Sanhedrin 85
Our Gemara on amud beis discusses the penalty for kidnapping, which can be the death penalty. The Gemara even considers an opinion that a father could be liable for kidnapping, such as if he sold his son into slavery. The Shu”t of Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi (39) notes that the term used in Biblical Hebrew is “gonev” and not “gozel.” Usually, gezel refers to brazen, open theft, while geneiva refers to a stealthy act, such as burglary. Even though the victim knows he is being kidnapped and likely where he is located, his loved ones do not know his whereabouts – thus, the term gonev is fitting.
There is a particularly stealthy form of kidnapping in our modern world known as parental alienation. Parental alienation can result from a divorce where one parent subtly – or not so subtly – poisons the esteem and relationship between the child and the other parent. With growing awareness of this condition, and some states even categorizing it as a form of child abuse, few rational parents would openly denigrate or promote hatred of the other parent. Yet because rage and resentment can run so deep, passive-aggressive forms of alienation remain prevalent.
Imagine a chronically irresponsible parent is late for a visitation; it’s tempting for the other parent to roll her eyes or say something sarcastic like, “That’s your father, Mr. Reliable.” The healthiest response, however, is to validate the child’s distress about his father’s lateness without interpreting or assessing the father’s morality or dedication. A comment like, “Yeah, it’s sad your father hasn’t shown up yet… Let’s find out if or when he’s coming,” is ideal.
Of course, this isn’t to justify neglectful parenting or suggest that a dysfunctional parent should be protected or covered for by the other. It’s a tightrope to walk. The father may indeed be a poor father, and his neglectful behavior may lead the child to reject him, but those reactions should stem solely from the dynamic between father and child, without anyone else inciting the alienation. There are plenty of relatively inadequate parents who maintain relationships with their children, and some competent parents who, for various reasons, do not. Yet it remains the right of the child and that particular parent to negotiate their relationship without undue influence.
A hallmark of alienation is when the rejection seems disproportionate to the parent’s actual shortcomings, when it echoes adult attitudes and judgments, or when the other parent is portrayed as saintly and the victim in that circumstance. An odd statistical fact is that children are more likely to seek connection with an abusive parent in an existing, functioning marriage than with a less abusive parent subjected to an alienation campaign. If you believe you and your child are victims of parental alienation, here’s some practical advice:
Stay calm and regulated: Alienation often thrives on emotional reactions. If you lose your temper or appear unstable, it can be weaponized to reinforce negative narratives about you. Staying calm shows your child consistency and safety, countering claims of you being “unfit” or “unpredictable.” Avoid retaliation, as it contributes to a lack of emotional safety.
Maintain consistent contact: Even if your child resists, don’t withdraw. Send regular, brief positive messages.
Focus on being a “safe parent”: Psychologically, kids caught in alienation are under stress due to torn loyalties. Be the parent who doesn’t badmouth the other, doesn’t grill them for information, and doesn’t put them in the middle. Ask open-ended, neutral questions like, “How’s your day going?” instead of, “What did your mom or dad say about me?” This builds trust over time and contrasts with manipulative tactics they might face elsewhere.
Document everything: Keep records of all interactions – your attempts to connect, any hostile responses, or blocked access. This serves legal purposes – to protect yourself – and as a way to stay grounded and contain your frustration and helplessness.
Keep in mind that winning the long game is what matters. If you are patient and persistent, children tend to recognize, over time, who has been fair, generous, positive, and consistent. Teenagers especially go through a natural developmental process of identity-building and self-reflection. As they seek emotional independence, they are likely to question the narratives they were fed. If you remain a positive and consistent presence – even if the relationship was superficially limited due to interference or bad-mouthing – opportunities for repair may arise in the future. The truth often prevails, and a vengeful or nasty parent will eventually be exposed by their own dishonorable behavior.
Rebels, Redemption, And Parental Pardon
Sanhedrin 88
Our Gemara on amud beis discusses an interesting wrinkle in the legal fate of the Biblical “Rebellious Son” described in Devarim (21:18). If the parents forgive their son’s transgressions, he is not prosecuted.
Shem MiShmuel (Ki Seitzei, Year 5671) asks: We have learned (Mishna Sanhedrin 8:5) that the Rebellious Son is sentenced to death not because of the severity of the transgressions he has already committed, but on account of his ultimate end. A boy of his nature will grow up to lead an immoral life, and it is better that he die while still innocent – before causing excessive harm – than die after he becomes guilty. If so, why is it of material significance that his parents forgive him? This is not really a punishment but a pre-emptive measure.
