Q&A: Striking and Drawing Blood for the Sake of Self-Defense
Striking and Drawing Blood for the Sake of Self-Defense
Question
“One who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death”—
specifically when he draws blood.
If his father or mother are hitting him, and for the sake of self-defense he gets up and hits them back, then of course in the course of mutual blows and attempts at self-protection it is hard to judge every slap and every punch individually; rather, there is an aggressor and there is someone defending himself.
The son is defending himself, and of course he hits back and even draws blood.
Is he liable to the death penalty?
Or on the contrary, did he do something proper, decent, desirable, and upright?
Answer
This is dealing with a minor son, since with an adult son it is forbidden to hit him. With a minor son, strictly speaking, parents are permitted to hit him, and as long as they are not going overboard he has no right to defend himself. If he was not acting under duress, then apparently he would indeed also be liable to the death penalty. However, nowadays, since the law forbids it and it is accepted that this is not the right thing to do, it is reasonable that parents now do not have permission to hit him, and therefore the son may defend himself.
Discussion on Answer
There is no nullification here, only a change in circumstances that dictates a different application. There are many examples of this, and that basic innovation is not such a big one.
According to the Rabbi’s words,
the law, in a roundabout way, or at least rabbinic law, has nullified a Torah-level Jewish law.
That is a major novelty.