Chumashחומש

צו את בני ישראל. זוֹ פָרָשַׁת מִצְוַת הַנֵּרוֹת, וּפָרָשַׁת וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה אֶלָּא עַל סֵדֶר מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, לְפָרֵשׁ צֹרֶךְ הַמְּנוֹרָה, וְכֵן מַשְׁמָע: וְאַתָּה סוֹפְךָ לְצַוּוֹת אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל כָּךְ:

צו את בני ישראל COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [THAT THEY BRING UNTO THEE CLEAR OLIVE OIL, BEATEN, FOR THE LIGHT] — This is the section containing the commandment concerning the lamps, whilst the section beginning with ואתה תצוה (Exodus 27:20 ff.) which also deals with the lamp is only mentioned there for the sake of giving an orderly account of the work of the Tabernacle, to explain what the purpose of the candlestick was — for thus do those words ואתה תצוה imply: “and thou wilt at some future time command the Children of Israel” about this.

שמן זית זך. שְׁלוֹשָׁה שְׁמָנִים יוֹצְאִים מִן הַזַּיִת, הָרִאשׁוֹן קָרוּי זָךְ, וְהֵן מְפֹרָשִׁין בִּמְנָחוֹת (דף פ"ו) וּבְתֹ"כֹּ:

שמן זית זך CLEAR OLIVE OIL — Three different qualities of oil come forth (are extracted) from the olive tree, the first of which is called זך, “clear”. They are all fully explained in Treatise Menachot 86a and in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 1-3).

תמיד. מִלַּיְלָה לְלַיְלָה, כְּמוֹ עוֹלַת תָּמִיד, שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם:

תמיד (continually not continuously) here implies from night to night. It has the same meaning as in עולת תמיד a “continual” burnt offering which was only sacrificed from day to day (cf. Rashi on Exodus 27:20).

לפרכת העדת. שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הָאָרוֹן שֶׁהוּא קָרוּי עֵדוּת; וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ דָרְשׁוּ עַל נֵר מַעֲרָבִי, שֶׁהוּא עֵדוּת לְכָל בָּאֵי עוֹלָם שֶׁהַשְּׁכִינָה שׁוֹרָה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנּוֹתֵן בָּהּ שֶׁמֶן כְּמִדַּת חַבְרוֹתֶיהָ, וּמִמֶּנָּה הָיָה מַתְחִיל וּבָהּ הָיָה מְסַיֵּם (שבת כ"ב; מנחות פ"ו):

לפרכת העדת [WITHOUT] THE PARTITION VAIL OF THE TESTIMONY — i. e. the Partition Vail which is before the Ark which on account of its contents (the Tablets, termed לחות העדות in Exodus 37:15) is called “Testimony”. Our Rabbis, however, explained it (the word העדות) as referring to the western light of the candlestick which was a testimony (עדות) to mankind that the Shechinah dwelt in Israel through the miracle wrought in connection with it; for he (the priest) put only as much oil into it as was the quantity put into the other lamps and yet he began the lighting of the other lamps in the evening by it and finished the work of cleaning with it [since it continued to burn miraculously until the following evening] (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 9; Shabbat 22b; Menachot 86b).

יערך אתו אהרן מערב עד בקר. יַעֲרֹךְ אוֹתוֹ עֲרִיכָה הָרְאוּיָה לְמִדַּת כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְשִׁעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים חֲצִי לֹג לְכָל נֵר וָנֵר, וְהֵן כְּדַאי אַף לְלֵילֵי תְּקוּפַת טֵבֵת, וּמִדָּה זוֹ הֻקְבְּעָה לָהֶם (מנחות פ"ט):

יערך אתו אהרן מערב עד בקר AARON SHALL SET IT IN ORDER FROM EVENING UNTO MORNING — The meaning is not that he shall occupy himself the whole night with setting the lights in order, but he shall arrange it in such a manner (lit., by such an arrangement) that will prove adequate for the length of the whole night. Our Rabbis by experiment (cf. Menachot 89a) fixed the quantity at a half log oil for each lamp, ascertaining that this would suffice also in the long nights of the Teveth quarter; and this quantity therefore became to them the fixed measure [for all the seasons of the year].

