Kommentar zu Wajikra 24:21

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST, HE SHALL PAY FOR IT — Above (v. 18) Scripture was speaking of one who kills a beast, whilst here it speaks of one who inflicts a wound up on it (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12).

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה, if someone injures someone else’s animal he must pay compensation to its owner, even if the animal does not die as a result to that injury.

ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת, “if someone strikes an animal he shall pay for it, whereas if someone strikes (dead) a human being he shall be executed.” The reason the Torah continues immediately with the words: “there shall be one law for you, etc.,” is that the investigation of crimes involving financial damage or bodily harm resulting in death should be subject to equally thorough investigation as to who is responsible. The word אחד in verse 22 refers to The “One and only G’d;” Torah legislation is based on G’d and not on the considerations applicable in Gentile jurisprudence.

Who causes a wound to it. Because if not so, why should he pay for it [for merely smiting it]? What deficiency did he make in it that he should pay?

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה, “someone who had deliberately struck his fellow man’s animal must pay compensation.” The Torah has repeated this legislation, as originally it had used the expression: נפש, “lifeforce,” implying that the attacker had aimed at a part of the body that is most vulnerable, whereas here it did not restrict itself to when an especially vulnerable part of the animal had been struck. Compensation is payable even if the animal had not died as the result of being struck.

ומכה אדם יומת AND HE THAT SMITETH A MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH — although he has not killed him but only inflicted a wound upon him, because Scripture does not state מכה] נפש] (as it does in v. 17 which implies “smiting of the soul” — killing). Scripture is speaking here of one who smites his father or his mother when he is punishable with death for mere smiting without fatal result (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:15). It is true that the punishment for this offence has already been stated (Exodus 24:17) but Scripture intends by putting this case in juxtaposition with מכה בהמה to put it in some respect on a level with the case of one who smites a beast. How is it in the case of one who smites a beast? He is subject to the law only if he smote it while it was alive! So, too, is one who smites his father (or his mother) punishable only if he smites them whilst they are alive, thus excluding from the death penalty one who smites them after their death. Because we find that he who curses him (the father; — the same applies to the mother) after death is liable to the death penalty (cf. Rashi Leviticus 20:9), Scripture was compelled to state with reference to one who smites his parents that he is exempt from the death penalty if he does this after their death (as stated above). And there is another point of comparison: How is it in the case of a beast? The law speaks only of smiting resulting in a wound! — for if there is no wound resulting no compensation can be claimed — so, too, he who smites his father is not liable to the death penalty unless he inflicts a wound upon him (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 8; Sanhedrin 84a, 85b).

His father or his mother. Explanation: Because it is not written “soul,” it implies a blow that did not cause death. However, if the verse is speaking of someone else [i.e., other than his father or mother], is written (Shemos 21:12), “If one strikes a man and he [the victim] dies (he shall be put to death),” not only for a mere blow. Perforce, it is speaking of one who strikes his father or his mother.