Chapter 7: Cursing, Shaming, Hitting, and medically treating parent
1. The prohibition against cursing a parent:[1]
One who curses his father or mother [as an adult[2], transgresses a Biblical negative command[3] and] is liable for Sekila [i.e., death by stoning] if the cursing took place in the presence of witnesses and with prior warning [and using one of the seven Divine names, as will be explained]. [This applies whether the curse was verbalized in speech, or merely written down without verbalization, such as if one wrote “cursed be etc.”[4] It is questionable whether liability only applies if the father or mother was mentioned by name or simply being mentioned as one’s parent suffices for liability.[5]]
Is weighed by Scripture equal to the prohibition of cursing G-d:[6] The sages teach us that this command against cursing one’s parents is weighed by Scripture equal to the prohibition against cursing G-d. This is learned from the following similar words used in the verses. The verse states that a person who curses his father or mother is put to death and in another verse it states that one who curses G-d is liable for his sin. The reason for this is because there are three partners in the creation of man.
After death:[7] The above prohibition applies even after the death of the parents. Thus, a child who curses his dead parent is still liable for death.[8]
Male and female:[9] The above prohibition applies both for a man or woman [i.e., a son or daughter] who curses [their parent]. [This applies for both a Tumtum and Androgynous.[10]]
Using one of the seven names of G-d:[11] The above liability for Sekila only applies if one curses the parent with one of the [seven[12]] designated names of G-d [that cannot be erased]. If, however, a nickname for G-d was used in the curse [such as Shakaiy, Tzevaos, Chanun and Rachum[13]], then the child is [not liable for stoning but rather is] only liable for transgressing a negative command like anyone else who curses any other Jew.[14] [Nonetheless, although the punishment of stoning is not given if one of the seven Divine names was not used, cursing a parent is most severe and is more severe than cursing a regular Jew. One who curses his parent in any which way is fit to be put in excommunication and is included in the scriptural curse of “Cursed it is thou who curses his father and mother.”][15]
If one’s parents are Reshaim:[16] [Even] if a person’s father and mother were complete Reshaim and transgressed sins, it still remains forbidden for the son to hit or curse his parent [even though the child is exempt from capital punishment[17]]. This prohibition applies even if the parent was liable for capital punishment and was in the process of being taken out to be killed. However, if one hit or cursed a parent in such a state [of being a Rasha[18] or of being taken out for capital punishment], then he is exempt from [the death penalty]. If, however, the parents performed Teshuvah, then the son is liable for the death penalty [for hitting or cursing them] even though the parents are in the process of being taken out to be killed.
Swearing in court:[19] If in litigation against their son, a father [or mother] has been found liable by the court to swear to the son regarding a statement they made, then the oath taken may not contain a curse, as this is considered as if the son is cursing his father. Rather, the oath taken shall not contain any curse.
Shtuki-One who does not know the identity of his father:[20] A person who is Halachically defined as a Shtuki, which is that he does not know the identity of his father even though he knows the identity of his mother, is [nonetheless] liable for hitting and cursing his mother. He is not liable for hitting and cursing his father. This applies even if the mother claims the man to be his father, nonetheless, she cannot cause him to get punished due to her word.
Son or daughter from a gentile woman:[21] A person’s son from a maidservant [i.e., Shifcha Kenanis] or from a Gentile woman [is not considered Jewish and hence] is not liable [for hitting or cursing] his father or mother.[22]
Converts:[23] If a woman converted when she was already pregnant, then the child born is not liable [for hitting or cursing] his father or mother.[24] [Certainly, one who converted is not liable for hitting or cursing his father or mother even if his father or mother also converted.] [Nevertheless] it remains forbidden for a convert to curse or hit or shame his father [or mother] in order so people do not say that his conversion caused him to leave a higher state of holiness to a lower state of holiness. This applies even if his parents are idol worshipers.[25]
Slave [Eved Kenani]:[26] A slave does not have any lineage, and hence his father is not considered like his father for any purpose. Accordingly, even if a slave was emancipated, he is not liable for cursing or hitting his father [or mother] and there is no prohibition involved in doing so any more than any other person.