המנרה הטהרה. שֶׁהִיא זָהָב טָהוֹר; דָּ"אַ עַל טָהֳרָהּ שֶׁל מְנוֹרָה, שֶׁמְּטַהֲרָהּ וּמְדַשְּׁנָהּ תְּחִלָּה מִן הָאֵפֶר (עי' ספרא):

המנרה הטהרה THE PURE CANDELABRUM — It was so called because it was made of pure gold. Another explanation is: he shall set the lights in order upon the purity of the candlestick, implying that he must first purify (cleanse) it and remove its ashes beforehand (the words therefore mean: on a clean candlestick; cf., however, Sifra, Emor, Section 13 12 where the word is explained differently).

שש המערכת. שֵׁשׁ חַלּוֹת הַמַּעֲרֶכֶת הָאַחַת:

שש המערכת SIX ON A ROW — i. e. six cakes shall form one row.

השלחן הטהר. שֶׁל זָהָב טָהוֹר; דָּ"אַ: עַל טָהֳרוֹ שֶׁל שֻׁלְחָן, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הַסְּנִיפִין מַגְבִּיהִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַשֻּׁלְחָן (שם; מנחות צ"ז):

השלחן הטהר THE PURE TABLE — i. e. the table of pure gold (cf. Rashi on v. 4). Another explanation is that על השלחן הטהר means: immediately upon the טהר of the table (i. e. its top and they must not rest upon something else that is placed on the table-top) — i. e. that the supporting pillars (cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:29) must not raise the bread (i. e. the lowest loaves) above the top of the table (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 18 4; Menachot 97a).

ונתת על המערכת. עַל כָּל אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵי הַמַּעֲרָכוֹת; וְהָיוּ שְׁנֵי בְזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה מְלֹא קֹמֶץ לְכָל אַחַת:

ונתת על המערכת AND THOU SHALT PUT UPON THE ROW — i. e. upon each of the two rows [PURE FRANKINCENSE]; there were two bowls for this frankincense, each filled with a handful of it.

והיתה. הַלְּבוֹנָה הַזֹּאת:

והיתה THAT IT — this frankincense — MAY BE

ללחם לאזכרה. שֶׁאֵין מִן הַלֶּחֶם לְגָבוֹהַּ כְּלוּם, אֶלָּא הַלְּבוֹנָה נִקְטֶרֶת כְּשֶׁמְּסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת, וְהִיא לְזִכָּרוֹן לַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁעַל יָדָהּ הוּא נִזְכָּר לְמַעְלָה, כַּקֹּמֶץ שֶׁהִיא אַזְכָּרָה לַמִּנְחָה (עי' ספרא):

ללחם לאזכרה ON THE BREAD FOR A MEMORIAL — because of the bread itself nothing was offered to the Lord, but the frankincense was burnt when the former was removed from the golden table every Sabbath. It (the frankincense) thus served as a memorial for the bread, because through it, it (the bread) was recalled to memory Above (the bread itself was not offered) just as the “handful” of flour and of oil (Leviticus 2:2) was “the memorial portion” of the meal offering being the only part offered, while the remainder was eaten by the priests just as this bread was.

והיתה. הַמִּנְחָה הַזֹּאת, שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הַתְּבוּאָה בִּכְלַל מִנְחָה הוּא:

והיתה AND IT SHALL BE — this meal-offering shall be — [AARON’S AND HIS SONS’]; (although the word מנחה is not mentioned in the text it is implicitly contained in the word לחם) because anything that is brought (offered) of grain comes under the term of ‎מנחה.

ואכלהו. מוּסָב עַל הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן זָכָר:

ואכלהו‎ AND THEY SHALL EAT IT; the suffix which is masc. refers to לחם which is masculine.

