Parshas Ki Setze - the death of the בן סורר ומורה

The passuk says in the week’s sedrah (דברים כ"א י"ח)

כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם

“If a man has a wayward and rebellious son who does not listen to the voice of his father and to the voice of his mother, and they chastise him and he will not listen to them.”

Rashi explains (ד"ה ויסרו אותו)

ובן סורר ומורה נהרג על שם סופו הגיעה תורה לסוף דעתו סוף שמכלה ממון אביו ומבקש לימודו ואינו מוצא ועומד בפרשת דרכים ומלסטם את הבריות אמרה תורה ימות זכאי ואל ימות חייב

“A בן סורר ומורה is killed because of his end, the Torah determined the ultimate result of his train of thought. He will finish his father’s money and will seek that which he has become accustomed to and will not find it, and he will stand at the highway intersection and rob and kill. The Torah said, ‘He should die innocent and he should not die guilty.’”

The מזרחי asks on Rashi

ויש לתמוה אם אינו נהרג אלא על שם סופו שסופו ללסטם את הבריות להרגן למה גזרה תורה להיות מיתתו בסקילה והלא אפילו כשימות חייב אין מיתתו אלא בסייף ועונשו של ימות זכאי הוא שתהא מיתתו בסקילה שהיא היותר חמורה שבמיתות? ושמא י"ל דהאי מלסטם הבריות סתמא דקאמר הוא אפילו בשבת שמיתתו בסקילה...

“If the בן סורר ומורה is only killed because eventually he will rob and kill, if so, why does the Torah mandate that he should be killed by סקילה? Even if he did kill someone, he would only be חייב הרג (decapitation – which is one of the מיתות קלות – and not סקילה – which is one of the מיתות חמורות)?

Maybe you can answer that he could come to kill someone even on Shabbos, in which case he would be חייב סקילה (for performing נטילת נשמה on Shabbos).”

The Maharal (גור אריה שם, ד"ה עוד הקשה הרא"ם) asks that we always go להקל in דיני נפשות, because of the passuk of ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה. If so, why would we say, “Maybe he will kill someone on Shabbos, and so he will be חייב סקילה”? To the contrary, we should say that maybe he will never kill someone on Shabbos and he will only be חייב הרג, and if so the בן סורר ומורה should only be put to death by הרג and not by סקילה?

The Maharal therefore gives a different explanation as to why the בן סורר ומורה is executed by סקילה

...דהא מה שאמר 'מוטב שימות זכאי ואל ימות חייב', היינו שיהיה רודף, והרודף מתחייב בנפשו (סנהדרין עג.), ויכול להרוג את הרודף בכל אשר ירצה להכותו (שם), לרגום אותו ולדחות, כך פירוש 'ימות חייב'... ולפיכך נסקל בן סורר ומורה, כיון שהנרדף יכול להמית הרודף בכל מה שיכול להמית, אין צריך לו לחלק ולעיין במה ימית אותו, רק בכל מה שירצה...

“When the gemara says מוטב שימות זכאי ואל ימות חייב, it does not mean that the end of the בן סורר ומורה is that he will be executed by בית דין. Rather it means that he will end up being killed because he will be running after someone to kill them, and so we will be a רודף, and therefore the person whom he is pursuing will kill him, in order to prevent himself from being killed.

Since the victim can kill the pursuer in any way available to him, he does not need to differentiate and think about how he will kill him, rather he kills him using any means at his disposal. Therefore, the בן סורר ומורה could be stoned or pushed off a building by the victim, which is the same as סקילה, and therefore his punishment from בית דין (in the way of נידון על שס סופו) is סקילה.”

There would appear to be a contradiction in the Maharal. The Maharal asks on the מזרחי that it is not possible to say that בן סורר ומורה is נסקל since we assume that he could kill someone on Shabbos in which case he would be חייב סקילה, because we go להקל in דיני נפשות, due to the rule of ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה. If so we should similarly not assume that the בן סורר ומורה would be stoned by the נרדף or pushed off a building, because maybe the נרדף would only have killed him with a sword, in which case we should say that ימות זכאי ואל ימות חייב is only מחייב that בית דין should execute him by the sword?

The Rambam says (הלכות גניבה פרק ט', הלכה ז')

הבא במחתרת בין ביום בין בלילה אין לו דמים אלא אם הרגו בעל הבית או שאר האדם פטורין. ורשות יש לכל להרג ובין בחול בין בשבת בכל מיתה שיכולין להמיתו שנאמר אין לו דמים

“If a robber breaks into a house, whether by  day or by night, he is considered as a person who “has no blood”, so if the householder or someone else kills him, they are פטור. Everyone has permission to kill him, whether or on a weekday or whether on Shabbos, using any method available to kill him, as the passuk says אין לו דמים.”

The Brisker Rov asks the following questions on the Rambam.

• Why does the Rambam state two halachos, first that if someone kills the robber that they are פטור, and secondly that everyone has רשות to kill the robber?
  
• The reason that if someone kills the robber that they are פטור is because they have רשות to kill him, in order to save the householder. So first of all the Rambam should have said that everyone has רשות to kill the robber, and after that stated that they are פטור?
  
• The fact that the Rambam says that if someone kills the robber that they are פטור implies that we consider whether the person is חייב or פטור, and we conclude that they are פטור. However, since the person who killed the robber had רשות to kill the robber, we should not consider this as a case at all, since they acted according to the halachah in killing him?

The Brisker Rov explains as follows:

The תוספתא says (בבא קמא פרק ט', הלכה ה')

הרודף אחר חבירו להרגו ונהפך הנרדף וחבל בו או שחבלו בו אחרים פטורין שנא' (במדבר ל"ה) ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח

“If a רודף is running after a נרדף to kill him and the נרדף turned round and wounded the רודף or if other people wounded the רודף then they are פטור, because the passuk says ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח – you should not take atonement for the soul of a murderer.”

It appears from the תוספתא that the halachah that a רודף is considered as אין לו דמים applies even in a case where the נרדף is not saved by the רודף being wounded. In other words, once the רודף starts chasing the נרדף, he falls outside of the protection of the halachah altogether, regardless of the motivation of the person who wounds or kills him. That is why the Rambam says that there are two dinim that define the status of a רודף. First of all the רודף is considered as אין לו דמים and therefore if someone else kills him, they are patur, regardless of their motivation. Secondly, anyone may kill him with any means at their disposal, in order to save the בעל הבית.

According to the Rambam, there is no significance in the way that the נרדף is killed, just as there is no significance להלכה in his being wounded. Once he has the status of אין לו דמים, there is no significance להלכה in anything that happens to him henceforth.

Hence, we can understand the Maharal that says that a בן סורר ומורה is נסקל since he could become a רודף in which case the נרדף could kill him using any means at his disposal, including סקילה. The Maharal does not mean that the סקילה administered by בית דין is reflective of the סקילה that could occur at the hands of the נרדף.  Rather he means that since there would be no significance to the way that the בן סורר ומורה is killed by the נרדף, we subsequently give the בן סורר ומורה a מיתה that reflects the fact that he would eventually enter into a situation where he would be beyond the protection of the halachah, to the extent that he could even be נסקל with impunity.