Ki Tetse 

When a False Prophecy makes for the most successful prophet: 

Scaring people to prevent them from inviting destruction (parshat Ki Tetse) 

Subtlety of the Torah & Oral Tradition: intriguing mixed messages re "the Wayward Son" in this week's Torah portion

-----------------

One cannot understand shabbat from the Written Torah and gemara (Talmud) and shulchan arukh (book of laws), one needs the experiential communal level as guided by the 'grandparents' who are passing it on from their grandparents, passing it on experientially, by arranging shabbat meals, weddings, bris, funerals, shiva, sitting in sukkah and making brocho on lulav and going around the bima etc etc etc.

.

Torah Levels: without all of them together one cannot understand the Written Torah:

• Oral torah, 

• the torah given by your grandparents,

• the experiential level of doing mitzvot and the communal aspect, especially communal experiential and during shabbat holiday, or at kotel  etc - the experiential communal level of yiddishkeit is indispensable part of the Torah.

..

And similarly regarding teachings in the Written Torah such as about the 'ben sorer', 'the wayward son', from this week's parsha we can't understand what the Torah is getting at without various levels, in my case it meant including my own actual grandfather (see my post on that topic).

May we be blessd to be able to indeed benefit spiritually in Jerusalem and elsewhere from all the levels including communal and generational , Traditional structures which were created by our grandparents, for us. and which were created for us to benefit from. May we be blessed to be able to live this connected life, with direct access to this richness.

Subtlety of the Torah & Oral Tradition: intriguing mixed messages re "the Wayward Son" in this week's Torah portion:

.

A lesson in how an appropriately-developed person tempers judgement with wisdom, and uses Tradition to benefit from the composite wisdom of others before them:

The law of killing the 'wayward son' for their rebellious ways is very extreme, but it turns out that it never actually happens, and instead there's a subtle meaning. To understand our point about this, we'll first present some examples of the contrast between simple honesty vs subtle truth .

.

Is it dishonest to pretend? Sometimes one needs to pretend to be angry, but it is important not to really be angry (eg perhaps to your child, or God to us, or some other case). Pretending doesn't necessarily mean dishonesty, in this case it is a subtle way of achieving an important morally-positive goal.

.

Another example: Failed prophets are actually the most successful: Jonah/Yonah, who was the most successful prophet BECAUSE what he predicted (as understood literally) did NOT happen.

Yonah's words themselves "in 40 days Ninveh will be destroyed" ("overturned" when understood literally), were NOT true, it did NOT happen. However 'prophecy' in Biblical Hebrew "nevuah" is not 'prediction' as it would be in some English meanings, but rather it means "a transmission from God" or 'a state of connection to the divine level'.. Jonah's prophecy was not meant as a prediction but as a message.

To prevent a bad situation, one needs to anticipate it and take steps, and so 'prediction' was NOT the purpose of Jonah's message, instead the purpose was that upon hearing his words the people of Ninveh would act to make the prediction NOT happen. So the most successful prophet was successful because his prophecy (as understood literlly) was invalidated due to the prophecy itself!  (But in a non-literal sense indeed it came true, in that their hearts were overturned in repentance. The prophet was a true prophet and his message was real, from God, just that what 'prophecy' means and is intended for, needs to be understood in a suitably-sophisticated way.)

In some way this is similar to Orwell's book "1984" which was a successful prophecy because what it portrayed did NOT happen, and this was partially because people were so affected by the book that they took serious steps to make sure it would not become reality.

Similarly, we controlled all the supposed threats which would annihilate us: over-population, pollution, atomic war, running out of food for humanity, just like we are still today doing re "big brother" or global warming, by taking them seriously and taking steps to prevent them, hopefully thereby turning them into humanity-saving and successful 'false prophecies'.

.

So if you knew that by taking the proper measures you can avert disaster, what's the right thing for you to do: sit back and relax? Or simple honesty: do you tell people not to worry because taking precautions will prevent disaster (ie should Jonah have said "don't worry, hopefully you will all change yourself and nothing will happen")? Or maybe it is preferrabel to teach a more subtle truth that involves misleading people: going around preaching disaster and shaking people up saying it's already too late so that they will be scared and indeed take those precautions?