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית. מֵהֵיכָן יָצָא? רַבִּי לֵוִי אוֹמֵר מֵעוֹלָמוֹ יָצָא, רַבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה אוֹמֵר מִפָּרָשָׁה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה יָצָא, לִגְלֵג וְאָמַר "בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת יַעַרְכֶנּוּ" דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ לֶאֱכֹל פַּת חַמָּה בְכָל יוֹם, שֶׁמָּא פַּת צוֹנֶנֶת שֶׁל תִּשְׁעָה יָמִים, בִּתְמִיהָ? וּמַתְנִיתָא אֲמַרָה מִבֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה יָצָא, מְחֻיָּב, בָּא לִטַּע אָהֳלוֹ בְתוֹךְ מַחֲנֵה דָן, אָמְרוּ לוֹ מַה טִּיבְךָ לְכָאן? אָמַר לָהֶם מִבְּנֵי דָּן אֲנִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ "אִישׁ עַל דִּגְלוֹ בְאֹתֹת לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם" כְּתִיב (במדבר ב'), נִכְנַס לְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה וְיָצָא מְחֻיָּב, עָמַד וְגִדֵּף (ספרא, ויקרא ל"ב):

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית AND THE SON OF THE ISRAELITISH WOMAN WENT OUT — Whence did he go out? Surely not from the camp, since Scripture states “and they strove in the camp”! Rabbi Levi said, “He went out from (by his blasphemous utterance he lost) his eternal life (עולמו; R. Levi evidently connects ויצא with the last word of v. 8; “the everlasting covenant, ברית עולם”). R. Berachya said, “He set forth (יצא) (started his argument) from the above section. He said sneeringly: “Every Sabbath he shall set it in order!? Surely it is the way of a king to eat fresh (lit., warm) bread every day; is it perhaps his way to eat bread nine days old (lit., cold bread of nine days)?! (The Hebrew word בתמיה “Say this in the intonation of a question” means nothing other than our question mark) (Midrash Tanchuma 38 23). A Baraitha states that ויצא means, he came out of the judicial court of Moses where he had been pronounced to be in the wrong in the following matter: although his father was an Egyptian he had gone to pitch his tent in the camp of the tribe of Dan to whom his mother belonged (cf. v. 11). They (the men of Dan) said to him, “What have you to do here" (lit., what is your character that gives you the right to come here?). He replied. “I am one of the children of the tribe of Dan”. Thereupon they said to him, “Scripture states: (Numbers 2:2) “Every man [of the children of Israel shall encamp] by his own standard, that bears the signs of their father’s house”! He thereupon went in to the judicial court of Moses to have the matter decided and came forth (יצא) declared to be in the wrong. He then stood up and blasphemed (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; Leviticus Rabbah 32 3).

בן איש מצרי. הוּא הַמִּצְרִי שֶׁהָרַג מֹשֶׁה (שם):

בן איש מצרי THE SON OF AN EGYPTIAN MAN — It was the Egyptian whom Moses had killed (Leviticus Rabbah 32 4; cf. Exodus 2:11 where Scripture also uses the expression “איש מצרי”; cf. also Rashi thereon).

בתוך בני ישראל. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּתְגַיֵּר (ספרא):

בתוך בני ישראל AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — This teaches us that he had become a proselyte (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1).

וינצו במחנה. עַל עִסְקֵי הַמַּחֲנֶה:

וינצו במחנה THEY QUARRELLED IN [or CONCERNING] THE CAMP, about matters connected with the camp (i. e. as to where was his proper place in the camp; Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; cf. Rashi on ית‎ישראל‎ אשה ‎ויצא בן‎‎).

ואיש הישראלי. זֶה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ שֶׁמִּחָה בוֹ מִטַּע אָהֳלוֹ:

‎הישראלי‎ ואיש THE ISRAELITISH MAN — this was his opponent (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1) who had prevented him from pitching his tent in the camp of Dan.

