레위기 20:9 할라카: Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat & Sefer HaChinukh

If no legal warning [preceded] therein,¹¹e., when one uttered a curse. Thus Yad, Sanhedrin XXVI, 4. For we might have thought that since transgressing this negative precept does not involve the performance of any act (v. supra nn. 6 and 7), consequently, warning should not be required, we are, therefore, informed otherwise. or where one uttered a curse without the [Divine] Name, or without a substitute, or the curse was the result of an implication [from] the words [that he uttered],¹² supra par. 1. e.g., where he stated, 'May So-and-so not be blessed unto the Lord,' he receives no lashes.¹³Mishna Sheb. 35a in accord with the Sages. For when God withholds his blessing it follows that the person is under a curse — M.E. So too, one who curses the dead is exempt.¹⁴Tur — G. Yad, Sanhedrin XXVI, Derived from Sifra ibid. , also Mishna San. 85b: ‘One who curses (his parents) after death is liable.’ Hence, since the verse His father or his mother he hath cursed (Lev. XX, 9) was singled out, it follows that for other dead he is not held liable. However, there is, nevertheless, a prohibition [against this]. If one put a scholar to shame, they pronounce the ban against him,¹⁵ Y.D. § 242 and § 334; Kid. 70b. , text supra § 7, n. 3 and if the Judges wish to inflict upon him the penalty of chastisement,¹⁶ supra § 8, 5, n. 45. This may mean either in addition to proclaiming the ban against him, or it means that if inflicting stripes for disobedience would be more effective, we administer the latter punishment — M.E. The penalty of chastisement is administered at the discretion of the Court and is Rabbinical in origin. , Maim. Comm. to Naz. IV, 3; Hul. 141b. Heb. מרדות according to Rashi is equivalent to רדיה ‘blows enforcing submission.’ This is inflicted for a past offence, but one who refuses to observe a positive precept, even if it is Rabbinical, they may admnister blows until his soul departs, if he is still stubborn, or until he observes the precept (Ket. 86a; Tosef. Mak. III, 10). they may strike him and [thus] punish him as much as they see fit.¹⁶ supra § 8, 5, n. 45. This may mean either in addition to proclaiming the ban against him, or it means that if inflicting stripes for disobedience would be more effective, we administer the latter punishment — M.E. The penalty of chastisement is administered at the discretion of the Court and is Rabbinical in origin. , Maim. Comm. to Naz. IV, 3; Hul. 141b. Heb. מרדות according to Rashi is equivalent to רדיה ‘blows enforcing submission.’ This is inflicted for a past offence, but one who refuses to observe a positive precept, even if it is Rabbinical, they may admnister blows until his soul departs, if he is still stubborn, or until he observes the precept (Ket. 86a; Tosef. Mak. III, 10). And if one put an illiterate person to shame, they punish him according to the demand of the hour,¹⁷B.K. 91a (ref. to Mishna ibid. 90a: ‘If he spat on his neighbour and the spittle reached him [he must pay him four hundred Zuz’]): Said R. Papa: This was taught only where it reached him (his person), but if only his garment, it is not so. But why should this not be equated to an insult in words? — It was said in the West on the authority of R. Jose b. Abin that this means that if he insulted him in words, he would be exempt from any liability.’ R. Sherira observes that what is meant here is that he is exempt from paying the above-mentioned sum, but it does not exclude punishment entirely. This may be seen from Mishna ‘Ar. 15a: ‘One who speaks with his mouth suffers more than he who commits an act.’ Hence, the Beth Din subjects him to a punishment according to their discretion. Consequently, the ruling here. [and according to the status of the one who puts to shame and the one put to shame],¹⁸Thus Yad ibid. even if the one put to shame (another version: the one cursed) has foregone [his honour], we punish him [the offender], for he had already committed a sin and had become guilty.¹⁹Tur — G. This Gloss should come at the end of par 1 — Be’er ha-Golah. Derived from Mak. 13b whence it is seen that the Earthly Tribunal does not grant remission to those who have become liable by sentence of a human Court, even if they should do penance. One who was sentenced to be placed under the ban because he acted contumaciously towards the Court of Law, and [the members of] the Court of Law wished to forego their honour and did not place him under the ban, they have a right to do so,²⁰Yad, Sanhedrin XXVI, 6. Derived from Ket. 17a: ‘If a Nasi foregoes his honour, his honour is foregone.’ , Kes. Mish. ibid. provided [that as a result of the Court's leniency] there will not result in this matter a lessening of honour towards the Creator, e.g., where the people acted rebelliously towards the honour of the Torah and the Judges, — [then the law is that] since the people act contumaciously in [this matter], they [the Court of Law] should enforce measures [for the protection of the Law] and mete out punishment according to their discretion.²¹For sometimes adopting a leniency might lead to the profanation of the Name of Heaven. , Yoma 22b.

To not curse father and mother: To not curse father and mother, as it is stated (Leviticus 20:9), “Any man that curses his father and his mother, etc.” And the truth is that the main warning of cursing father and mother is not from Scripture, since here it only mentions the punishment of the one that curses; and so [too,] that which is written in the Order of Mishpatim (Exodus 21:17), “And he who curses his father and his mother shall surely be killed” — there too, it only spoke about the punishment. And that is what they said in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael 21:17:3, “‘And he who curses his father and his mother, etc.’ — we have heard the punishment, but from where is the warning? [Hence] we learn to say (Exodus 22:27) ‘Lords you shall not curse[, etc.]’ If his father is a chieftain (nassi), behold he is included in ‘and a chieftain in your people you shall not malign.’ If he is a boor, behold he is included in ‘You shall not curse the deaf.’ Hence it is to be derived by a constructive paradigm (binyan av) through the three of them, etc.” until, “Their common denominator is that they are ‘in your people,’ and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is ‘in your people,’ and you are exhorted against cursing him.” And so did they say in Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10:7, “‘And he who curses his father and his mother’ — we have heard the punishment, etc.” exactly like the language of the Mekhilta. And since there is no specific [textual] negative commandment to this warning — but rather it comes out from the principle [understand by an analysis] of three negative commandments — I have written it on this verse that is speaking about the punishment [for it]. And likewise, Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote about “he who curses his father and his mother shall surely be killed,” that it is speaking about the punishment (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Negative Commandments 318).