Sanhedrin - Daf 85
- Can a son be a שליח בית דין to strike or curse him?
Rav Sheishess was asked: בן מהו שיעשה שליח לאביו להכותו ולקללו – can a son be made an agent of Beis Din to strike or curse his father (i.e., if his father was liable to malkus or excommunication, respectively)? He replied by asking why it is permitted for anyone to do so, since all are forbidden to strike or curse another Jew!? Rather, כבוד שמים עדיף – the honor of Heaven is more important, and allows striking or cursing a transgressor, so the same can apply to a son. Rav Sheishess is challenged from two Baraisos, but they are deflected. The Gemara concludes, however, that Rabbah bar Rav Huna, and a Baraisa of Rebbe Yishmael, ruled: לכל אין הבן נעשה שליח לאביו להכותו ולקללו – for all sins, a son is not made an agent of Beis Din to strike or curse his father, חוץ ממסית – except for one who instigates others to serve avodah zarah. His son may carry out his sentence, because the Torah says about him: ולא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו – you shall not have compassion nor conceal him.
- Cursing a parent after his death, striking a sinful parent
The next Mishnah states that one is not liable for striking his parent עד שיעשה בהן חבורה - unless he wounds them. Therefore, a stringency emerges for cursing a parent versus striking him: שהמקלל לאחר מיתה חייב – that one who curses his parent after his parent’s death is liable, והמכה לאחר מיתה פטור – but one who strikes a parent after his death is exempt, because he does not wound him. A Baraisa derives from the superfluous phrase "אביו ואמו קלל" – his father or his mother he has cursed to apply the prohibition even after death. Rebbe Yoshiyah darshens from this phrase that cursing one parent without the other is liable and derives the above law from elsewhere. The Gemara asks why the Mishnah did not mention a stringency of striking compared to cursing, שהמכה עשה בו שלא בעמך כבעמך – for regarding striking, the Torah equated a parent who is not included in “in your nation” with one who is included in “in your nation,” as opposed to cursing. [The cursing prohibition says, “A prince 'בעמך' – in your nation you shall not curse,” which excludes a sinful Jew from the prohibition.] It answers that our Mishnah holds מקשינן הכאה לקללה – we compare striking to cursing, so a sinful parent is also excluded from the striking prohibition.
- הגונב נפש מישראל
The next Mishnah states: גונב נפש מישראל – one who kidnaps a Jew אינו חייב עד שיכניסנו לרשותו – is not liable to חנק until he takes him into his possession. Rebbe Yehudah says he must take him into his possession וישתמש בו – and make use of him, as the passuk says "והתעמר בו ומכרו" – and he made use of him and sold him. Tannaim debate if one is liable for kidnapping his own son, and others debate if one is liable for kidnapping מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין – one who is half slave and half freeman. The Gemara asks if the Tanna Kamma does not require that the kidnapper make use of his victim, since the above passuk clearly mentions it, and Rebbe Acha brei d’Rava says they argue if work done by the victim worth less than a perutah’s value is sufficient “use” of the victim. A Baraisa teaches that if one kidnapped someone and did not sell him or sold him but the victim remained in his own domain, he is not liable. If he sold him to the victim’s father, brother, or other relative, he is liable. One is not liable for kidnapping a slave.