Mechila of cursing:[27] A parent cannot give permission to his child to curse him.[28] Thus, if a father forgives his child after he curse him, it does not help to save him from capital punishment.[29]
2. The prohibition against hitting one’s parents:[30]
One who [as an adult[31]] hits his father or mother during their lifetime ]transgresses a Biblical negative command[32] and] is liable for the death penalty of strangulation. This applies whether to a son or a daughter. [This applies for both a Tumtum and Androgynous.[33]] However, this applies only if blood was drawn through the hit.[34] [This liability for Sekila for cursing one’s parent only applies if the cursing took place in the presence of witnesses and with prior warning.[35]] If, however, blood was not drawn through the hit, then [one is not liable for death, although] it is included within the negative command against hitting any Jew.[36] [If the blood was drawn in the form of an inner wound without it being drawn from the skin, known as a black and blue mark, then the Poskim[37] conclude that one is equally liable.]
Mechila of hitting:[38] A parent cannot give permission to his child to cause him physical pain.[39] Certainly, he cannot forgive his honor to allow his child to hit him or curse him.[40] Thus, if a father forgives his child after he hits or curses him, it does not help to save him from capital punishment.[41]
Causing one’s parent to become deaf:[42] One who hit his parent by their ear and caused them to become deaf is liable for death, as it is not possible that one become deaf without a wound with a drop of blood that is extracted from within the ear and causes him to become deaf.
If one’s parents are Reshaim:[43] [Even] if a person’s father and mother were complete Reshaim and transgressed sins, it still remains forbidden for the son to hit or curse his parent [even though the child is exempt from capital punishment[44]]. This prohibition applies even if the parent was liable for capital punishment and was in the process of being taken out to be killed. However, if one hit or cursed a parent in such a state [of being a Rasha[45] or taken out for capital punishment], then he is exempt from [the death penalty]. If, however, the parents performed Teshuvah, then the son is liable for the death penalty [for hitting or cursing them] even though the parents are in the process of being taken out to be killed.
Giving lashes to one’s parents as an emissary of the court:[46] If a person’s father or mother transgressed a sin for which they are liable to receive lashes, then the son cannot be the one to administer the lashes to his parents even if the son is the appointed executioner of the court.
Harassing and hitting one’s parents as an emissary of the court: A son cannot harass or hit his parents even if the son is the appointed executioner of the court. This applies even if the parents are befitting of receiving this harassment from the court and have not repented.
Shtuki-One who does not know the identity of his father:[47] A person who is Halachically defined as a Shtuki, which is that he does not know the identity of his father even though he knows the identity of his mother, is [nonetheless] liable for hitting and cursing his mother. He is not liable for hitting and cursing his father. This applies even if the mother claims the man to be his father, nonetheless, she cannot cause him to get punished due to her word.
Son or daughter from a gentile woman:[48] A person’s son from a maidservant [i.e., Shifcha Kenanis] or from a Gentile woman [is not considered Jewish and hence] is not liable [for hitting or cursing] his father or mother.[49]
Converts:[50] If a woman converted when she was already pregnant, then the child born is not liable [for hitting or cursing] his father or mother.[51] [Certainly, one who converted is not liable for hitting or cursing his father or mother even if his father or mother also converted.] [Nevertheless] it remains forbidden for a convert to curse or hit or shame his father [or mother] in order so people do not say that his conversion caused him to leave a higher state of holiness to a lower state of holiness. This applies even if his parents are idol worshipers.[52]
Slave [Eved Kenani]:[53] A slave does not have any lineage, and hence his father is not considered like his father for any purpose. Accordingly, even if a slave was emancipated, he is not liable for cursing or hitting his father [or mother] and there is no prohibition involved in doing so any more than any other person.
After death:[54] A child who hits the dead body of his parent is not liable for death.[55]
Goel Hadam:[56] If a father murdered his son, his other children who are the brothers of the victim may not act as the Goel Hadam to murder the father in vengeance.
3. Giving medical treatments to a parent:[57]
A. Removing a splinter from a parent:[58]
It is [Rabbinically[59]] forbidden for a son to remove a splinter that is stuck within the skin of his father [or mother] due to that one may come to cause him a wound in the process.
