Aug 19, 2026 · 13 min · 7 segments
One of the most emotionally charged and provocative legal passages is found in our *parashah*: the case of the rebellious son.
One of the most emotionally charged and provocative legal passages is found in our parasha, the case of the rebellious son.
And the verses tell us as follows, If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father or his mother, and though they discipline him, he will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of the town at the gate of his place, and all the men of the town shall stone him to death with stones.
A youth who has not listened to his parents is brought to the court where the elders of the city conduct a trial, and if he is found to be a rebellious son, he is sentenced to stoning.
This brief passage raises a host of moral, social, and theological questions.
Part of the turmoil it generates stems from the blurring it creates between the public sphere, the court, and the private sphere, the home.
This blurring raises questions about the nature of the relationship between the public and the private realms in general, as well as the purpose of the law before us, a law that involves bringing events occurring within the private domestic sphere out into the public space of the court.
What might be the purpose of this move outwards? To answer this, I want to draw upon several contemporary feminist thinkers who can help us think through the relationship between the private and the public raised by the trial of the rebellious son.
One way to understand the law of the rebellious son, perhaps an initial reading, is to view it as a tool in the hands of the parents, adults, and social institutions to enforce their authority over their offspring and ensure that the traditional social structure remains firmly intact.
The son is brought before the elders of the city when he fails to obey his parents and the elders effectively back the parents, refusing to tolerate rebellious behavior.
This reading understands the law as providing parents with powerful leverage whenever they perceive the next generation's conduct as threatening to create fractures in the existing social order.
Under this interpretation, there is no room for the next generation to challenge the family structure.
Furthermore, this reading views the stability of the family as the cornerstone of the stability of society as a whole.
In the event of a challenge, the hand of the law, operating through the institutions of the city elders, steps into the private sphere to intervene.
One of the most emotionally charged and provocative legal passages is found in our parasha, the case of the rebellious son.
And the verses tell us as follows, If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father or his mother, and though they discipline him, he will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of the town at the gate of his place, and all the men of the town shall stone him to death with stones.
A youth who has not listened to his parents is brought to the court where the elders of the city conduct a trial, and if he is found to be a rebellious son, he is sentenced to stoning.
This brief passage raises a host of moral, social, and theological questions.
Part of the turmoil it generates stems from the blurring it creates between the public sphere, the court, and the private sphere, the home.
This blurring raises questions about the nature of the relationship between the public and the private realms in general, as well as the purpose of the law before us, a law that involves bringing events occurring within the private domestic sphere out into the public space of the court.
What might be the purpose of this move outwards? To answer this, I want to draw upon several contemporary feminist thinkers who can help us think through the relationship between the private and the public raised by the trial of the rebellious son.
One way to understand the law of the rebellious son, perhaps an initial reading, is to view it as a tool in the hands of the parents, adults, and social institutions to enforce their authority over their offspring and ensure that the traditional social structure remains firmly intact.
The son is brought before the elders of the city when he fails to obey his parents and the elders effectively back the parents, refusing to tolerate rebellious behavior.
This reading understands the law as providing parents with powerful leverage whenever they perceive the next generation's conduct as threatening to create fractures in the existing social order.
Under this interpretation, there is no room for the next generation to challenge the family structure.
Furthermore, this reading views the stability of the family as the cornerstone of the stability of society as a whole.
In the event of a challenge, the hand of the law, operating through the institutions of the city elders, steps into the private sphere to intervene.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.