Siman 241

It is written in "Mishpatim": "And one who strikes his father or his mother – he shall surely be put to death. And one who curses his father or his mother – he shall surely be put to death." And for striking he is liable for strangulation, for every death mentioned in the Torah without specification – it is nothing other than strangulation (Sanhedrin 52b), as this is a death without specification like death at the hands of Heaven, which leaves no mark or change upon the body (ibid.). However, for cursing he is liable for stoning, which is more severe than strangulation. And this matter is explicit in "Kedoshim," as it is written: "His father and his mother he cursed – his blood is upon him." And we learn from a medium and a wizard, as it is written: "With a stone they shall pelt them – their blood is upon them," so too here it is with stoning (Sanhedrin 66a). And the Scripture was more stringent regarding one who curses than one who strikes because it contains two things: the degradation of his father, and the uttering of the Name of Heaven in vain (Rashi ibid. 53a). For we require a curse with the Name, as will be explained.

It is a simple matter that one is not liable for the death penalty for striking or cursing except through a forewarning and through valid witnesses. So wrote the Rambam at the beginning of the fifth chapter of Mamrim: And we do not say that since it is a severe transgression, it should not require a forewarning. And likewise, since for the most part one does this in private, and it is impossible for there to be witnesses to this, he should be liable even without witnesses. We do not say so, and behold, the Scripture does not punish unless it has first warned. If so, then, where do we find a warning for this in the Torah? Indeed it is so: the warning for one who curses his father is included within the warning "You shall not curse the deaf," and the warning for "one who strikes his father" is included within the warning for striking any Israelite, as it is written even regarding those liable for lashes that he shall not add to the number of lashes. And all the more so regarding the upright of Israel, and his father is also included in this.

Both a man and a woman, as well as a tumtum and an hermaphrodite, are liable for this regarding one who strikes or curses. And even though regarding one who curses it is written in "Kedoshim" the term "man," yet since it is written "any man" – this is to include all of these (Sanhedrin 66a). There is a further stringency regarding one who curses than regarding one who strikes: for regarding one who strikes, he is only liable when he struck them during their lifetime, but if he struck them after death – he is exempt, for there is no striking after death. But regarding one who curses, he is liable whether during their lifetime or after death. And why is there no striking after death? Because regarding striking we require that he produce a wound, as will be explained, and there is no wounding after death. And specifically when they are adults, who are subject to punishment.

One who curses is not liable for death until he curses them with one of the unique names, and they are the Tetragrammaton and Adonut, as the Rambam wrote in the second chapter of the Laws of Foreign Worship, see there. But if he cursed them with an epithet—he is exempt from stoning, and is lashed in the manner that one is lashed for cursing any upright person of Israel. And the epithets are "Shaddai," "Tzevaot," "Gracious," and "Merciful." And it appears that regarding this matter, "Eki" and "Elohim" are also epithets, and he is not liable for death. And know that one should not err regarding one who strikes or curses, because it is written "his father and his mother," that we require specifically both of them. For it is not so, as it implies his father or his mother. Furthermore: regarding one who curses, it is written in Kedoshim: "And any man who curses his father and his mother etc. his father and his mother he cursed, his blood is upon him," and the verse placed the curse adjacent to his father at the beginning of the verse and to his mother at its end, to teach you that he is liable for each one individually (ibid. 66a). And one who strikes we derive from one who curses (Mechilta Mishpatim). And likewise there is a derivation regarding one who strikes itself (ibid.) from the verse "one who strikes a man shall be put to death" which comes for this, see there. And one who curses his father's father, or his mother's mother—he is only like one who curses any one of Israel (Rambam, and so it is in Torat Kohanim, Parshat Kedoshim).

One who strikes his father or his mother—he is not liable for strangulation until he causes a wound in them. And we learn this in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 84b) from a verse, see there. But if he did not cause a wound in them—he is only like one who strikes any other Jew. And one who struck his father on his ear and deafened him—behold, he is executed, for it is impossible to cause deafness without a wound. And this means that a drop of blood emerged internally in the ear and he became deaf.