B. Performing an amputation and bloodletting to a parent:[60]
If a child is a professional bloodletter or doctor, it is [Rabbinically] forbidden for him to [cut him to] perform bloodletting on his father, or amputate a limb of one’s father [or mother for medicinal reasons] even though he intends to do so for healing purposes.[61] [This applies even by a life-threatening situation, if another doctor is available and can give the same level treatment as explained next.[62]]
If there is no one else available to do so:[63] The above prohibition, however, only applies if there is another doctor available to perform the procedure. If, however, there is no one else available [or getting another doctor will involve great difficulty[64]], and the parent is in pain [or danger], then the son may let blood from him and amputate him according to that which the parent allows him to do [or has to be done according to medical procedures if the parents’ consent cannot be withdrawn[65]].[66] [Likewise, if the child is a greater expert in this field than other doctors, or if the parent trusts his son more than other doctors to perform this procedure, then the son may give the treatment.[67] In all the above cases that the child may administer care to the parent, it is proper for the parent to explicitly permit the child to do so and forgive his prohibition.[68]]
|
Q&A May a grandchild administer medical treatment to his grandparent if doing so will cause blood to be drawn?[69] Yes. Nonetheless, one who is stringent not to do so and rather has it done by another person is blessed. May one give free medical care to his parent if doing so will save the parent from needing to spend money on a doctor or caretaker?[70] If doing so will not involve letting any blooding, then it is permitted and a Mitzvah. If doing so will involve letting blood from the father, such as to remove a splinter or perform stitches, then some Poskim[71] rule that it is permitted to be done by the child in such a case in order to save the parent from the burden of spending money on another doctor. However, other Poskim[72] are stringent even in such a case. Practically, one may be lenient in a case that the parent will end up saving a considerably large sum of money, or if the parents are poor and cannot afford to pay for medical care.[73]
Q&A on the forbidden forms of medical treatment The medical procedures that are forbidden for a child to do on behalf of his parent unless no one else available: The general rule is as follows: any medical treatment which involves the potential drawing of blood or creation of an inner wound is forbidden to be performed if there is a chance that more blood than necessary will be removed as a result. List of medical treatments that are forbidden to be done on behalf of the parent unless no one else available:[74]
May a child give his parent a haircut or shave?[84] A haircut machine and electric razor may be used to trim or shave the hair of a parent. However, a regular razor may not be used due to fear that it may come to cut the parent and cause a wound. May a child circumcise his father?[85] No, unless there is no other Mohel who can do so or who the father will trust. May one scratch his father’s back? One may only do so if it will not cause bleeding. May one slap five with his parent? One may do so with consent of his parent out of jest and playfulness.[86] If however, any damage or pain will be inflicted to the parent then it is forbidden to do so, even with his consent. This applies towards any person and not just a parent.[87] May one massage one’s parent forcefully? Yes.[88] One may do so upon his parents’ request. May one box with his parents? No. It is forbidden to do so even with a non-parent, even with the person’s consent.[89] May one wrestle with a parent? No, as it is possible to cause the parent an injury through doing so. May one play tackle football with a parent? No, as it is possible to cause the parent an injury through doing so.
|
4. Shaming-The punishment for one who shames his father or mother:[90]
Whoever shames his father and mother is considered cursed by the mouth of G-d [i.e., Gevura], as the verse[91] states “cursed should be one who shames [i.e., Makleh] his father and mother.” This applies even if one only shamed them with words. This applies even if one only shamed them with a mere hint [and did not explicitly express the shame in words]. [This applies even in one’s thought, and hence it is forbidden to think of one’s parents in a belittling manner even in one’s thought without verbalizing it.[92] One who speaks Lashon Hara about his parents[93] or does things to annoy them and cause them pain transgresses this prohibition.[94]] A court of Jewish law has the authority to give rabbinical lashes to such a child and is to give due punishment to the child as they see fit. [In this regard, the shaming of a parent is more severe than the shaming of a regular individual. Thus, although shaming an individual for the way he speaks or dresses may not be a biblical prohibition, it would be a biblical prohibition of one to shame his parent in this matter.[95] The punishment for shaming a parent is explicitly written in Scripture[96] a “his eyes will be gouged by ravens of the river and his flesh will be eaten by the children of the Eagles,” and as has been testified to have occurred in the past to a child who shamed his parents.[97]]
Converts:[98] [One who converted is not liable [for hitting or cursing] his father or mother. This applies even if his father or mother also converted. Nevertheless,] it remains [Rabbinically[99]] forbidden for a convert to curse or hit or shame his father [or mother] in order so people do not say that his conversion caused him to leave a higher state of holiness to a lower state of holiness. This applies even if his parents are idol worshipers.