I’ll intensify the question: If anything, forgiving him spoils him and actually encourages more anti-social tendencies. As the verse states regarding Adoniyahu, “His father [Dovid HaMelech] never scolded him” (Melachim I 1:6), implying that the lack of rebuke spoiled him. Furthermore, asks Shem MiShmuel, why do we say the Rebellious Son is punished because of how he may end up? Should we not assume he can repent?
Shem MiShmuel uses one question to answer the other. Repentance stems from the attachment each Jew has to G-d, even a sinner. This tenuous connection allows for a revival of sensibilities and a return to the moral path. However, the Rebellious Son, who has committed such violations against his parents, has broken his bond with them – and consequently with G-d. The last embers of connection have died to the point that repentance is unlikely. Yet when his parents choose to forgive him, this may restore the connection, opening the door for future repentance.
You might wonder: Why would the parents’ forgiveness arouse a connection that he has severed? The simple explanation is that if his parents were so moved, there must be some signal or redeeming quality in the child. A deeper explanation might be that the very act of forgiveness warms this child’s numb heart and arouses a corresponding response. As it states in Mishlei (27:19): “As face reflects face in water, so does one man’s heart to another.” If this second answer is the intent of the Shem MiShmuel, we learn a profound lesson: No matter how far a child has strayed and distanced himself, if the parents maintain a forgiving attitude, it keeps the door of repentance open.
Cheftzah Vs. Gavra: Silent Prophets And Defiant Souls
Sanhedrin 89
Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses various transgressions and consequences related to a prophet suppressing his own prophecy and a Jewish person disregarding the words of a prophet: With regard to one who suppresses his prophecy because he does not wish to share it with the public, one who contemptuously forgoes the statement of a prophet and refuses to heed it, and a prophet who violates his own statement and fails to perform what he was commanded to do – his death is at the hand of Heaven.
Reshimos Shiurim (ibid.) brings down a question from the Minchas Chinuch (516:1): If there is a heavenly death decree for one who denies a command of a prophet, then anytime one violates any command in the Torah, he should incur a heavenly death decree, as is he not disregarding the prophecy of Moshe? The Rav answers that Torah is not a prophecy in the sense of being a directive from a prophet. Torah is its own cheftzah – a lomdishe term for something with a status as a defined entity. We follow Torah as G-d’s will, revealed to us by Moshe, but it is not a command from Moshe as a prophet. This is why prophets can never uproot or add to the Torah but can only temporarily give a directive (Shabbos 104a). Moshe, however, speaks as the Torah itself, which has its own rules and consequences for not following them.
The Rav raises a second question: We learned that a prophet is liable for a heavenly death decree for disregarding his own prophecy, and a regular citizen is liable for disobeying as well. Why do we need two separate clauses? Every time a prophet disregards his own prophecy, he is de facto disregarding the command of a prophet (who happens to be himself). The Rav resorts to a similar Brisker distinction: When a prophet speaks his prophecy, it becomes a cheftzah of prophecy, and only then is a Jew obligated to heed it – the expression makes it active. Yet a prophet who has a private prophecy for himself is obligated immediately, even if he does not articulate it.
Both of these Brisker pieces of lomdus, as is typical of Brisker chakiras, allude to philosophical distinctions, even though in their lamdanus they often only speak of the chiluk (logical distinction) without exploring the potential philosophy it points to. Here too, we can discern the distinction between the cheftzah of prophecy and the cheftzah of Torah, and in the second question and answer, the distinction between the cheftzah of spoken prophecy and the cheftzah of private revelation. But, my friends, what does it mean? Especially in the first question and answer, where it turns out that disregarding prophecy carries a harsher punishment than disregarding Torah?
The answer lies in maintaining hierarchy and order. We saw on Daf 88b that the Rebellious Elder cannot be granted forgiveness from his colleagues for refusing to comply with the ruling of the Sanhedrin, because they did not want to allow a proliferation of disputes and anarchy. Similarly, the word – literally the word – of the prophet must be heeded, as this was part of the Torah’s system of governance, which was neither quite monarchy nor certain democracy. The king had powers, held in check by the Sanhedrin and the prophet, and each of these parties held the others in check (as seen throughout the stories in Tanach and Midrash, such as Nosson rebuking King David, yet King David also engaging in halachic disputes with the Sanhedrin).
Therefore, a prophecy cannot be disregarded, as it threatens the social order even more than disregarding Torah, which has its own compelling ways. Furthermore, according to this, the prophet disregarding his own prophecy is a completely different sin from a citizen doing so. For the citizen, it is a rebellion against social order and harmony; for the prophet, it is a rebellion against G-d.
