משנה: הָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה אָבִיו אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ רוֹצָה אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם לֹא הָֽיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לְאָבִיו אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. MISHNAH: If his father was willing but not his mother, or his father unwilling but his mother willing, he cannot be treated as deviant and rebellious son unless both be willing47The son can be brought before the court only by unanimous consent of his parents. This usually is derived from Deut. 21:20 where the parents have to complain that the son does not listen to their voice. The singular used, voice, implies common voice. (The Babli 71a infers that the parents actually have to speak with one voice; their voices have to sound the same. This is not mentioned in Yerushalmi or Sifry.). Rebbi Jehudah says if his mother was inappropriate for his father48Usually this means that his mother is (biblically or rabbinically) forbidden to his father. Here one could not exclude the disqualification of a mismatch., he cannot be treated as deviant and rebellious son.
הלכה: הָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲפִילוּ אֵין אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לְאָבִיו. וְכָל־מַה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְאִמּוֹ לֹא מִשֶּׁלְּאָבִיו הֵם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר בָּהוּ דַּהֲוָת נָֽסְבָה דִיּוּרִין וְעָֽבְדָת שֵׁירוּ וְגָנַב מִינְּהוֹן. HALAKHAH: “If his father was willing,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if his mother was not suitable for his father49Practice should not follow R. Jehudah.. But is not all of his mother’s property also his father’s50Only if his mother be married to his father; an illegitimate son is not excluded either from inheritance or filial obligations. The question is relevant only for R. Jehudah in Mishnah 3, who requires that the son had stolen from his mother’s property which was not his father’s.? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it about one who took in lodgers, made repasts, and he stole from there.51This explanation really is unnecessary; in Tractate Ketubot many exceptions are noted to the rule that the husband has the usufruct of the wife’s property or the right to her earnings.