Slave [Eved Kenani]:[100] A slave does not have any lineage, and hence his father is not considered like his father for any purpose. Accordingly, even if a slave was emancipated, he is not liable for cursing or hitting his father [or mother] and there is no prohibition involved in doing so any more than any other person.
Excommunicating one’s parents as an emissary of the court:[101] If a person’s father or mother transgressed a sin for which they are liable to receive excommunication, then the son cannot be the one to administer the excommunication to his parents even if the son is the appointed executioner of the court.
_________________________________________________
[1] Michaber 241:1; Rambam Mamarim 5:1; 6:2 “One who curses his father or mother is liable for death by stoning, as is one who blasphemes G-d, and hence we see that Scripture has made them equal regarding the punishment.”; Mishneh Sanhedrin 53a; Pesakim Uteshuvos 241:1, 6; ; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Mikalel Aviv Veimo
Cursing a grandparent: One who curses his grandfather, whether maternal or paternal, is considered like one who cursed any other Jew. [Rambam Mamarim 5:2 “One who curses his paternal or maternal grandfather is liable for transgressing a negative command like anyone else who curses any other Jew.”; Chinuch Kedoshim Mitzvah 260; Gilyon Maharsha 241:1]
Tikkun for a person who cursed his parents: See Ginzei Chaim Kuntrus Teshuvah mechaim 36; Shoel Vinishal 3:255
[2] Rambam Mamarim 5:1 “This liability for Sekila for cursing one’s parent only applies if the child who cursed his parent is a Gadol and has reached the age of punishment.”
[3] Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos Mitzvah 318; Minyan Hamitzvos Hilchos Mamrim
[4] Sefer Admas Kodesh 2 Hashmatos Y.D. 8; Oseh Shalom p. 101; Chasam Sofer Y.D. 127; Shut Rav Akiva Eiger Kama 29
[5] See Torah Lishma 478 for a discussion on this matter
[6] Rambam ibid; Kiddushin 30b
[7] Michaber 241:1; Rambam Mamarim 5:1; Taz 241:1; Tur 241; Sanhedrin 85a
[8] The reason: As after death it is not possible to make a wound in the parent. Accordingly, this ruling does not contradict the fact that a child who wounds a parent who has been found liable for capital punishment is liable for death. [Taz ibid]
[9] Michaber ibid; Rambam Mamarim 5:1; Sanhedrin ibid
[10] Rambam Mamarim 5:1
[11] Michaber ibid; Rambam Mamarim 5:2; Mishneh Sanhedrin 66a; Shavuos 35a
[12] See Michaber 276:9 for a list of the seven divine names that may not be erased
[13] Shach 241:1
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that a child is held liable even if he uses the name Shakaiy or Tzevaos, being that they are one of the seven divine names of G-d and are not nicknames. [See Radbaz Mamarim 5:1; Rambam Avoda Zara 2:7; Aruch Laner Sanhedrin66a; Shevet Halevi 2:112-2; Pesakim Uteshuvos ibid footnote 1]
[14] See Michaber C.M. 27; Shach 241:2
[15] Tashbeitz 3:192
[16] Michaber 241:4
[17] Rambam Mamarim 6:10
[18] Rambam Mamarim 6:10
[19] Rama 241:6; Rambam Mamarim 5:15; See Taz 241:2; Teshuvos Hageonim 300
[20] Michaber 241:7; Tur 241; Rambam Mamrim 5:9
[21] Michaber 241:8; Rambam Mamrim 5:9; Mishneh Yevamos 22a
[22] The reason: as the child found in the womb of the maidservant or womb of a Gentile woman is similar to an animal found in the womb of an animal. [Taz 241:3]
[23] Michaber 241:8-9; Rambam Mamrim 5:9; Bava Basra 149a; See Beis Hillel 241; Yad Avraham 241; Zekan Aron 2 Y.D. 87; Yad Shaul 241:4; Shaareiy Deiah 241:9; Igros Haperi Megadim Igeres 3:20, brought in Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 241; Keli Chemda Yisro 7; Igros Moshe 2:130; Divrei Yatziv Y.D. 127
[24] Michaber 241:8
[25] Michaber 241:9; Rambam Mamrim 5:11; Yevamos 22a
[26] Michaber 241:9
[27] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 765-770
[28] Sheilasos Shelita Samech based on Sanhedrin 84b; Orchos Chaim Dinei Kibud Av 2; Shut Harivash 220 in name of Raavad; Sefer Chassidim 570; 573-574; Leket Yosher 2:37; Bedek Habayis of Beis Yosef 334; Shiyurei Bracha 240:8 Pirush Daled; Turei Even Megillah 28a; Kesef Mishneh Talmud Torah 7:13; Shut Haranach Mayim Amukim 69; Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 212; Birkeiy Yosef 240:14
