The Torah in Parashat Kedoshim (20:19) establishes that cursing one’s parent constitutes a capital crime, and is punishable by Sekila (execution by stoning). The Sefer Ha’hinuch explains that this verse merely establishes the punishment for this offense; the actual command forbidden cursing one’s parent is derived from a series of earlier commands, which forbid cursing people generally. (Specifically, the Torah forbids cursing judges and kings (“Elohim Lo Tekalel, Ve’nasi Be’amecha Lo Ta’or” – Shemot 22:27), and then forbids cursing any person – “Lo Tekalel Heresh” Vayikra 19:14), and thus cursing a parent is subsumed under these commands.) It is forbidden to curse one’s parent even after the parent’s passing. This is in contrast to the prohibition against striking a parent, which applies only during a parent’s lifetime. One who curses a parent with one of the Names of G-d (such as “Havaya” or “Elokim”) is liable to Sekila. If one curses a parent invoking not an actual Name of G-d, but rather a “Kinui” – an indirect reference to G-d, such as “Hanun” (“Gracious One”) or “Rahum” (“Merciful One”) – then he is liable to Malkut. Cursing a grandparent falls under the general prohibition against cursing one’s fellow, and not under the special prohibition against cursing one’s parent. Occasionally, when two litigants stand trial, one can impose upon the other a “Shebu’at Ala” – an oath that consists of a curse, whereby the litigant declares that if he speaks untruthfully, G-d should bring upon him such-and-such calamity. If a parent and child are in court with a legal dispute, the child may not impose such an oath upon the parent, as he in effect is cursing his parent. Just as one may not curse his parent, he may not embarrass or degrade the parent in any way. Bet Din has the authority to administer lashes to somebody who belittles and disrespects his parent. In the case of a Shetuki – a child whose father’s identity is uncertain, as there are questions regarding the mother’s fidelity – who curses his presumed father, he is not liable to “Sekila,” as it is uncertain whether the presumed father is truly his father. Needless to say, he would be liable to “Sekila” if he cursed his mother. A “Mamzer” is liable to Sekila if he curses his parent. Even though his parents produced him through a forbidden act, nevertheless, since they are his biological parents, they are included in the prohibition against cursing parents. If a non-Jewish woman undergoes conversion while pregnant, the child is not liable to “Sekila” if he curses the mother, even though she delivered him when she was already a Jewess. The reason is that since he is not, on the level of Torah law, forbidden from cursing his father, he is also not liable for cursing his mother. The special prohibition against cursing one’s parent is binding only if it applies to both the father and the mother; therefore, in this case, where it does not apply to the father, it also does not apply to the mother. In the case of a “Shetuki,” however, as discussed earlier, the prohibition is inapplicable to the father only because it is uncertain whether he is truly the father, and therefore, the prohibition is applicable to the mother. The reason why the child is not, on the level of Torah law, forbidden from cursing his father in this case stems from the principle of “Ger She’nitgayer Ke’katan She’nolad Dameh” – a person is considered “born anew” upon converting to Judaism. As such, he loses all prior familial relationships as far as Halacha is concerned. Therefore, a convert’s parent is not regarded as his parent. Nevertheless, the Sages enacted that he must continue respecting his parents – not to mention that he may not curse them – as it would bring shame upon the Jewish religion if converts stopped respecting their parents after converting. People will see a convert who had respected his parents before his conversion disrespecting them after his conversion, and will conclude that Judaism is a l