Commento su Esodo 21:17

ומקלל אביו ואמו WHOSOEVER CURSETH HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER [SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Why is this stated in this particular form? Since Scripture says, (Leviticus 20:9) “For every man who execrateth his father [or his mother shall surely be put to death]” I might say that I have here only the law that a man who curseth his father or his mother is punishable with death. Whence do I know that this is also the case if a woman curseth her father or her mother? Scripture therefore states here, “Whosoever curseth father or mother” — whosoever generally — intimating that it applies to both man and woman (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:17:1). But if this be so why is it said, (Leviticus 20:9). “For every man who execrateth etc.”? To exclude a minor.

V. 17. Menschenraub ist die konkrete Vernichtung der Menschenwürde; Vater und Mutter gegenüber zieht schon die bloß angewünschte Vernichtung, קללה, den gerichtlichen Tod nach sich, und zwar selbst das Fluchen verstorbener Eltern.

ומקלל אביו, “and if someone curses his father;” from what is written here we only know that it is forbidden to curse one’s father while he is alive; how do we know that the same law applies to people cursing their fathers posthumously? The word: ומקלל formulated in the present tense, in the widest possible formulation includes cursing him anywhere anytime. Where is the commandment not to curse one’s father stated explicitly independent of the punishment in store for those who violate it? The reader is directed to Exodus 22,27: אלוהים לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, “Do not curse a judge and do not curse an elected political leader within your people.” לא תקלל חרש, “do not curse a deaf person!” The common denominator in these three prohibitions is that they are part of your people, and that your father and mother are similarly not only your relatives and have begotten you, but they are part of your nation, a holy nation. The reason why the Torah interrupts this sequence with verse 16, which deals with kidnapping, is that most people who are kidnapped are minors, who were unable to defend their abductor. As a result of having been kidnapped and sold to a foreign nation they will grow up in a country where they do not even know their parents, and when they get involved in an argument they will likely curse their fate and the father who had not protected them. Therefore this insertion is not a deviation from the theme the Torah deals with here. Verses 16 17 18 have a common denominator, as the Torah hints that in practice the occurrence of these sins are interrelated through the negative experiences in life by the parties who become guilty of them. [We must never lose sight of the fact that the Torah does not address itself to wicked people, as this would be a waste of time. What wicked person would take any notice of it? Ed.] What the Torah did here was listing sins which originate in quarrels between people some of which result in violent action, others in violent language. The honour due to father and mother is based on the honour due to the Creator himself, seeing that father and mother represent two thirds of begetting each one of us, G-d being the remaining third, who had helped father and mother to produce progeny. Therefore, cursing parents or cursing G-d are part of the same phenomenon, the result of frustration of the guilty party. Moreover, in the case of G-d releasing one’s anger by striking out physically is obviously impossible. Therefore all three are treated in a similar manner when it comes to how such release of one’s anger is treated by the Torah. Some commentators approach our whole paragraph as reflecting what our sages call it “not only this but also this.” For example: not only a person who has been so angry that in striking his fellow he has actually killed him, deserves to lose his life as a result of such lack of restraint, but even people who killed without intention actually deserve the same fate seeing that they had been criminally negligent, but the Torah stops short of this by protecting their lives if they succeeded to reach a city of refuge before an angry relative had a chance to avenge his relative’s needless death. This approach is supported by the Torah stating that if such a killer had acted intentionally, and had sought immunity next to the altar, [a symbol for a location where violence is absolutely forbidden, Ed] by taking refuge in the precincts of the Temple, this will not protect him against being brought to court by force and tried. Having stated this, the Torah extends this to people who in their anger only struck a parent also deserve the death penalty. If their act leaves a mark, injury, on the body of either parent they will be treated as having committed a capital offense. Finally, even if the son or daughter did not raise their hands against either parent and cursed them instead, they are also dealt with as having hurt them bodily.

מות יומת SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH — by stoning. And the rule is that wherever the term “his blood is upon him “is used in connection with the death penalty, “execution by stoning” is meant. The following in the passage from which this is evident (בנין אב): (Leviticus 20:27) “they shall overwhelm them with stones: their blood is upon them” — and as regards one who curses father or mother (Leviticus 20:9), Scripture indeed uses the words דמיו בו (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:17:3; Sanhedrin 66a).

Obgleich die gerichtliche Todesstrafe bei diesen vier Verbrechen allgemein durch מות יומת ausgedrückt ist, so lehrt die Halacha, und ist dies auch an andern Stellen in der Schrift angedeutet, dass ihre Todesstrafe nicht gleich ist. Der Mörder wird durchs Schwert, סייף, hingerichtet, Verwundung der Eltern und Menschendiebstahl wird mit חנק, Erdrosselung, Fluchen der Eltern mit סקילה, Steinigung, bestraft. Die verschiedenen Arten der Todesstrafe stehen tief in engstem Zusammenhange mit der Art der Verbrechens. Sie können jedoch nur in gesamtem Überblick betrachtet werden, und behalten wir uns diese Betrachtung s.G.w. zu פרשת עריות (Wajikra 20) vor.