Thread by @JustSayXtian

[ h/t @maimonides_nutz for this image]
This is a perfect example of how Christian atheists don't leave behind Christian readings, and continue to propagate antisemitic ideas born of Christian supercessionism. Also, let's talk about Sanhedrin 70b-71a.

Sanhedrin 70b-71a is largely an examination of the Mishnah (oral Torah) around Deut. 21:18-21. It's just one of the sections mentioned in the graphic above, but the way the Talmud examines it is informative for how Jews deal with problematic parts of scripture in general.

This is about the "wayward and defiant son", and how the way you deal with him is to stone him to death. I think we can all agree that's a bit extreme, and it's a big one Christians and Christian atheists point to in saying "OT God" (i.e., Jewish God) is bloodthirsty and cruel.

The thing is, it's not just our modern sensibilities that lead us to think public execution of children who misbehave is an unacceptably disproportionate punishment. The ancient rabbis *also* had a problem with this - but instead of just throwing it out, they picked it apart.

First off, why is there this specificity about what this wayward and defiant son is doing? He's not just doing *anything*. He's a glutton and a drunkard. So right off the bat, we're not stoning any old disobedient child, ONLY gluttonous drunkards.

But then, what counts as 'gluttony'? How much wine do you have to drink to be considered a drunkard? The rabbis determine that only eating a lot of meat and drinking a lot of fortified wine qualifies a person to be liable as a wayward and disobedient child.

Furthermore, even if one does eat and drink enough for it to be considered gluttony and drunkenness, there are mitigating circumstances! If the eating and drinking was with a group assembled for the purpose of a mitzvah, he's not liable.

If he was celebrating a leap-month, doesn't count. If the items had second tithe status, doesn't count. If the food wasn't kosher it doesn't count. If the proper tithe wasn't separated from the food it doesn't count. If the food was consecrated and not redeemed, it doesn't count.

Basically, if the eating and drinking was in the performance of a mitzvah, then it doesn't count as wayward and rebellious, and if there was some other transgression involved in the eating and drinking, then that prevents liability for being wayward and rebellious.

Also, *only* meat (not including poultry) and *only* wine count towards gluttony and rebellion, and it only counts if you are being *both* gluttonous and drunk, not just one or the other. So it's a pretty narrow set of actions that involve getting stoned for being a bad kid.

But the rabbis refine it further - only cheap meat and cheap wine count, and only meat that is cooked but cooked improperly, and wine that is diluted but diluted improperly. The rationale being that this is how thieves eat - so now the liability is tied to other law breakage.

In the same vein, R. Abbahu says that one is not liable unless he eats with a group that is entirely made up of idlers - eating with one virtuous person means that you are no longer liable, even if the eating and drinking meets all the other standards previously set.

In the Mishna it states that liability pertains exclusively if the son actually steals the meat and wine (or the means to purchase it) and only if he steals it from his father and eats it on property that does *not* belong to his father.

So at this point we're talking about a very narrow set of circumstances in which a child can be considered wayward and disobedient and liable to be stoned to death. We're clearly *not* talking about killing every child that misbehaves. But the rabbis narrow it even further.

R. Yehuda teaches that since the verse says 'he will not obey *our* voices' then both father and mother must speak with one voice, and they must therefore be indistinguishable in several aspects - they must be the same height, the same in appearance, and the same in voice.

And now we have a set of conditions that it is basically impossible to meet, which leads to the conclusion - there never has been a wayward and rebellious son and there never will be one in the future.

So - what's the point? Why make the law if it will never need to be applied?

The answer in Talmud is that the passage is in Torah only so that it can be studied - it's there so that we will read it and have exactly the conversation just put forth, in which we determine that such a law cannot be just and therefore cannot be applicable in any circumstance.

And it doesn't just apply to this passage! The tractate goes on to state that there can never be a city definable as an idolatrous city, and there can never be a household definable as afflicted by leprosy, and these verses too are there only to be studied and learned from.

This whole thing is key to the way Jews read and analyze Torah. We say everything that is in it is there to teach us, but that doesn't mean we take all of it literally. It's not an instruction manual. It's not a step-by-step. It's the *basis* for ethics, not the ethics itself.

The insistence that problematic passages like this one *must* be taken at face value, and *must* be indicative of the ethics derived from the text is a Christian conceit used specifically to demonize Jews, and even in rejecting Christian doctrine, Christian atheists perpetuate it