.

Similarly in our case this week: Traditionally, we are told that the Torah introduces the notion of the "ben sorer umoreh/rebellious child" as a deterrence or preventative, to ensure that parents not ignore certain types of behavior, letting it eventually get out of control. Indeed, the rules delineated in the Talmud are extremely stringent, possibly including the stipulation that both parents have to have exactly the same height and same voice! So clearly a guilty verdict on the rebellious son, and the resulting death penalty, was made to be almost impossible for it to ever actually need to be carried out. In other words it is an extreme scenario which is meant to shake people into early awareness to prevent catastrophic development of their child and thus avert disaster.

.

In fact, the Talmud reflects a subtle understanding in its discussion of the issue at hand, by quoting a rabbinic authority who stated there never was nor would there ever be such a verdict (ie the death penalty to that young man). Saying that there 'never was' is one thing, but saying 'there never will be' is quite another, it implies that the Torah (as traditionally-understood, via th Oral Torah) deliberately set up conditions that are impossible to fulfil.

However, strangely, the Talmud follows this claim with a seeming rebuttal, by quoting the response of another rabbi, Rabbi Yonatan, who said "I saw a grave of a ben sorer umoreh , and I even sat on it'. This contradicts the Talmud's own notion that there never was such a case!

.

(I added some punctuation) סנהדרין ע״א א Sanhedrin 71:1

הא דתניא בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות. ולמה נכתב? דרוש וקבל שכר. כמאן כרבי יהודה איבעית אימא ר' שמעון היא, דתניא אמר רבי שמעון וכי מפני שאכל זה תרטימר בשר ושתה חצי לוג יין האיטלקי אביו ואמו מוציאין אותו לסקלו . אלא לא היה ולא עתיד להיות. ולמה נכתב? דרוש וקבל שכר. אמר ר' יונתן אני ראיתיו וישבתי על קברו! כמאן אזלא הא דתניא עיר הנדחת לא היתה ולא עתידה להיות ולמה נכתבה דרוש וקבל שכר כמאן כר' אליעזר

.

So what's the truth?

.

My grandfather (a rabbi and scholar) told me that Rabbi Yonatan was a cohen, and so it was impossible that he would be at a burial site!

.

[Some biographical info re Rabb Y: . היה תנא מהדור הרביעי של התקופה - שנות ה-ג'תת"ק. חברו ובר-הפלוגתא של רבי יאשיה, ושניהם למדו אצל רבי ישמעאל. רבי יונתן היה כהן ]

.

In any case of course a rabbi - even if not a cohen - would presumably not disrespect a dead person by sitting on their tomb, especially since the execution is meant to serve as atonement so that the person is righteous as they leave this world (the same parsha which speaks of ben sorer umoreh also mandates cutting down a body after a court-execution by hanging during the day, so as not to disrespect the body by having it hang all night).

.

So why did he state the untruth "I even sat on a grave of a case like this".

.

And what can we conclude from the mixed messages in the Talmud quoted above - telling us something and then its opposite?

.

I believe the answer is as follows: Given the preventative reason the Torah had for presenting the notion of a ben sorer umoreh, it is obvious that if people heard that it never could actually happen, the deterrence is nullified. Therefore, after one rabbi reveals - in the quoted dialogue - the secret that it never was or will be, the other rabbi had to make up a story claiming that not only COULD it be, but that it WAS a reality. Otherwise the Torah's purpose of crying disaster won't work as a preventative of that disaster.

However, can one so glibly make up a lie and have it inserted into the Talmud?! I think that answer is as follows: He made it up in a story which the other rabbis present would recognize as an obvious fabrication (because they knew he was a cohen, and because it was in any case wrong to sit on someone's grave). And any scholar studying the Talmud would similarly recognize this. And my grandfather knew this meta-level about the story and passed it on to me.

.

So my understanding (not all have to agree of course, and there can be various other interpretations) is that:

i. he didn't really sit on such a grave; or:

ii. he did sit on it, but it was empty, it was only a warning-grave stating 'here lies a ben sorer umoreh', but without anyone actually buried there.

