Sanhedrin 85: Strangers, Sons, Kutim, Jews... Who is Exempt and Who is Liable?

Yesterday we discussed the implications of  fathers, sons, honour, and legal rulings to punish by death.  Today the rabbis begin by asking whether a stranger should have more rights than a son when it comes to lashing a father.  Is it more important to honour G-d and punish those who have transgressed or to keep the halacha regarding hitting or cursing another Jew?  Or a parent?   These questions are applied to sons and strangers who hit and/or curse that son's parent.  We learn in the end that a child is not permitted to hurt his/her parents.

We learn Rav Sheshet's teaching: one is liable to be punished even if one curses or embarrasses another person while that person is sleeping and then dies.  There is no opportunity for this person to become embarrassed, so why is one liable?  Because the dead man's children might be embarrassed.  How much more so should we be careful not to embarrass someone who is able to hear us?

A new Mishna refers back to our last Mishna and the conditions for strangling as a punishment.  We learn that one who wounds his father or mother is not liable unless there is a wound.  However, this suggests that cursing is more dangerous than hitting.  One is liable for cursing one's parent after s/he has died.  One is not liable for wounding one's parent after death, however.  

As part of the Gemara's discussion, we learn that a baraita taught that one of the proofs for this reasoning is in the words, "Ish Ish".  While it might translate to "anyone" or "everyone", Rabbi Yoshiya claims that this includes a daughter, a tumtum (someone who's gender is indiscriminate), an androgynous (one who has more than one set of genitals).  If any of these people curse their parent, they are liable.  

This point is argued.  Perhaps it is a doubling of words, just like how people speak.  Interesting that the rabbis are able to justify the use of a double-word when it suits their interpretation.  This turns into a conversation about whether cursing or hitting is more stringent and whether the two actions might be interchangeable.  The rabbis note that Kutim, Samaritans, are not to be wounded or cursed.  Are they close to being Jews?  Are they held to the same laws and expectations?   Notes by Steinsaltz suggest that there was a debate about whether or not the Kutim were considered to be part of the larger Jewish community.  At this point in time, there are 700 Kutim people left, all in Israel, and they are respected as a separate religious group by the Jewish and Arab communities.  

A second new Mishna is introduced discussing one who kidnaps a Jew.  Is that person liable immediately, or not until he takes that person into his home?  Or until he makes the Jew work?  Or if he also kidnaps the person's son?  What about kidnapping a half-slave?  The rabbis consider the gender of the slave, the gender of the kidnapper, the value of one's work.  They also wonder about the status of a fetus sold while it is inside of its pregnant mother.  That fetus might be called to "work" by blocking the wind of one who sleeps beside the mother.