[29] See Sefer Chassidim 573; Nachal Kadmonim of Chida Pashas Shemos; Birkeiy Yosef 240:13; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 429 footnotes 774 and 779
[30] Rama 241:1; Rambam Mamarim 5:5; Mishneh Sanhedrin 85b; Shemos 21:15; Pesakim Uteshuvos 241:2; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Makeh Aviv Veimo
Can a parent forgive this prohibition and allow himself to be hit by his child? No. [Sheilasos Sheilasa 60; Teshuvas Harivash 220; Maharam Shick Mitzvah 33; Aruch Laner Sanhedrin 84a; Peri Yitzchak 1:54; Chelkas Yaakov Y.D. 131; Minchas Shlomo 1:32; Shevet Halevi 2:112-4; Vol. 5 Kuntrus Hamitzvos 24:2; Betzel Hachochmah 2:55] However, some Poskim are lenient. [Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 48] Practically, we are stringent unless there are other reasons for leniency in which case this opinion may be joined to the lenient opinion. [Gesher Hachaim 2:1; Chelkas Yaakov Y.D. 131; Minchas Shlomo 1:32; Shevet Halevi 2:112-4]
Not equal to “Hitting G-d”: Regarding hitting a parent it is not possible for it to be equated to G-d being that it is not possible to hit G-d. [Kiddushin 30b]
[31] Rambam Mamarim 5:5 “This liability for Chenek for cursing one’s parent only applies if the child who cursed his parent is a Gadol and has reached the age of punishment.”
[32] Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos Mitzvah 319; Minyan Hamitzvos Hilchos Mamrim
[33] Rambam Mamarim 5:5
[34] Rama ibid; Rambam Mamarim 5:5 “The above liability only applies if blood was drawn through the hit. If, however, blood was not drawn through the hit, then [one is not liable for death, although] it is included within the negative command against hitting any Jew.”; Sanhedrin 84b; Sheilasos Sheilasa 60; Sefer Hachinuch Mitzvah 48; Yireim 177; Rabbeinu Bechayeh Shemos 21; Mechilta Mishpatim Parsha 5
[35] Rambam Mamarim 5:5
[36] Rama ibid; Tur 241; Rambam Mamarim 5:5
[37] Emek Sheila Sheilas 60:9 in name of Radal; Minchas Yitzchak 1:27; Minchas Shlomo 1:32; Tzafnas Paneiach 2:153; Menachem Meishiv 2:22; See Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 11:1 [leaves in doubt]; See regarding Shabbos: Mishneh Shabbos Chapter 14; Michaber 316
[38] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 765-770
[39] Orchos Chaim Dinei Kibud Av 2; Moshav Zikeinim Vayikra 19:3; Shiyurei Bracha 240:9; Minchas Yitzchak 1:27; Shevet Halevi 2:112-4
[40] Sheilasos Sheilta Samech based on Sanhedrin 84b; Orchos Chaim Dinei Kibud Av 2; Sefer Chassidim 570; 573-574; Leket Yosher 2:37; Shiyurei Bracha 240:8 Pirush Daled
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule a father can forgive his son to allow him to hit him. [Minchas Chinuch 48:3]
[41] See Sefer Chassidim 573; Nachal Kadmonim of Chida Pashas Shemos; Birkeiy Yosef 240:13; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 429 footnotes 774 and 779
[42] Michaber 241:2; Rambam Mamrim 5:6; Raba in Bava Kama 86a
[43] Michaber 241:4; Rambam Mamrim 5:12; Sanhedrin 85a
[44] Rambam Mamarim 6:10
[45] Rambam Mamarim 6:10
[46] Michaber 241:5; Rambam Mamrim 5:13; Sanhedrin 85b
[47] Michaber 241:7; Tur 241; Rambam Mamrim 5:9
[48] Michaber 241:8; Rambam Mamrim 5:9; Mishneh Yevamos 22a
[49] The reason: as the child found in the womb of the maidservant or womb of a Gentile woman is similar to an animal found in the womb of an animal. [Taz 241:3]
[50] Michaber 241:8; Rambam Mamrim 5:9 [regarding father] 10 [regarding mother]; Bava Basra 149a
[51] The reason for the exemption of the mother: If a woman converted when she was already pregnant, then the child born is not liable for hitting or cursing his mother, as the verse states that one is liable for cursing his father and mother and from here we learn as only one who is liable for hitting and cursing his father is liable for hitting and cursing his mother. [Rambam Mamrim 5:10] Now, as for the reason that a Shtuki is nonetheless liable for cursing his mother even though he does not know his father and is not held liable for doing so, this is because if witnesses would come and testify regarding the identity of his father that he would be liable since the potential liability for cursing his father exists he is therefore liable for cursing and hitting his mother and is not included in the above exemption learned from Scripture. [Kesef Mishneh and Radbaz on Rambam ibid]