And Rabbi Yonatan knew there was noone buried there since there could never be a 'ben sorer umoreh' so he allowed himself to sit on the grave; or at least to tell others that he did, as a subtle way of affirming that he believed the Torah was teaching that there could never be one.

.

[And it was not really a lie since the other rabbis would immediately understand that the scenario was as one of the above two options, and they would understand why he was making it sound as if there really WAS a case of ben sorer umoreh​. 

.

And he felt it was allowable for him to make up this story not only because he was actually supporting the Torahs intent (the Torah said it as a warning, making up a scenario that could not exist, and what he said was meant to reinforce what the Torah was doing, not negate it, and so he made up a scenario that never happened, to give the Torah's scenario support) but also because the orah itself was showing the way, by making up an impossible scenario to begin with, and so Rabbi Yonatan was simply reinforcing that message with another not-real scenario.

And of course he knew that the people he was telling this to - his fellow scholars - would not themselves be misled.

.

And then the next 'level' was when the great Rabbis who compiled the Talmud included this dialogue between the scholars. They placed the two statements in juxtaposition, so that those reading the talmud in later years - the scholars , knowing that he was a cohen (and see the advanced notes below: knowing that he espoused 'dibra torah bilshon bnei adam') - would understand the truth, whereas on the other hand the general public would believe it was meant literally and be deterred from undesirable actions.

So there are various levels here:

1. the written Torah tells of the ben sorer umoreh situation & laws;

2. the oral torah (about 1) teaches all the above including the seeming 'proof' by Rabbi Yonatan that there indeed WAS such a case;

3. the meta-level about Rabbi Yonatan being a cohen, providing the context for 2.

4. ​the​ Talmudic teachings in juxtaposition, are meant to make it clear to the leaders of communities who teach others, that they need to make sure that the Torah's intended deterrence ​would have effect​.

5. my grandfather made sure to tell me of 3. as part of his transmission of the Oral Torah, and of its depth, wisdom and subtlety revealing the true meaning of the written Torah.

...

Another point: Why is it so important to the compilers of the Talmud that the rabbis understand that it could never happen, and realize that the idea of a grave which said 'here lies a ben sorer umoreh' was a pedagogical fabrication? Perhaps so that they would never come to falsely accuse someone of being a ben sorer umoreh (since we are taught that there never will be one), or of sitting down as a judge in as a court to judge a young man accused of being a 'wayward son'.

.​The higher level message: ​When we read the written Torah, we cannot expect to understand the true interpretation without the accompanying Oral Tradition; we need to have the humility to understand that there can be multiple levels of meaning, requiring a subtle and sophisticated approach​ to life​-situations​, rooted in ​the Tradition​ which incorporates the deeper connotation and the meta-level passed by tradition from grandparent to grandchild, ​all of which is indispensable in understanding the spirit of the Torah.

.

​Conclusion: May we all be blessed with grandparents who can teach us Torah, passing on the Tradition in the way it is meant to be passed on; and let us all merit to be "grandparents" to others in this sense!

...

.................

Advanced side-notes and further explanation:

Rabbi Yonatan is known also for espousing the teaching of his masters that the Torah speaks in the language of humans, meaning that passages need to be interpreted in accordance: 'dibra torah bilshon bnei adam'רבי יונתן , כתלמיד של רבי ישמעאל, דבק בגישה ש"דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם", בניגוד לגישתו של רבי עקיבא ] eg in Genesis when it says "the children of elohim" it refers to 'elohim' as 'men of greatness' (elohim can also be used to mean 'judges' and God tells Moshe that Aaron his brother will be like a prophet for him, preaching Moses's words andMoses will be like an elohim for Aahron.] This is in a way consistent with his interpretation of the passage about ben sorer umoreh, that we need to understand it in the context of how it is meant to be understood by people, ie the effect it is meant to have on those who hear the passage.

