Striking Father or Mother and the Penalty of Strangulation

"And one who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:15). Because Scripture says "an eye for an eye," and here the verse removes this case from the general rule to be more severe with him, that he should be punished with death, therefore this passage was stated. "And one who strikes his father or his mother": I know only of one who strikes both his father and his mother together. As for his father but not his mother, or his mother but not his father, from where do we learn this? You may reason: since one who strikes is liable and one who curses is liable, just as for cursing he is liable for each parent on his own, so too for striking he should be liable for each one on his own. Not so. If you have said this concerning one who curses, who is liable for cursing the dead as for the living, and is therefore liable for each one separately, would you say the same of one who strikes, who is not liable for striking the dead as for the living, and therefore should not be liable for each one separately? Scripture teaches, "and one who strikes his father or his mother," meaning he is liable even for striking one of them. These are the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. Rabbi Yonatan says: the phrase implies both of them as one, and it implies each one on his own, until Scripture specifies for you "together." Rabbi Yitzchak says: did the mention of his mother come only to be more severe with him, or also to be lenient with him? Not because it was made more severe in his case is it to be made lenient in his case. "And one who strikes his father or his mother": a blow that produces a wound. Or perhaps even a blow that produces no wound? You said: if in the realm of damages, which is broader, one is not liable until he produces a wound, then in the realm of penalties, which is narrower, surely he should not be liable until he produces a wound. So what does Scripture teach by "one who strikes his father or his mother"? A blow that produces a wound. "He shall surely be put to death": by strangulation. Or perhaps by one of the other forms of death stated in the Torah? You said: this is a principle stated in the Torah, that any death stated in the Torah without specification you are not permitted to interpret stringently but only leniently. These are the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. Rabbi Yonatan says: not because it is the lenient one, but because it is stated without specification, and any death stated without specification is by strangulation. Rabbi says: it is like the death stated as being at the hand of Heaven; just as death at the hand of Heaven leaves no mark, so too the death stated here leaves no mark. From here they said: the death of strangulation was carried out by sinking the condemned man into refuse up to his knees, placing a hard cloth within a soft one, winding it about his neck, and then one witness pulled in one direction and the other pulled in the other direction until his soul departed. This is the order of strangulation. We have heard the penalty, but we have not heard the prohibition. Scripture teaches, "forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed" (Deuteronomy 25:3). And behold, these things are an argument from minor to major: if one who is commanded to strike is nevertheless warned not to strike beyond measure, then one who is commanded not to strike, it is only right that he be warned not to strike.