ויקב. כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ "וּפָרֵשׁ", שֶׁנָּקַב שֵׁם הַמְיֻחָד וְגִדֵּף, וְהוּא שֵׁם הַמְפֹרָשׁ שֶׁשָּׁמַע מִסִּינַי (ספרא):

ויקב — Translate this as the Targum does: ופרש “and he pronounced”, thus ויקב … ויקלל means that he uttered the Tetragrammaton and by so doing blasphemed. It was the “Proper Name” which he had heard on Mount Sinai (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 14 2 and Jeremiah Targ.).

ושם אמו שלמית בת דברי. שִׁבְחָן שֶׁל יִשְֹרָאֵל שֶׁפִּרְסְמָהּ הַכָּתוּב לְזוֹ, לוֹמַר שֶׁהִיא לְבַדָּהּ הָיְתָה זוֹנָה:

ושם אמו שלמית בת דברי AND HIS MOTHER’S NAME WAS SHELOMITH, THE DAUGHTER OF DIBRI, [THE TRIBE OF DAN] — it is to tell how praiseworthy Israel was that Scripture publicly mentions her name (exposes her), telling us implicitly that of all the women of Israel she alone was a harlot (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5).

שלמית. דַּהֲוָה פִּטְפְּטָה "שְׁלָם עֲלָךְ", "שְׁלָם עֲלֵיכוֹן", מְפַטְפֶּטֶת בִּדְבָרִים, שׁוֹאֶלֶת בִּשְׁלוֹם הַכֹּל:

שלמית (connected with שלום “peace”) — she was so called because she was always babbling: “Peace be with thee”, “peace be with thee”, “peace be with you” — she used to continually babble with many words (she was a בת דברי) — she enquired after the health of everybody (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5).

בת דברי. דַּבְּרָנִית הָיְתָה, מְדַבֶּרֶת עִם כָּל אָדָם, לְפִיכָךְ קִלְקְלָה:

בת דברי (from the root דבר “to speak”) — she was talkative — talking with any man, and in consequence of this she got into trouble.

למטה דן. מַגִּיד שֶׁהָרָשָׁע גּוֹרֵם גְּנַאי לוֹ, גְּנַאי לְאָבִיו, גְּנַאי לְשִׁבְטוֹ; כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ "אָהֳלִיאָב בֶּן אֲחִיסָמָךְ לְמַטֵּה דָן" (שמות ל"א), שֶׁבַח לוֹ, שֶׁבַח לְאָבִיו, שֶׁבַח לְשִׁבְטוֹ (ספרא):

למטה דן OF THE TRIBE OF DAN — This mention also of the parent and tribe of the woman teaches us that the wrong doer brings shame upon himself, shame upon his parent, shame upon his whole tribe. Similarly we find the name of the tribe Dan mentioned to express praise; (Exodus 31:6) “Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan”, where the details of Oholiab’s descent imply praise for him, praise for his father and praise for his tribe (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 4).

ויניחהו. לְבַדּוֹ, וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּ מְקוֹשֵׁשׁ עִמּוֹ — שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם הָיוּ בְּפֶרֶק אֶחָד — וְיוֹדְעִים הָיוּ שֶׁהַמְּקוֹשֵׁשׁ בְּמִיתָה, אֲבָל לֹא פֹרַשׁ לָהֶם בְּאֵיזוֹ מִיתָה לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר (במדבר ט"ו), כִּי לֹא פֹרַשׁ מַה יֵּעָשֶֹה לוֹ; אֲבָל בַּמְּקַלֵּל הוּא אוֹמֵר לִפְרֹשׁ לָהֶם, שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִים אִם חַיָּב מִיתָה אִם לָאו (ספרא; סנהדרין ע"ח):

ויניחהו AND THEY PLACED HIM [IN WARD] — him by himself — and they did not place the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day with him (Numbers 15:34), because both of whom happened to be (i. e. to commit an offense) at the same period, but they knew that the stick-gatherer was to be punished with the death-penalty, only it had not been explained to them by what kind of death he was to be punished — it is for this reason that it is stated in his case (Numbers 15:33) “[and they placed him in ward] because it was not explained what should be done to him”. In the case of the blasphemer, however, it states “[and they placed him in ward] that [the proper penalty] might be shown to them”; this was because they did not know whether he is at all liable to the death-penalty or not (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 5; Sanhedrin 78b).

