(Mishnah): He must eat meat and drink wine to become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh.

(Beraisa): Even if he ate many foods, but not meat, and even if he drank many beverages, but not wine, he cannot become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh until he eats meat and drinks wine - "Zolel v'Sovei."

"B'Sov'ei Yayin" (does not prove, but) hints that 'Sovei' refers to drinking wine.

Also, it says "Ki Sovei v'Zolel Yivaresh."

(R. Zeira): "U'Kra'im Talbish Numah" - anyone who sleeps in a Beis Medrash, his Torah becomes fragmented (he only remembers bits and pieces).

(Mishnah): If he stole from his father and ate in his father's residence, or if he stole from other people and ate in another's residence, he is not a Ben Sorer u'Moreh, unless he steals from his father and eats in another's residence.

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he must steal from his father and mother.

(Gemara): If he stole from his father and ate in his father's residence (he is exempt). Even though he can steal frequently from his father, he fears that his father will see him, so he will not become habituated;

If he stole from others and ate in another's residence, even though he is not afraid, he will not be able to steal frequently, so he will not become habituated;

All the more so, if he stole from others and ate in his father's residence, he cannot steal frequently and he is afraid, so he will not become habituated;

He is not a Ben Sorer u'Moreh unless he steals from his father and eats in another's residence, for he can steal frequently and he is not afraid.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): He must steal from his father and mother.

Question: How can he steal from his mother? A woman's property belongs to her husband!

Answer #1 (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): He steals a meal prepared for his father and mother.

Question: R. Chanan bar Moldah taught that he is liable only if he buys meat and wine cheaply and eats them!

Correction: Rather, he steals money designated for a meal for his father and mother.

Answer #2: Someone else gave money to his mother on condition that her husband has no rights to it.

(Mishnah): If his father wants Beis Din to judge him and his mother does not, or vice-versa, he is not a Ben Sorer u'Moreh - unless both want.

R. Yehudah says, if his mother is not proper for his father, he does not become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh.

(Gemara) Question: What is the meaning of 'she is not proper for his father'?

Suggestion: She is forbidden to him by Chayavei Kerisus or Chayavei Misos.

Rejection: In any case, they are his parents! (The Torah does not say that they are married.)

Answer: She does not resemble him.

Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If his mother does not resemble his father regarding voice, appearance and stature, he does not become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh.

Question: What is his reason?

Answer: "Einenu Shome'a b'Koleinu" - just like their voices must be the same, also their appearance and stature.

Question: Like which Tana is the following?

(Beraisa): There never was a Ben Sorer u'Moreh, and there never will be;

The Torah wrote the Parshah solely for us to expound it and receive reward for doing so.

Answer #1: This is like R. Yehudah.

Answer #2: This is like R. Shimon.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): Will parents willingly take their son to be stoned, just because he (stole and) ate a Tartimar or meat and half a Log of wine?!

Rather, there never was a Ben Sorer u'Moreh, and there never will be. The Parshah is written for us to expound it and receive reward.

R. Yonason says, I saw a Ben Sorer u'Moreh, and I sat on his grave.

Question: Like which Tana is the following?

(Beraisa): There never was an Ir ha'Nidachas, and there never will be;

The Torah wrote the Parshah for us to expound it and receive reward.

Answer: This is like R. Eliezer.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If there is even one Mezuzah (or Tefilin or Sefer) in a city, it cannot become an Ir ha'Nidachas.

Question: What is his reason?

Answer: "V'Es Kol Shelalah... v'Sorafta";

We cannot burn a Mezuzah - "Lo Sa'ason Ken la'Shem Elokeichem."

R. Yonason says, I saw an Ir ha'Nidachas and I sat on the ash-heap.

Question: Like which Tana is the following?

(Beraisa): There never was a Bayis ha'Menuga (house with Tzara'as), and there never will be;

The Torah wrote the Parshah for us to expound it and receive reward.

Answer: This is like R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

(Mishnah - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon): A Bayis ha'Menuga must have appearances (of Tzara'as) on a Gris on each of two stones that touch in the corner (and the appearances touch each other. This is such a remote possibility, that surely it would never occur).

Question: What is his reason?

Answer: It says "Kir', and it says "Kiros";

A wall that is like two walls is the corner.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok): There was a place in the Techum of Azah called 'the closed ruin' (like the Targum of Bayis ha'Menuga).

R. Shimon Ish Kefar Ako says, in Galil I saw a placed marked off (due to Tum'ah). People said that rocks of a Bayis ha'Menuga were there.

(Mishnah): A boy cannot become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh if one of his parents was missing an arm or leg, or was mute or blind or deaf:

"V'Sofsu Bo Aviv v'Imo" - both must have two arms;

"V'Hotzi'u Oso" - both must have two legs;

"V'Omru" - both must be able to speak;

"Bneinu Zeh" - both must be able to see;

"Einenu Shome'a b'Koleinu" - both must be able to hear (to understand that he does not heed them).

We warn him in front of three judges and lash him (after the first time he stole and ate).

