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 c