One who lets blood for his father, or who was a physician and cut for him flesh or a limb – is exempt, for it is for healing. Nevertheless, even though he is exempt, nonetheless, in the first instance he should not do so; even to remove a splinter from the flesh of his father or his mother – he should not remove it, lest he cause a wound. In what case are these words said? When there is another there to do it. But if there is no one there who can do it except him, if they are in pain – he may let blood and cut according to the permission they give him to do. And so too if he does it better, since his father desires him – he may do so.

Even if his father and mother were complete wicked people and transgressors, even if their judgment was finalized for execution and they are going out to be executed—it is forbidden to strike them or to curse them. And if he struck them or cursed them—he is exempt. But if they did teshuvah—behold, he is liable and is executed for them, even though they are going out to be executed. That is to say: certainly regarding the law of the earthly beit din, teshuvah is not effective after they have finalized his judgment, but nevertheless, in the laws of Heaven he is a fit Israelite, since he did teshuvah. Therefore, the son, when he struck him or cursed him—is liable for death (so it appears to me is its explanation). In what case are these matters stated? Regarding his son. But regarding another who came and struck him or cursed him after his judgment was finalized, even though he did teshuvah—he is exempt, since he is going to his death. And if he shamed him—the one who shames is liable for a fine (Tur), for at least he possesses shame. But regarding striking and cursing—he is not considered as living regarding another, only regarding his son. And the shame payment is given to his heirs.

If his father or his mother committed a transgression for which they are lashed, and the son was an agent of the judges – he shall not strike them. And so too if they were obligated in a fine – he shall not fine them, nor shall he pursue them, nor shall he push them, nor shall he strike them as an agent of the beit din, even if they are deserving of it, and even if they did not perform teshuvah. And not only regarding striking and cursing was the Torah strict, but even regarding degradation. For anyone who degrades his father or his mother, even with words, and even with a mere hint – he is included in the curse from the mouth of the Almighty, as it is said: "Cursed is he who degrades his father and his mother." And it is incumbent upon the beit din to strike for this a lash of rebellion, and to punish as is appropriate. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said (Sanhedrin 85b): For everything – a son does not become an agent for his father to strike him or to curse him, except for an enticer to idolatry, for the Torah said "you shall not pity and you shall not cover for him," and so too for one who subverts a city to idolatry.

The Rambam wrote there: One who is obligated in an oath to his son, thus we have always seen regarding him that he does not adjure him with these oaths, for this results in the cursing of his father. Rather, he adjures him with an oath that does not contain a curse. And we have already explained that a father who killed his son – none of the brothers of the slain becomes the blood redeemer, etc. See there.

The shetuki is liable for his mother, but is not liable for his father, even though his mother was examined and said, "I was intimate with such-and-such a person, and he is his son." Even though she is believed to validate herself based on her word, nevertheless she is not believed for him to be strangled or stoned based on her word when he cursed him or struck him. And even if he also says so, for how can we execute a person without witnesses? However, he himself is obligated to be concerned for this and to honor him (it appears to me). And his son from a maidservant is not genealogically related after him at all, and he is also not liable for his mother. And so too his son from a gentile woman. And so too a convert whose conception was not in sanctity, even though his birth was in sanctity — he is not liable for striking his father or cursing him. And we learned in Torat Kohanim, Parshat Kedoshim, that anyone who is not liable for his father is also not liable for his mother, as it is said: "And one who curses his father and his mother" — one for whom he is liable for his father, he is liable for his mother, and one for whom he is not liable for his father, he is not liable for his mother.

The convert is forbidden from cursing his idol-worshipping father or striking him, so that they should not say, "We have come from a strict sanctity to a light sanctity," but rather he honors him somewhat. However, the slave has no lineage at all, and it is as if he is not his father for any matter, even if he was subsequently emancipated. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said that a slave has no lineage, whereas an idol-worshipper has lineage (Yevamot 62a).