Makkos Daf 8 מאקוס דַף 8

In the next Mishnah, Abba Shaul says: מה חטבת עצים רשות אף כל רשות – just as the Torah’s example of chopping wood is voluntary, so too all acts must be voluntary to incur galus. יצא האב המכה את בנו והרב הרודה את תלמידו ושליח ב"ד – This excludes a father striking his son, a Rebbe disciplining his student, and a shaliach of Beis Din administering malkus, and the victim died. Rava was asked, how does Abba Shaul know the passuk discusses voluntary chopping wood? Perhaps it includes chopping wood to build a sukkah, or for the מזבח’s fire, which is a mitzvah? Rava answered: כיון דאם מצא חטוב לאו מצוה – since if he found already chopped wood, it is not a mitzvah to chop more, השתא נמי לאו מצוה – now too, where he needs to chop wood for a mitzvah, [chopping] is not a mitzvah, but preparatory. Striking one’s son, however, is a mitzvah even when it is unnecessary for his learning. Alternatively, Rava says the word "אשר" – “if,” implies that the person’s entry into the forest was voluntary.

The next Mishnah states: האב גולה על ידי הבן – a father is exiled for accidentally killing his son (who was his father’s apprentice for carpentry, and already had a trade), והבן גולה ע"י האב – and a son is exiled for accidentally killing his father. A Baraisa contradicts this second ruling: "מכה נפש" – one who strikes a person dead, פרט למכה אביו – this excludes one who strikes his father from exile!? Rav Kahana answers that they reflect a machlokes: the Baraisa is Rebbe Shimon’s view, that חנק חמור מסייף – execution by strangulation is more severe than beheading. Since one is killed with חנק for merely wounding his father, Rebbe Shimon holds intentionally killing him also incurs חנק (since it is more severe). Therefore, he is not exiled for accidentally killing him, because שגגת חנק – an accidental transgression normally subject to strangulation is not ניתן לכפרה – given to atonement (through galus). Our Mishnah is the Rabbonon’s view, that סייף is more severe than חנק, so one who intentionally kills his father incurs the standard סייף, and is exiled for killing him בשוגג. Rava answers that the Baraisa discusses one who merely wounded his father, teaching that although intentionally wounding a father incurs the death penalty (חנק), doing so בשוגג does not incur galus.

The Mishnah stated that "הכל" – everyone is exiled for killing a Yisroel. This comes to include an עבד כנעני and a כותי, as a Baraisa teaches: עבד וכותי גולה ולוקה על ידי ישראל – a slave or a כותי is exiled and receives malkus for what he does to a Yisroel, וישראל גולה ולוקה על ידי כותי ועבד – and a Yisroel is exiled and receives malkus for what he does to a slave or a כותי (this Tanna holds כותים were legal converts). It is understood that an עבד or כותי would be exiled for killing a Yisroel, and receive malkus for cursing him. But although a Yisroel who accidentally kills a כותי would be exiled, why would he receive malkus for cursing him, since the passuk prohibiting cursing says "בעמך" – among your nation, teaching: בעושה מעשה עמך – the prohibition only applies with one who acts with the conduct of your people (i.e., the mitzvos), which כותים do not!? It also cannot refer to malkus for עדים זוממין, since the parallel case, a slave, is not an eligible witness!? The Gemara concludes that the case is שהכהו הכאה שאין בה שוה פרוטה – he struck him a blow whose compensation is less than a perutah. Since no payment is made, he receive malkus for the aveirah of striking a Jew.