Exodus 21:15

And he who woundeth his father or his mother shall die by strangling.

AND HE THAT SMITETH HIS FATHER, OR HIS MOTHER, SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. Our Sages have already taught that his death is by strangulation. This is why He placed next to it, And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, for he too is punished by the same death. He separated it from the later verse, And he that curseth his father or his mother, because his death is by stoning, as it is said concerning him, he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him, and whenever such an expression [his blood be upon him] is used about someone, his death is by stoning, this being derived from that which is written, They shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them., Verse 27. The reason why He was more severe as to the manner of death of the one who curses his mother or father than as to the manner of death of one who smites them, is because the sin of cursing is more common, for when the fool gets angry he frets himself and curses by his king and father and mother the whole day, and a crime that is frequently committed needs a greater punishment [than one rarely committed]. Or it may be that cursing involves a greater sin, because he uses the Name of G-d, and therefore he has to be punished for his sin against his father and mother, and also for taking G-d’s Name in transgression and sin. Now the Gaon Rav Saadia, Note 229. said, that the reason why He placed the matter of stealing a human being between that of smiting one’s parents and cursing them, is because most people are kidnapped when they are young, and they grow up in a strange place unaware of who their parents are, and thus they may come to smite them or to curse them [not knowing that they are their parents]; therefore it is fitting that the thief too be punished by death as they are, since he is responsible for the punishment that is visited upon the child [who smites or curses either of his parents, and for that reason the verse dealing with the thief’s punishment is mentioned between those dealing with smiting one’s parents and cursing them].

ומכה אביו, our sages say that the penalty prescribed applies only if an injury results from hitting one’s parents (Sanhedrin 84).

ומכה אביו ואמו, “and if someone strikes his father or his mother;” the Torah here spells out the penalty, i.e. legal execution, without even having informed us that this is forbidden, an unusual construction. This question is raised by the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 54. We have a rule that no court can convict a sinner except where the Torah has warned us of the sin in question being a sin. Granted that in the case of someone cursing a crowned head or even a deaf person who cannot even hear the curse, is forbidden, i.e. both a low-ranking person and a high ranking person must not be cursed, it is obvious that the same rule applies to social strata in between, and therefore each strata does not need to be written separately; compare (Exodus 22,7 and Leviticus 19,7) but where did the Torah spell out the prohibition to strike a human being without the penalty being spelled out simultaneously? We must fall back on Deuteronomy 25,3, where the Torah warns the court’s clerk not to apply more than the permitted number of lashes to a person convicted of these. If in the case where the physical punishment is mandatory even a minutely excessive force is specifically forbidden, it is clear that striking someone without the consent or even instruction by the court is forbidden, how much more so is striking someone without such legal cover forbidden! In fact, concerning the subject of physical punishment, the halachah is according to the view of Rabbi Meir, who said that if someone is guilty of two penalties, both physical punishment and a financial penalty, (and we do not apply both for the same sin) the physical punishment is not administered. (Talmud, tractate Ketuvot, folio 32) The only exception is if the financial penalty amounts to less that the lowest coin in circulation at the time in the country. In this respect, the halachah does not treat sins committed against father or mother differently from offences committed against someone else. If you were to ask that seeing the verse deals with the prohibition of striking one’s father, a sin which carries the death penalty, how could anyone have even imagined that the penalty would be 39 lashes, seeing that we have a rule that physical lashes are never an option for committing such a sin, (compare Talmud tractate Makkot folio 13), the answer is that we have two different expressions in the verse dealing with that subject in Deuteronomy 25,3. It says both: ארבעים יכנו לא יוסיף,, as well as פן יוסיף להכותו על …