Why Striking a Parent Requires a Wound That Draws Blood

"And he that strikes his father" (Exodus 21:15), but not his father's father; "his mother," but not his mother's mother; "his father," but not one in doubt; "his mother," but not one in doubt. "He that strikes his father and his mother shall surely be put to death." One might think he is not liable until he strikes both of them at once; therefore Scripture says, "and he that strikes any man shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 24:21), meaning even one of them. Then why does it say "his father and his mother"? One might think a convert woman, whose conception was not in holiness but whose birth was in holiness, would make her child liable for striking his mother; therefore Scripture says "his father and his mother": the one who is liable for striking his father is liable for striking his mother, and the one who is not liable for striking his father is not liable for striking his mother. One might think that if he struck them after their death he would be liable. And it would follow logically: if cursing, which does not apply to all, makes one liable even after death, then striking, which applies to all, should surely make one liable after death. Therefore Scripture says, "he that strikes a beast... and he that strikes a man" (Leviticus 24:21): just as one who strikes a beast is not liable after its death, so one who strikes his father and mother is not liable after their death. One might think that if he struck them but made no wound in them he would be liable; therefore Scripture says, "he that strikes a beast and he that strikes a man": just as one who strikes a beast is not liable until he makes a wound, so one who strikes his father and mother is not liable until he makes a wound. From here they said: he is not liable until he draws a drop of blood or until the blood clots beneath the skin. One might think that if he struck them unintentionally he would be liable to pay damages; therefore Scripture says, "he that strikes a beast and he that strikes a man": just as with one who strikes a beast no distinction is made between unintentional and deliberate in making him liable to pay, so with one who strikes his father and mother no distinction is made between unintentional and deliberate to free him from payment. And the same applies to every transgression that carries a death penalty, in which there is no monetary payment. "He shall surely be put to death." We do not know by what death this one is to die; therefore Scripture says, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18) [choose for him a fitting death]. Choose for him an easy death, and which is that? Strangulation. Rabbi says: not because it is easy, but because it is the unspecified death, and every death stated in the Torah without specification is strangulation. How do we know that if you could not put him to death by strangulation you may put him to death by any of the deaths, whether lighter or more severe? Scripture says, "he shall surely be put to death," in any case.