[52] Michaber 241:9; Rambam Mamrim 5:11; Yevamos 22a
[53] Michaber 241:9; Rambam Mamrim 5:11
[54] Taz 2401:1; Rambam Mamrim 5:5
[55] The reason: As after death it is not possible to make a wound in the parent. Accordingly, this ruling does not contradict the fact that a child who wounds a parent who has been found liable for capital punishment is liable for death. [Taz ibid]
[56] Rambam Mamrim 5:15
[57] Pesakim Uteshuvos 241:3-5
[58] Michaber 241:3; Rambam Mamrim 5:7; Sanhedrin 84b
[59] See Sanhedrin 84b; Ran ibid; Sheilasos Mishpatim; Beis Yosef
[60] Michaber 241:3; Rambam Mamrim 5:7; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 1 4:15 in name of Rif Sanhedrin 19a; Rosh Sanhedrin 10:1; Rav Papa in Sanhedrin 84b
[61] Michaber ibid
The reason: Although it is biblically permitted for one to draw blood from a parent for the sake of a medical purpose, nonetheless, it is rabbinically forbidden to do so being that one may come to unintentionally injure his father more than necessary for the healing of the wound and hence come to transgress the Biblical command. [See Sanhedrin 84b; Ran ibid; Sheilasos Mishpatim; Beis Yosef]
[62] Minchas Yitzchak 1:27
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that in the case of danger of life we do not pay attention to the above rules, and the son may administer treatment to his parents even if another doctor is available. [Chelkas Yaakov Y.D. 131]
[63] Rama ibid; Tur 241; Rambam Mamarim 5:7; Ramban Toras Hadam Inyan Hasakanah p. 43 in opinion of Rif ibid; Meiri Sanhedrin ibid; Chinuch Mitzvah 48
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule it is forbidden to do the above procedures even if no one else is available. [Rif and Rosh; Shulchan Gavoa in accordance with Michaber ibid]
[64] Chelkas Yaakov Y.D. 131 based on Tosafus Pesachim 25b; Minchas Yitzchak 1:27
[65] Derech Pikudecha Mitzvah 47 Chelek Hadibbur 4
[66] The reason: As it is biblically permitted for one to draw blood from a parent for the sake of a medical purpose, and it is merely rabbinically forbidden to do so being that one may come to unintentionally injure his father more than necessary. Now, the sages only upheld their decree in a case that another doctor is available however in a case that there is no one else available, then certainly the son is to rely on the biblical law and administer medical treatment as necessary. [See Sanhedrin 84b; Ran ibid; Pesakim Uteshuvos 241:4 footnote 13]
[67] Aruch Hashulchan 241:6; Minchas Yitzchak 1:27; Mishneh Halachos 9:404; Minchas Shlomo 1:32; Beir Moshe 4:84; Shevet Halevi 2:112-4; 8:79-2; Kneses Yechezkal 1:58; See Kinyan Torah 1:94
[68] Pesakim Uteshuvos 241:3-4
[69] Rambam Mamarim 5:3 and Chinuch Mitzvah 260 regarding a curse, brought in Gilyon Maharsha 241; Sheilas Yaavetz 2:129; Torah Lishma 265; Tzitz Eliezer 22:61
[70] See Aruch Hashulchan 241:6; Minchas Chinuch 48; Pesakim Uteshuvos 241:3
[71] Yifei Laleiv 3:3; Gesher Hachaim 2:1; Chelkas Yaakov 2:39-3-4; Minchas Shlomo 1:32
[72] Har Tzevi Y.D. 197; Minchas Yitzchak 1:27-4; Teshuvos Vehanhagos 2:443
[73] Minchas Yitzchak 1:27-4; Shevet Halevi 10:159
[74] Pesakim Uteshuvos ibid
[75] Shelasos Sheilasa 60
[76] Michaber ibid
[77] Gesher Hachaim 2:1; Minchas Yitzchak 1:27; Mishneh Halachos 9:404; Minchas Shlomo 1:32; Beir Moshe 4:84; Shevet Halevi 2:112-4; 8:79-2; 10:159; Kneses Yechezkal 1:58
[78] Gesher Hachaim 2:1; Minchas Shlomo 1:32
[79] Rav Pesach Tzevi Frank in Gesher Hachaim ibid; Implication of Poskim ibid
[80] Pesakim Uteshuvos 241:4
[81] See Pesakim Uteshuvos Miluim 11 p. 639 for other opinions
[82] ‘Bankes’ is a Yiddish folk remedy involving little glass cups that are heated and then applied to the skin, forming a vacuum that healers believed would suck out whatever was making you sick in the pre-antibiotic’s era.