A lesson here is that only those sufficiently sophisticated to study the oral torah completely, and so read everything in context of the whole (eg knowing Rabbi Yonatan is a cohen from another discussion) and who understand the subtlety of Talmudic presentation and its philosophy, and who understands the roles of the layers of Tradition, will understand the different layers.

And there can be different (perhaps even opposite) messages for different hearers: to ordinary parents of a child who - they are warned - could become a ben sorer umoreh and therefore they should take steps now to prevent it from happening, and to potential judges of a child so accused who need to take into account the Talmudic opinion that it is impossible (ie that no-one should be condemned to death for this).

Of course there are different opinions, some hold that indeed there WAS such a case, but the Talmud records both opinions; this itself is a teaching, that we cannot be so sure, and certainly in such serious cases, we need to understand that there might actually be validity to the other opinion.

Note: Rabbi Yonatan made a similar statement (see the quote above) about 'ir hanidachat'/'rebellious city' .The Talmud brings an opinion that "ir hanidachat" never existed, and continues to tell of Rabbi Yonatan's response: that he had sat on its ruins, ie it DID exist. Perhaps however in this case too the same holds, ie the logical implication of the seeming absurdity of his first statement (re ben sorer) is meant to apply to the second (re ir hanidachat), ie saying them together was intended by rabbi Yonatan to indicate that the second story too was meant instructively not factually, and for the same pedagogical-preventative purpose (and the indication that it was invented is similar - sitting on the ruins of a city in which all the inhabitants were killed is sitting on a mass-grave, which is patently inappropriate or forbidden, particularly for a cohen.)

...

Further explanation, in case the above was not clear, if it was clear, skip the rest.

.

My interpretation (and perhaps of others) is that the rabbi telling the story knew that since he is a cohen, the other rabbis would immediately understand that the scenario was as one of the above two options, and they would understand why he was making it sound as if there really WAS a case of ben sorer umoreh, and that's why

.

The compiler of the Talmud included this statement and story, and clearly understood it all, that's why the talmud includes both ideas as part of one conversation, ie in one breath telling us both:

1. that it never happened,

2. a rabbi sat on a grave of an actual case;

ie both of the above are included in the very same Talmudic presentation so that the deterrence could have effect, but at the same time so that the rabbis hearing rabbi Yonatan speak would understand that it never could happen.

..

• Levels to keep in mind when interpreting a story in the Talmud:

• * What exactly someone said, and why they said, it 

• * To whom they originally said it, and what the people hearing them understood; 

• * why someone else would record and re-tell that dialogue, and why it would later be included in the Talmud;

•  * what scholars will understand when reading the recorded dialogue vs what the general public would understand if a scholar reads them this dialogue.

What to keep in mind when reading something from the Written Torah: The souls of all Jews alive today were present at Sinai, and heard much of the full-Torah directly from God, encoded in the first words of the"ten commandments", and as part of our prophetic experiences there and before that at the crossing of the sea, and didn't need a written book to teach it to them. And at God's behest, Moses taught a tremendous amount to the Jewish people before the record of all that was written into the Torah, and all that was passed on as part of our Tradition separately from the book/scroll called the written Torah, and we would know of it via our Oral Tradition even if it wasn't in the written Torah. However, iIncluded in that Tradition is the teaching that the book/scroll called the written Torah is a record of God's direct words to Moses, and so the Written Torah is accepted only since the Oral Torah/Tradition enfranchises it as authoritative. So when we read the written Torah, we cannot expect to understand the true interpretation without the accompanying Oral Tradition; we need to have the humility to understand that there can be multiple levels of meaning, requiring a subtle and sophisticated approach rooted in Tradition.

And a good example is the deeper understanding of the Written and Oral Torah regarding "the wayward son".

 .

-------...

Jews don't believe in the bible.

That is, they do not 'believe in a book'.

We believe in God. And God revealed the Torah to us at Sinai. The soul of every Jewish person - including us nowadays - was there. Years before we received the written version, we knew via Moses the inner teachings of the Torah, as taught to him by God, and as we understood via the high degree of prophecy we all had at Sinai.

How we understand what we'll read in synagogue tomorrow morning about the 'rebellious son' is a great example of the Jewish relationship with the written Torah.