If he transgressed again, he is judged by 23 judges;

The original three judges must be present when he is judged again. "Bneinu Zeh" refers to the one who was lashed in front of you.

(Gemara) Inference: This teaches that if we cannot fulfill the verse it is as is written, the Parshah does not apply.

Rejection: Here is different, for all these words are extra.

(Mishnah): We warn him in front of three.

Question: Two should suffice to warn him!

Answer (Abaye): The Mishnah means, we warn him in front of two and lash him in front of three.

Question: What is the source that a Ben Sorer u'Moreh is lashed?

Answer: We learn like R. Avahu did.

(R. Avahu): We learn that Motzi Shem Ra is lashed from a Gezeirah Shavah "v'Yisru-v'Yisru" (from Ben Sorer u'Moreh);

We learn that Ben Sorer u'Moreh is lashed from a Gezeirah Shavah "Ben-Ben" from "Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha."

(Mishnah): If he transgressed again, he is judged by 23 (the original three must be present - "Bneinu Zeh").

Question: We need "Zeh" to teach that his parents must be able to see!

Answer: We would know that even if it said 'Bneinu Hu';

Rather, it says "Bneinu Zeh" to teach both laws.

(Mishnah): If he fled before the final verdict, and his lower beard filled out, he is exempt;

If he fled after the verdict, and his lower beard filled out, he is killed.

(Gemara - R. Chanina): If a Ben Noach blasphemed and converted, he is exempt, because his law changed (a Ben Noach can be convicted through one witness, one judge and without warning. A Yisrael requires two witnesses, 23 judges and warning) and his Misah changed (from beheading to stoning).

Support (Mishnah): If he fled before the final verdict, and his lower beard filled out, he is exempt.

Suggestion: He is exempt because he changed.

Rejection: No, he is exempt because if he would transgress now, he would be exempt.

Question (against R. Chanina - Seifa): If he fled after the verdict, and his lower beard filled out, he is killed.

Answer: Once he was sentenced, it is as if he is dead (therefore, change does not exempt him).

Question (Beraisa): If a Ben Noach killed his colleague (another Ben Noach) or had Bi'ah with his colleague's wife and converted, he is exempt;

If he did so to a Yisrael, he is liable.

We do not exempt him, even though if he would transgress now, his law would be different!

Answer #1: In this case, his law changed, but not his Misah.

Question: Granted, a Yisrael is beheaded for murder, just like a Ben Noach;

However, a Yisrael is choked for adultery, and a Ben Noach is beheaded! (Also his Misah changed!)

Answer: The case is, he had Bi'ah with a Na'arah Me'orasah. Even a Ben Noach is stoned for this.

Objection: The Beraisa says 'if he did so to a Yisrael, he is liable';

Surely, this resembles the case of (the wife of) his colleague (a Nesu'ah. Kidushin does not apply to Bnei Noach!)

Answer #2 (to Question (g)): (Really, he had Bi'ah with a Nesu'ah.) Since his Misah changed from beheading to choking, which is more lenient, it is like a continuation of his original Misah, so he is liable.

Question: This is like Chachamim, who say that beheading is more stringent than choking;

According to R. Shimon, who says that choking is more stringent than beheading, how can we answer?

Answer: He holds like Tana d'Vei Menasheh, who says that a Ben Noach is choked for transgressing any of his Mitzvos.

Question: According to Tana d'Vei Menasheh, granted, a Yisrael is choked for adultery, just like a Ben Noach;

However, a Yisrael is beheaded for murder, unlike a Ben Noach, who is choked!

Answer: Since his Misah changed from choking to beheading, which is more lenient (according to R. Shimon), it is like a continuation of his original Misah, so he is liable.

Support (for R. Chanina - Beraisa): If a Na'arah Me'orasah was Mezanah and later became a Bogeres, she is choked.

Suggestion: She is not stoned because she changed. (Since the new Misah is more lenient, it is like a continuation of her old Misah, and she gets the new Misah.)

All the more so, if a Ben Noach blasphemed and converted, his law changed and his Misah became more stringent, so we cannot kill him!

Rejection: R. Yochanan said that the text of the Beraisa should say 'she is stoned.'

(Mishnah): A Ben Sorer u'Moreh is not killed for his sin, rather, due to his future. It is better for him to die before he sins even more.

Death of Resha'im is good for them (for this reason), and this is good for the world;

Death of Tzadikim is bad for them (they cannot do more Mitzvos), and this is bad for the world.

Wine and sleep are good for Resha'im, and this is good for the world;

These are bad for Tzadikim, and this is bad for the world.

When Resha'im are scattered (they cannot conspire together), this is good for them, and this is good for the world;

Scattering of Tzadikim is bad for them, and this is bad for the world.

Gathering of Resha'im is bad for them, and this is bad for the world.

Gathering of Tzadikim is good for them, and this is good for the world.

Serenity of Resha'im is bad for them, and this is bad for the world;

Serenity of Tzadikim is good for them, and this is good for the world.