[83] See Pesakim Uteshuvos Miluim 11 p. 639 for other opinions
[84] See Leket Yosher 2:37; Shema Avraham 70; Moshav Zikeinim Parshas Kedoshim 3; Shut Hatzelach 30; Shevet Hakehasi 1:260; Mishneh Halachos 12:115; 8:128-7; Beir Moshe 2:85; Pesakim Uteshuvos 241:5
[85] Imrei Yosher Y.D. 94; Eretz Tzevi 2:48; Minchas Shlomo 2:79; Tzitz Eliezer 17 Miluim p. 182
[86] This follows the same law as slapping five with any other person, as there is no wound being created in the process and the Rama ibid states that hitting a parent without release of blood retains the same prohibition as applies towards any person. Now, since slapping five with another person involves his consent it is therefore not considered hitting at all, the same way that taking someone’s money with consent is not considered stealing at all. It is the consent that makes a difference between whether the act is stealing or charity, and whether the act is hitting or playfulness. Now, although it is forbidden to hit another Jew even with his consent, or to cause him pain [Admur Nizkei Haguf 4; Rivash 484] nonetheless slapping five does not cause one pain at all, or any damage, and is hence not considered within the category of a hit. Hitting is defined as doing an act which is either painful or damaging to another person. If, however it is neither painful nor damaging then it is not considered a hit at all.
[87] Admur Nizkei Haguf 4; Rivash 484
[88] This follows the same allowance as stated above, that an action that is neither painful nor damaging is permitted, and on the contrary, here the action is helpful to the body.
[89] As doing so causes one unnecessary pain and even possible longtime damage in the head.
[90] Michaber 241:6; Tur 241; Rambam Mamrim 5:15; Pesakim Uteshuvos 241:6; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Kibbud Av Vaeim Vol. 26 p. 372; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Morah Av Vaeim Vol. 42 pp. 563-565
[91] Devarim 27:16
[92] Sefer Chareidim Asei 1:35; Shiyurei Bracha 241:2; Lev David 19; Ben Ish Chaiy Shoftim 2:23
[93] Chofetz Chaim Pesicha Asei 10
[94] Meshech Chochmah Parshas Ki Savo; Haemek Sheila on Sheilasos 60:6
[95] See Bach 241; Mishlei 30:17 and Rashi there; Chayeh Adam 67:19
[96] Mishlei 30:17
[97] Sefer Chareidim Asei 1:35
[98] Michaber 241:9; Rambam Mamrim 5:11; Yevamos 22a; See Beis Hillel 241; Yad Avraham 241; Zekan Aron 2 Y.D. 87; Yad Shaul 241:4; Shaareiy Deiah 241:9; Igros Haperi Megadim Igeres 3:20, brought in Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 241; Keli Chemda Yisro 7; Igros Moshe 2:130; Divrei Yatziv Y.D. 127
[99] Chinuch Mitzvah 260; See Tzafnas Paneiach 1:85
[100] Michaber 241:9; Rambam Mamrim 5:11
[101] Michaber 241:5; Rambam Mamarim 5:13
Leave A Comment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.