There are various levels of meaning which must accompany the words of the written Torah in order for it to be understood as it was meant, and the words in the written Torah are in some sense mnemonics hinting at all the teachings in the Oral Tradition.

We can see an example of this many-layered interconnection in the Jewish understanding of the meaning of the Torah passages about the 'rebellious/wayward son', as explained in my other post here.

The experiential communal level of Judaism: This is an indispensable part of the Torah: Jews are a people not just a religion, and it was at Sinai that we became a people, with the Torah as our constitution, and so it is appropriate that only in the collective of the people, as a civilization, can Judaism, including the meaning of what is written in the Torah, be encoded, and transmitted, and only within the context of how it is observed/practiced can it be "understood". 

Furthermore, at a mystical level, observance of Torah ways changes us, transforms us, and it is via these progressive transformations occurring as we continue to observe more, that we also thereby deepen our 'understanding' - - may we be blessed to grow through observance and communal life in conjunction with study and inter-generational transmission of the Tradition so that we can truly "get" what Judaism is all about.

Is Traition subverting the text re Ben Sorer?: Some non-Jewish Bible-beleivers get upset when Jewish Tradition teaches something different than the literal meaning of the Torah. However they know of what is written in the Torah only by reading a book, whereas the Jews know most of independently, and long before the Torah was written. Other smight come to know of Abraham and Joseph etc by reading the Book, however these were our grandparents and we know of them and know of the ir stories independently 

1) Parsha speaks of fair business practices, if keep it will stay long in the land that I bring you to, Since the torah uses word to'eva, like in previous parshas re being kicked out of the land, I consider this pasuk being about Bney Yisrael's right to EY, it will last long if...., not re the individual's long life.

So this is a continuation of the conditions mentioned in shoftim, ie it is part of our relationship to the land, we have obligations of how to act, it isn't OUR land , belongs to us, we have to respect certain practices and then we get to live there.  

[So in 2019 I said the above whole vort in ki tetseh, was well-received.]

.....

said at Lerner, and at Machlis, they liked it a lot in both places

...

if i say this in the context of sucn a comunal shabbos or other gathering, I can reference the event itself ie say "like this one", being at this meal is part of studying Torah, arranging this meal, especially as  communal experience,  is part of transmitting the mesorah.

....

2020: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1420456141410458/posts/3029247087198014/, https://www.facebook.com/avi.rabinowitz/posts/10157953585310892 

2021: https://www.facebook.com/avi.rabinowitz/posts/10158730405095892

Subtlety of the Torah & Oral Tradition: intriguing mixed messages re "the Wayward Son"

Simple honesty vs subtle truth: Sometimes one needs to pretend to be angry, but it is important not to really be angry (eg perhaps to your child, or God to us). Pretending doesn't necessarily mean dishonesty, in this case it is a subtle way of achieving an important morally-positive goal.

Another category of example: Jonah/Yonah was the most successful prophet because what he predicted (as understood literally) did NOT happen. To prevent a bad situation, one needs to anticipate it and take steps, and so Yonah's words themselves "in 40 days Ninveh will be overturned" (understood literally) were NOT the purpose of his message, instead the purpose was that upon hearing his words the people of Ninveh would act to make the prediction NOT happen.

In some way this is similar to: Orwell's book "1984" which was a successful prophecy because what it portrayed did NOT happen, and this was partially because people were so affected by the book that they took serious steps to make sure it would not become reality. Similarly, we controlled all the supposed threats which would annihilate us: over-population, pollution, atomic war, running out of food for humanity, just like we are still today doing re "big brother" or global warming, by taking them seriously and taking steps to prevent them, hopefully thereby turning them into humanity-saving successful 'false prophecies'.

Traditionally, we are told that the Torah introduces the notion of the "ben sorer umoreh/rebellious child" as a deterrence or preventative, to ensure that parents not ignore certain types of behavior, letting it get out of control. (Indeed, the rules delineated in the Talmud are extremely stringent, possibly including the stipulation that both parents have to have exactly the same height and same voice! So clearly a guilty verdict on the rebellious son, and the resulting death penalty, was made to be almost impossible for it to ever actually need to be carried out).

