Several times, the Talmud concludes that various biblical laws "never were and never will be" applied in real life; they are on the books to "study and receive reward." Such laws include the Wayward and Rebellious Son and the Subverted City.

One rabbi, though, argued that these things did happen, though rarely. He claimed to have visited the grave of an (executed) Rebellious Son, and the ruins of a (destroyed) Subverted City. It's a weird argument - either these things happened, or they didn't!

I think both sides of the argument are expressing clear discomfort with the moral implications of these laws - executing a minor for the sins they may yet commit, or eradicating an entire city, including children. The question is what you do, as an interpreter of the Torah.

We all recognize the consensus opinion as being an attempt to interpret this law off the books, to reassure us that it never actually happened, and never could/would. Maybe even that the rabbis would *make sure* it never happened.

The problem then is what it means to have it on the books to "study and receive reward." What is the point of studying laws that are never applied, unless they are there to Teach Us Something. But what could that something be?

I once argued that what these laws actually teach us is that the rabbis reserve the power to literally write laws written in the Torah out of Jewish practice. But that is probably too cute to be really true https://forward.com/opinion/359758/executing-dylann-roof-arguing-the-talmud-with-samuel-alito-sonia-sotomayor/

Ironically, then, by taking these laws from the practical and moving them to the theoretical, by moving them from real-world instructions to Something Else, the rabbis are actually making them MORE significant, not less. Now they are paradigms, and possibly even more dangerous.

That is why the dissenting rabbi maintained that these things DID happen ONCE. His method of reassuring our horror at these laws is telling us that they happen VERY rarely, and most people wouldn't even know. So they are troubling, yes, but easier to put out of the way.

Of course, he has to admit that these things happened. The Torah legislated capital punishment on a child or the eradication of an entire city, and the people ACTUALLY DID IT. There's no way to abstract it or make it mean something else. It's as bad as it sounds, but super rare

So that's the question. Is it worse to face the fact that horrific things sometimes happen lawfully, but with the understanding that they are bad, or never have them never actually happen, but live in acceptance of the ideas those things represent?