When a Wound to a Parent Becomes a Crime and When It Heals

"And one who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:15): by strangulation. Should I say he is not liable to be killed until he actually kills the parent? That cannot enter your mind, for if he killed another person it would be by the sword, while killing his father is by strangulation. This works well for the one who holds that strangulation is the lighter death; but for the one who holds that strangulation is the more severe death, what can be said? Rather, from what is written "one who strikes a man so that he dies" (Exodus 21:14) and "he struck him so that he died" (Numbers 35:16), learn from this that wherever "striking" is written without specification, it means mere striking that is not death. And should I say he is liable even though he produced no wound? Why then did we learn in the Mishnah "one who strikes his father or his mother" is not liable until he produces a wound in them? Scripture says "and one who strikes the life of an animal shall make it good" (Leviticus 24:18); if this is not needed for the matter of an animal's life, since if he struck it with stones he is liable even though he produced no wound, apply it to the matter of a human life. And why do I need the analogy at all? "One who strikes the life of a man" and "one who strikes an animal" (Leviticus 24:17-18): just as one who strikes an animal for the sake of healing is exempt, so too one who strikes a man for the sake of healing is exempt. For we inquired: a son, what is the law concerning his letting blood for his father? Rav Matnah said: "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18). Rav Dimi bar Chanina said: "one who strikes a man, one who strikes an animal": just as one who strikes an animal for healing is exempt, so too one who strikes a man for healing is exempt. Rav would not allow his son to remove a thorn from him, and Mar son of Ravina would not allow his son to lance a boil for him; he said: perhaps he will wound and it will turn out to be an inadvertent transgression. If so, the same should apply to another person too. With another, the inadvertent act is of a mere prohibition; with his own son, the inadvertent act is of strangulation. But we learned that a hand needle is permitted to remove a thorn with it on the Sabbath; let us be concerned lest he wound and it become a transgression punishable by stoning. There the act is destructive, and even according to Rabbi Shimon, who says one who destroys by wounding is liable, any labor not needed for its own sake one is exempt for. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: in all cases a son is not made an agent to strike or curse his father, except in the case of one who incites or seduces to idolatry, for the Torah said "you shall not have pity on him nor shall you cover for him" (Deuteronomy 13:9).