Mamrim - Chapter 5

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 318) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 260) count the prohibition against cursing one’s parents as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The Radbaz emphasizes that a person who curses his parents is given a more severe punishment than one who strikes them, because by cursing them he also mentions God’s name in vain.

Sanhedrin 66a derives the obligation for this penalty from an analogy established between this verse and Leviticus 20:27 which mentions stoning explicitly.

For even after a person’s death, cursing him brings negative consequences to his soul.

One might think that since it is likely for a person to curse his parents in the privacy of his home, the Torah would not require witnesses for it is unlikely that they be present. Hence the Rambam adds this clarification (Kessef Mishneh).

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2.

A person whose genital area is covered by a piece of flesh which prevents us from seeing his gender.

A person who has both male and female genital organs and whose gender is thus an unresolved matter.

I.e., twelve for a girl, thirteen for a boy and for a tumtum and androgynus.

I.e., the seven names of God that may not be erased. See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:2.

E. g., the Merciful One, the All-Knowing, or the like. Compare to Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:2.

I.e., a person who observes the Torah and its mitzvot.
The Rambam mentions the prohibition against and the punishment for cursing a fellow Jew in Hilchot Sanhedrin 26:1. In 26:3, he mentions that one is also liable for cursing when using a descriptive term for God.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s ruling here represents somewhat of a contradiction to his ruling in Hilchot A vodat Kochavim 2:7.

Or grandmother.

I.e., he is lashed, not executed. As the Kessef Mishneh states, a person does not owe his grandfather the same measure of honor he owes his parents.

I.e., an explicit negative command. For there is no verse which states: “Do not curse your parents.”

In the verse from Leviticus cited in Halachah 1.

For as Hilchot Sanhedrin 26:1 states, the prohibition against cursing a deaf-mute also includes all other Jews.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 319) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 48) count the prohibition against cursing one’s parents as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

With regard to this and the other particulars mentioned in this halachah, see the notes to Halachah 1.

Drawing blood.

In which instance, he is liable only for a financial penalty. See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:1, Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4.

For once a person has died, there is no concept of him being wounded.

Even though there is no outward sign of bleeding.

With the intent of healing his father.

Sanhedrin 84b uses techniques of Biblical exegesis to emphasize why actions performed for medical purposes do not make a person liable.

Sanhedrin, loc. cit., states that we are only forbidden to perform actions that a person would not desire to have done for him.

Implied is that his parents must authorize his activity. Kin’at Eliyahu questions what would the law be if they are unconscious and he must act without permission. He maintains that if the operation is absolutely necessary, he should perform it. For a threat to life takes precedence over all the mitzvot. If it is not absolutely necessary, he should wait until his parents regain consciousness.

I.e., an explicit negative command. For there is no verse which states: “Do not strike your parents.”

In the verse from Leviticus cited in Halachah 5.

As the Rambam states in Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:12; Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:1.

In Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 15:12, the Rambam defines this term as referring to a person who knows the identity of his mother, but not of his father. Shituki means “one who is silenced.” Rashi (Yevamot 37a) states that such a child is given this name, because he will call for his father and his mother will silence him.

Although the mother’s testimony is significant in certain instances (see Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 15:11), it does not have sufficient weight to have the son sentenced to death. See also Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 1:20-21 where the Rambam rules that the popular conception of the matter of a person’s relationship to his parents is halachicly significant.

For such a child is considered as having no family ties to his natural father. He is a like a servant or a gentile. If he converts, he is considered as a newborn child and has no family ties to his natural mother either. See Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 1:4.

I.e., at the time of conception, his mother was not Jewish.

She converted before his birth.

This applies whether his natural father was Jewish or was a gentile who converted. The son is considered as having no family connection to him.

Although she was Jewish when she gave birth to the child.

A shituki is not liable for cursing or striking his father, but that is because he does not know who his father is. If his father's identity was established, he would be liable. Hence he is liable for cursing or striking his mother. This child, by contrast, is considered as if he does not have a father at all. Therefore he is not liable for striking or cursing his mother (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., his natural father who has not converted.

I.e., it would appear that becoming Jewish has minimized the convert's responsibilities for he no longer must honor his gentile father.

I.e., he should show him the same measure of respect as he did as a gentile.

I.e., a gentile has a certain measure of responsibility to his parents, for he is considered their son according to law. Hence even if he converts - at which time he is considered like a new baby - he still must continue to show them a similar degree of honor. A servant, by contrast, is considered as his master's property and thus has no connection to his natural parents. It is as if they did not conceive him. Even if his father is Jewish, the servant is not considered as his son. Compare to Hilchot Ishut 15:6.

He may not do this on his own initiative, nor may he act as an agent of the court to perform these acts, as stated in Halachah 13 (Sanhedrin 85b).

Through their violation of Torah law, it is as if they removed themselves from the Jewish people. Hence their son is not liable for violating his obligation to respect them.

Because their repentance restores their status. Although they are liable to die for their sins, their children are still obligated to respect them.

For a son is liable for cursing his parents after their death (Halachah 1). It’s true that he is not liable for striking them after their death (Halachah 5), but that is only because there is no concept of wounding a dead person. There is, however, a concept of wounding someone going to his death.

As stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, whenever a person is sentenced to death, it is as if he was already executed. See also Hilchot Edut 19:2.

Even though he is not acting on his own, but as the agent of the court, he should not be the one charged with this responsibility.

For this resembles cursing (Radbaz).

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:5,9.

We have used general terms in our translation. In particular, the wording used by the Rambam has a specific connotation. A mesit is someone who attempts to entice an individual to worship false deities. A madiach is someone who attempts to lead an entire city astray. See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, ch. 5.

Having one’s son administer these punishments may be more painful to bear than the punishments themselves.

See Hilchot Sh’vuot 11:9.

I.e., he should take an ordinary oath, mentioning God's name and stating that he does not owe his son anything.

Hilchot Rotzeach 1:3.

Who is obligated to kill the slayer.

By mentioning an “eye that mocks,” the prooftext emphasizes that any mocking, even a mere insinuation is considered worthy of punishment.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 26:5.