In fact, the Talmud reflects a subtle understanding in its discussion of the issue at hand, by quoting a rabbinic authority who stated there never was nor would there ever be such a verdict 

However, strangely, the Talmud follows this claim with a seeming rebuttal, by quoting the response of another rabbi, Rabbi Yonatan, who said "I saw a grave of a ben sorer umoreh , and I even sat on it'.

סנהדרין ע״א א Sanhedrin 71:1

הא דתניא בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר כמאן כרבי יהודה איבעית אימא ר' שמעון היא דתניא אמר רבי שמעון וכי מפני שאכל זה תרטימר בשר ושתה חצי לוג יין האיטלקי אביו ואמו מוציאין אותו לסקלו אלא לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר אמר ר' יונתן אני ראיתיו וישבתי על קברו .כמאן אזלא הא דתניא עיר הנדחת לא היתה ולא עתידה להיות ולמה נכתבה דרוש וקבל שכר כמאן כר' אליעזר

This then contradicts the Talmud's own notion that there never was such a case.

However, I remember my grandfather (a rabbi and scholar) telling me that Rabbi Yonatan was a cohen, so it was impossible that he would be at a burial site.

[Some biographical info re Rabb Y: . היה תנא מהדור הרביעי של התקופה - שנות ה-ג'תת"ק. חברו ובר-הפלוגתא של רבי יאשיה, ושניהם למדו אצל רבי ישמעאל. רבי יונתן היה כהן ]

In any case of course a rabbi even if not a cohen would presumably not disrespect a dead person by sitting on his tomb, especially since the execution is meant to serve as atonement so that the person is righteous as they leave this world (the same parsha which speaks of ben sorer umoreh also mandates cutting down a body after a court-execution by hanging during the day, so as not to disrespect the body by having it hang all night).So why did he state "I even sat on a grave of a case like this".

What can we conclude from the mixed messages above?

I believe that given the preventative reason the Torah had for presenting the notion of a ben sorer umoreh, it is obvious that if people heard that it never could actually happen, the deterrence is nullified. Therefore, after one rabbi reveals the secret that it never was or will be, the other rabbi had to make up a story claiming that not only COULD it be, but that it WAS a reality - however he made it up in a story which the other rabbis would recognize as an obvious fabrication (because they knew he was a cohen and because it was in any case wrong to sit on someone's grave).

So my understanding (not all have to agree of course) is that:

• he didn't really sit on such a grave; or:

• he did sit on it, but it was empty, it was only a warning-grave stating 'here lies a ben sorer umoreh', but without anyone actually buried there. And Rabbi Yonatan knew there was noone buried there since there could never be a 'ben sorer umoreh' so he allowed himself to sit on the grave; or at least to tell others that he did, as a subtle way of affirming that he believed the Torah was teaching that there could never be one.

And why is it so important that the rabbis understand that it could never happen and the other story was a pedagogical fabrication? Perhaps so that they would never come to falsely accuse someone of being a ben sorer umoreh (since we are taught that there never will be one), or of sitting down as a court to judge one.

Summary: The editors of the Talmud placed the two statements in juxtaposition, so that those reading the talmud in later years - the scholars , knowing that he was a cohen (and that he espoused 'dibra torah bilshon bnei adam') - would understand, whereas on the other hand the general public would believe it was meant literally and be deterred from undesirable actions.

So there are 3 levels here (at least):

1. the written Torah tells of the ben sorer umoreh situation & laws;

2. the oral torah teaches all the above including the seeming 'proof' by Rabbi Yonatan that there indeed WAS such a case;

3. my grandfather made sure to tell me of Rabbi Yonatan being a cohen - this was how he transmitted Oral Torah to me (perhaps he knew I needed to hear this particular teaching).

