19), “And his father and mother shall grab him.” And if one of them was stump-armed or mute or blind, he is not made a rebellious son, as it is stated, “shall grab him” — and not stump-armed people; “and bring him out” — and not lame people; “And they shall say” — and not mutes; “This son of ours” — and not blind people; “he will not obey our voices,” — and not deaf people. And because of all these matters, there were some of the Sages that said in the Gemara that the law of the rebellious son was never executed. But there is one that testified that he saw him and even sat on his grave. And that which they said (Sanhedrin 71a) that at the beginning we lash him, as it is stated, “and they disciplined him” — and they, may their memory be blessed, explained “they disciplined him” is lashes. And the rest of its details are in the eighth chapter of Sanhedrin.
וְנוֹהֶגֶת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבַד, שֶׁאֵין דָּנִין דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֶלָּא שָׁם, וּבְבֵית דִּין שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה לְכָל הַפָּחוֹת; וְאֵין דִּין זֶה נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּזְכָרִים אֲבָל לֹא בִּנְקֵבוֹת, שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לְהִמָּשֵׁךְ בַּאֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה כְּמוֹ הָאֲנָשִׁים, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה וְלֹא בַּת, וְלֹא טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, וַאֲפִלּוּ טֻמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֵּן מִשְּׁעַת הֲוָיָה. וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל זֶה וְנַעֲשָׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה עַל פִּי כָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ נִסְקָל, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּכָל הֲרוּגֵי בֵּית דִּין, שֶׁמָּמוֹנָם לְיוֹרְשֵׁיהֶם, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָבִיו גָּרַם לוֹ סְקִילָה, הֲרֵי הוּא יוֹרֵשׁ כָּל נְכָסָיו.
And it is practiced in the Land of Israel alone — as we only judge capital cases there, and with a court of at least twenty-three. And this law is only practiced by males and not by females, as it is not their way to be drawn to eating and drinking like men. And that is what is stated, “a gluttonous and drunkard son” — and not daughter, and not [a child the sex of which is in doubt]. And even [one] who was cut open and found to be a male, does not become a rebellious son, as it is stated, “When there is to a man a gluttonous son” — until he is a son from the time that he existed. And one who transgresses this and becomes a rebellious son, according to all of the things that we wrote, is stoned. And behold, he is like all those killed by the court, such that their money [goes] to their inheritors — as even if his father caused him stoning, behold, he inherits all of his properties.