השמעים. אֵלּוּ הָעֵדִים:

השמעים THEY THAT HEARD — This refers to the witnesses.

כל. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַדַּיָּנִים (ספרא):

כל ALL [THOSE THAT HEARD] — 'all' serves to include the judges also (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 1).

את ידיהם. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ דָּמְךָ בְּרֹאשְׁךָ, וְאֵין אָנוּ נֶעֱנָשִׁים בְּמִיתָתְךָ, שֶׁאַתָּה גָרַמְתָּ לְךָ (שם):

את ידיהם [AND ALL THAT HEARD HIM SHALL LAY] THEIR HANDS [UPON HIS HEAD] — They said to him: your blood is upon your head; we do not deserve punishment on account of your death, for it was you yourself who brought it about (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 2).

כל העדה. בְּמַעֲמַד כָּל הָעֵדָה, (מִכָּאן) שֶׁשְּׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ (עי' שם):

כל העדה ALL THE CONGREGATION [SHALL CERTAINLY PELT HIM WITH STONES] — (This means: the witnesses shall stone him), all the congregation standing by (because it cannot possibly mean that all the 600,000 men comprising the whole of the congregation should stone him). From here, we may derive the legal principle that a man’s agent is as himself (i. e. that his actions are legally of the same effect as though they were carried out by those for whom he acts the order) (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 23).

ונשא חטאו. בְּכָרֵת כְּשֶׁאֵין הַתְרָאָה:

ונשא חטאו [WHOSOEVER EXECRATETH HIS GOD] SHALL BEAR HIS SIN — i. e. shall be punished with excision if there was no legal warning preceding the offence (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 6; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 20:27).

ונקב שם. אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְלֹא הַמְקַלֵּל בְּכִנוּי (סנהדרין נ"ו):

ונקב שם AND HE THAT UTTERETH BLASPHEMOUSLY THE NAME [OF THE LORD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — He is not liable to the death-penalty at the hand of the judges unless he utters the Divine Tetragrammaton blasphemously, but not if he execrateth the Lord by only mention of one of the substitutes for the Divine name (e. g., רחום, חנון, אל etc.), (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 5; Sanhedrin 56a).

ונקב. לְשׁוֹן קְלָלָה כְּמוֹ (במדבר כ"ג) "מָה אֶקֹּב" (סנהדרין נ"ו):

ונקב here is an expression denoting “cursing”, like (Numbers 23:8) “How shall I curse (אקב) [when God hath not cursed]” (Sanhedrin 56a).

ואיש כי יכה. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת (שמות כ"א), אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הָאִישׁ, אִשָּׁה וְקָטָן מִנַּיִן? תַּ"לֹ "כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם":

ואיש כי יכה AND HE THAT KILLETH [ANY MAN SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Because it is said (Exodus 21:12) “Whosoever smiteth a man so that he die [shall surely be put to death]” I might say that I have here only the law that if one kills a man he is punishable with death; whence, however, do I know that this is also the case if he kills a woman or a child? Because Scripture states here: “[and he that killeth] any person (more lit., the soul of any human being)” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 20 1; cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12).

כן ינתן בו. פֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נְתִינַת מוּם מַמָּשׁ אֶלָּא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי מָמוֹן, שָׁמִין אוֹתוֹ כְּעֶבֶד, לְכָךְ כָּתוּב בּוֹ לְשׁוֹן נְתִינָה — דָּבָר הַנָּתוּן מִיָּד לְיָד (בבא קמא פ"ד; כתובות ל"ב):

כן ינתן בו [AND IF A MAN CAUSES A BLEMISH IN HIS COMPANION…] SO SHALL IT BE DONE TO HIM — Our Rabbis explained that this does not mean the actual infliction of a blemish but that it means monetary compensation — that we estimate his (the injured man’s) value as a slave and the offender has to pay the difference between his value as an unmaimed man and that which he represents after the infliction of the injury. It is for this reason that the term נתן “to give” is written here referring to something that is given (passed) from hand to hand viz., money (Ketubot 32b; Bava Kamma 84a).

