Parshas Ki Sisa (Shushan Purim) 5785
- Torah Tavlin
- Mar 13
- 3 min read
סנהדרין פד:
"מכה אביו ואמו"
The punishment for hitting one’s father or mother is חנק. The general איסור for hitting any Yid, is learned from the פסוק: ארבעים יכנו לא יוסיף. This is referring to when בית דין administers מלקות, it is a לאו to give any extra and certainly a Yid that isn’t receiving מלקות may not be hit. The עונש for hitting any Yid is מלקות, but מכה אביו ואמו if one creates a חבורה, the עונש is חנק. The אזהרה for מכה אביו ואמו is learned from here as well. The רמב"ם [ספר המצוות לאו שיח'] lists מכה או"א as a separate לאו from the standard לאו of hitting a Yid, even though both are derived from the same pasuk.The רמב"ן argues and doesn’t list מכה או"א as a separate לאו, since it is included in the לאו of לא יוסף.
The Gemara brings a שאלה: May a son be מקיז דם (bloodletting) for his father? Since he will be making a חבורה it should be אסור? The Gemara gives 2 reasons why it is permitted. 1) ואהבת לרעך כמוך, a Yid is not מוזהר from doing to others only something he wouldn’t want done to himself and since this is a good thing for רפואה it is permitted. 2) We learn a היקש from מכה בהמה. Just like by בהמה if one makes a חבורה for healing purposes he is פטור, so too by מכה אדם לרפואה one is פטור. ר' פפא would not allow his son to remove a splinter for him and מר בריה דרבינא would not allow his son to clean out a blister for him, for fear they might make a חבורה. The [ממרים פ"ה,ז'] רמב"ם says a son who was מקיז דם for his father, or if he is a doctor and cut him for רפואה purposes, is פטור. However, לכתחילה he should not do this if there is someone else available to do the procedure. If not, the son may do it. The כסף משנה says the רמב"ם learns, the 2 reasons given in our Gemara that permit a son to do הקזת הדם means, if no one else is available it’s פטור ומותר לכתחילה for the son to do it. The reason ר' פפא and מר בריה דרבינא didn’t allow their sons to heal them, is because there were others available to perform the procedure. The בית יוסף [יו"ד ס' רמ"א] comments that it seems the טור is learning our Gemara the same way as the רמב"ם. However, he brings the רי"ף and the רא"ש who learn ר' פפא and מר בריה דרבינא were arguing on the Gemara’s 2 reasons and they hold a בן may never be מקיז דם for his father. This is why they didn’t allow it. He brings the רמב"ן who asks, if the אמוראים were חושש their sons might harm them, or in the instance of הקזת הדם might even accidentally kill them, why may any doctor perform a procedure on a patient; he may accidentally kill him and be עובר שגגת סייף? The רמב"ן explains that since a רופא is given permission לרפאות and it’s even a מצוה, he need not be concerned. However, in the case of the אמוראים, where it was a splinter removal and the draining of a blister, why allow the son to do it? If he makes a חבורה it’s a חיוב שגגת חנק, so if there is someone else available, we prefer they do it because if they make a mistaken חבורה it’s only a שגגת לאו. The [מח'] מנחת חינוך says a father may be מוחל and give his son רשות to hit him and it would be מותר לכתחילה. He brings our Gemara and concludes that even though he hasn’t seen anyone discuss this, "כן נראה לענ"ד ברור". But many are חולק on this חידוש.