So when we read the written Torah, we cannot expect to understand the true interpretation without the accompanying oral tradition; we need to have the humility to understand that there can be multiple levels of meaning, requiring a subtle and sophisticated approach rooted in Tradition. The higher level message: look for the subtle deeper connotation of things, in divrei chazal, in the Torah, in life situations....and the Oral Torah, passed by tradition from grandfather to grandchild, is indispensable in understanding the spirit of the Torah.

May we all be blessed with grandfathers who can teach us Torah, passing on the Tradition in the way it is meant to be passed on; and let us all merit to be "grandfathers" to others in this sense!

Further explanation, in case the above was not clear, if it was clear, skip the rest.

My interpretation (and perhaps of others) is that the rabbi telling the story knew that since he is a cohen, the other rabbis would immediately understand that the scenario was as one of the above two options, and they would understand why he was making it sound as if there really WAS a case of ben sorer umoreh, and that's why it was allowable for him to make up this story: because the Torah said it as a warning, making up a scenario that could not exist, and what he said was meant to reinforce what the Torah was doing, not negate it, and so he made up a scenario that never happened, to give the Torah's scenario support, knowing that the people he was telling this to would not themselves be misled.

The compiler of the Talmud included this statement and story, and clearly understood it all, that's why the talmud includes both ideas as part of one conversation, ie in one breath telling us both:

1. that it never happened,

2. a rabbi sat on a grave of an actual case;

ie both of the above are included in the very same Talmudic presentation so that the deterrence could have effect, but at the same time so that the rabbis hearing rabbi Yonatan speak would understand that it never could happen.

................

Advanced side-notes and further explanation:

Rabbi Yonatan is known also for espousing the teaching of his masters that the Torah speaks in the language of humans, meaning that passages need to be interpreted in accordance: 'dibra torah bilshon bnei adam'רבי יונתן , כתלמיד של רבי ישמעאל, דבק בגישה ש"דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם", בניגוד לגישתו של רבי עקיבא ] eg in Genesis when it says "the children of elohim" it refers to 'elohim' as 'men of greatness' (elohim can also be used to mean 'judges' and God tells Moshe that Aaron his brother will be like a prophet for him, preaching Moses's words andMoses will be like an elohim for Aahron.] This is in a way consistent with his interpretation of the passage about ben sorer umoreh, that we need to understand it in the context of how it is meant to be understood by people, ie the effect it is meant to have on those who hear the passage.

A lesson here is that only those sufficiently sophisticated to study the oral torah completely, and so read everything in context of the whole (eg knowing Rabbi Yonatan is a cohen from another discussion) and who understand the subtlety of Talmudic presentation and its philosophy, and who understands the roles of the layers of Tradition, will understand the different layers. And there can be different (perhaps even opposite) messages for different hearers: to ordinary parents of a child who - they are warned - could become a ben sorer umoreh and therefore they should take steps now to prevent it from happening, and to potential judges of a child so accused who need to take into account the Talmudic opinion that it is impossible (ie that no-one should be condemned to death for this).

Of course there are different opinions, some hold that indeed there WAS such a case, but the Talmud records both opinions; this itself is a teaching, that we cannot be so sure, and certainly in such serious cases, we need to understand that there might actually be validity to the other opinion.

Note: Rabbi Yonatan made a similar statement (see the quote above) about 'ir hanidachat'/'rebellious city' .The Talmud brings an opinion that "ir hanidachat" never existed, and continues to tell of Rabbi Yonatan's response: that he had sat on its ruins, ie it DID exist. Perhaps however in this case too the same holds, ie the logical implication of the seeming absurdity of his first statement (re ben sorer) is meant to apply to the second (re ir hanidachat), ie saying them together was intended by rabbi Yonatan to indicate that the second story too was meant instructively not factually, and for the same pedagogical-preventative purpose (and the indication that it was invented is similar - sitting on the ruins of a city in which all the inhabitants were killed is sitting on a mass-grave, which is patently inappropriate or forbidden, particularly for a cohen.)

..................

..

AR to AR: if i say this in the context of sucn a comunal shabbos or other gathering, I can reference the event itself ie say "like this one", being at this meal is part of studying Torah, arranging this meal, especially as  communal experience,  is part of transmitting the mesorah.

..