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה. לְמַעְלָה דִּבֵּר בְּהוֹרֵג בְּהֵמָה וְכָאן דִּבֵּר בְּעוֹשֶׂה בָהּ חַבּוּרָה:

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST, HE SHALL PAY FOR IT — Above (v. 18) Scripture was speaking of one who kills a beast, whilst here it speaks of one who inflicts a wound up on it (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12).

ומכה אדם יומת. אֲפִלּוּ לֹא הֲרָגוֹ אֶלָּא עָשָׂה בוֹ חַבּוּרָה, שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר כָּאן נֶפֶשׁ; וּבְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב, וּבָא לְהַקִּישׁוֹ לְמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה, מַה מַּכֵּה בְהֵמָה מֵחַיִּים, אַף מַכֵּה אָבִיו מֵחַיִּים, פְּרָט לְמַכֶּה לְאַחַר מִיתָה; לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁהַמְקַלְּלוֹ לְאַחַר מִיתָה חַיָּב, הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר בַּמַּכֶּה שֶׁפָּטוּר, וּמַה בִּבְהֵמָה בְּחַבָּלָה, שֶׁאִם אֵין חַבָּלָה אֵין תַּשְׁלוּמִין, אַף מַכֵּה אָבִיו אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶֹה בוֹ חַבּוּרָה (ספרא; סנהדרין פ"ד):

ומכה אדם יומת AND HE THAT SMITETH A MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH — although he has not killed him but only inflicted a wound upon him, because Scripture does not state מכה] נפש] (as it does in v. 17 which implies “smiting of the soul” — killing). Scripture is speaking here of one who smites his father or his mother when he is punishable with death for mere smiting without fatal result (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:15). It is true that the punishment for this offence has already been stated (Exodus 21:17) but Scripture intends by putting this case in juxtaposition with מכה בהמה to put it in some respect on a level with the case of one who smites a beast. How is it in the case of one who smites a beast? He is subject to the law only if he smote it while it was alive! So, too, is one who smites his father (or his mother) punishable only if he smites them whilst they are alive, thus excluding from the death penalty one who smites them after their death. Because we find that he who curses him (the father; — the same applies to the mother) after death is liable to the death penalty (cf. Rashi Leviticus 20:9), Scripture was compelled to state with reference to one who smites his parents that he is exempt from the death penalty if he does this after their death (as stated above). And there is another point of comparison: How is it in the case of a beast? The law speaks only of smiting resulting in a wound! — for if there is no wound resulting no compensation can be claimed — so, too, he who smites his father is not liable to the death penalty unless he inflicts a wound upon him (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 8; Sanhedrin 84a, 85b).

אני ה' אלהיכם. אֱלֹהֵי כֻלְּכֶם, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲנִי מְיַחֵד שְׁמִי עֲלֵיכֶם, כָּךְ אֲנִי מְיַחֲדוֹ עַל הַגֵּרִים:

‎'אני ה אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — your God — the God of all of you. Just as I attach My Name to you, so do I attach it to the strangers.

ובני ישראל עשו. כָּל הַמִּצְוָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּסְּקִילָה בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר — דְּחִיָּה, רְגִימָה וּתְלִיָּה (עי' ספרא; סנהדרין מ"ג):

ובני ישראל עשו AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID [AS THE LORD COMMANDED MOSES] every prescription mentioned in respect to the stoning-penalty in another place, viz., the casting down of the culprit from a height, the heaping of stones upon him, and the hanging him after the execution has taken place (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 10; Sanhedrin 43a).