The Torah states in Parashat Mishpatim (Shemot 21:15), “One who strikes his father or mother shall be put to death,” establishing that striking one’s parent constitutes a capital offense. Tradition teaches that the phrase “Mot Yumat” (“shall be put to death”), unless otherwise stated, refers to Henek (strangulation), and thus one who intentionally strikes his parent is liable to Henek. This applies only to striking in a manner which results in bleeding. Normally, when a person strikes his fellow, he is required to make certain compensatory payments to the victim. Striking a parent, however, is a far more grievous offense, given the respect and gratitude one owes to his parents, and thus the Torah legislates that striking a parent is punishable by death.
There is a general rule that a violator cannot be punished unless there is an “Azhara (“warning”), meaning, unless the Torah issues a clear command not to commit the act in question. In the case of striking a parent, the Torah states that this offense is punishable by death, but nowhere does it explicitly command that one is not allowed to strike his parent. The Sages explain that the prohibition against striking a parent is included in the command of “Arba’im Yakenu, Lo Yosif” (Debarim 25:3), which forbids exceeding the number of lashes administered to a violator receiving Malkut. If the Torah commands the person administering the lashes not to strike the violator beyond that which he deserves, then certainly, it is prohibited to strike one’s parent.
Needless to say, this prohibition applies at all times and in all locations, and to both males and females.
The Gemara observes that the Torah requires putting to death one who strikes his father even though it cannot be proven that the victim was his father. As opposed to a mother, whom people saw deliver the child and can thus be proven to be a person’s mother, a man is identified as a person’s father only by force of a Hazaka (presumption). Since they have a father-son relationship, and people know them to be father and son, we presume that this is indeed the case. On this basis, the Gemara proves that Bet Din can punish based on a Hazaka, even if there no ironclad proof.
In the case of a convert, the Torah command not to strike one’s parent does not, technically speaking, apply. The rule of “Ger She’nitgayer Ke’katan She’nolad Dami” establishes that once a gentile converts and becomes a Jew, he loses all familial relationships. He is considered to have been newly “born” at the time of his conversion, and thus, Halachically speaking, he is no longer related to his biological family members. Thus, as far as Torah law is concerned, a convert who strikes his parent is considered no different from one who strikes somebody else. Nevertheless, the Sages enacted that he must treat his parents with respect – and, it goes without saying, refrain from hurting them – so people do not say that he became less respectful after converting to Judaism.
If a father, for whatever reason, never underwent circumcision, and his son is a Mohel, would it be permissible for the son to circumcise him? Does the Misva of circumcision override the prohibition against inflicting a wound in one’s parent, or is inflicting a wound forbidden even for the sake of the Misva of Berit Mila?
Some tried drawing proof from the fact that the Misva of Berit Mila overrides the Shabbat prohibitions. Even though Shabbat desecration constitutes a capital offense, the Torah allows – and requires – performing Berit Mila on Shabbat, despite the fact that inflicting a wound is normally forbidden on Shabbat. This would seemingly prove that the Misva of Berit Mila overrides also the prohibition of inflicting a wound in one’s parent, which is similarly a capital offense. In truth, however, this proof is hardly compelling, because a Berit Mila may be performed on Shabbat only if it takes place on Bi’zmanah – at the ideal time, on the child’s eighth day. If a child did not undergo circumcision on the eighth day, and the Berit is being performed later, it may not be performed on Shabbat. Quite obviously, if a son is circumcising his father, this Berit is taking place well after the father’s eighth day, and there is no proof that such a Berit Mila overrides a severe Torah prohibition.
Another argument that has been advanced is that Berit Mila should override this prohibition just as Berit Mila overrides the prohibition against removing a Sara’at (leprosy) infection. The Torah forbids surgically removing a piece of skin infected with Sara’at, but nevertheless, if such an infection appears on the foreskin, the Berit Mila is performed. Similarly, perhaps, the Misva of Berit Mila should override the prohibition against inflicting a wound in one’s parent. However, the Rabbis noted a clear distinction between the two cases. In the situation of Sara’at on the foreskin, there is no guarantee that the infection will ever disappear, and thus the Misva of Berit Mila might never be performed if it is not allowed when a Sara’at infection is present. When it comes to circumcising one’s father, however, it is possible to wait until a different Mohel is available, and so perhaps the son should not be allowed to perform the Berit Mila.
Yet a third argument is that circumcising one’s father should be no different from performing a medical procedure for one’s parent which causes bleeding. In principle, Halacha allows a child to perform such a procedure for his parent, and thus, seemingly, just as this is allowed for Refu’at Ha’guf – bodily healing, it should be allowed as well for Refu’at Ha’nefesh – healing of the soul, meaning, the performance of a Misva.
It should be noted, however, that in practice, Halacha does not allow a child to perform a medical procedure on a parent that will cause the parent to bleed, unless nobody else is available to perform the procedure. Although this is, technically, permissible, nevertheless, there is a chance that the child might cause slightly more bleeding than necessary for the procedure, such as if he accidentally makes a larger or deeper incision than he needs to. This extra blood-letting, which does not serve a medical purpose, would violate the prohibition, and so Halacha generally forbids performing such a procedure for one’s parent. (This applies also to giving injections; a child should not give his parent an injection, due to the concern of causing more bleeding than is necessary, unless nobody else is available.) By the same token, then, a Mohel should not circumcise his father, unless no other Mohel is available.
In a case where nobody else is available to perform the medical procedure or the Berit, the child should first ask the parent Mehila, to waive the obligations owed to him or her as a parent.