Why do we need both this Pasuk and "Ki Yimatzei Ish Gonev Nefesh" (Ki Seitzei, Devarim 24:7)?
Rashi: Our Pasuk teaches us that a woman, a Tumtum (someone whose sexual organs are covered) or an Androginus (a hermaphrodite
Whar are the implications of the word "u'Mecharo"?
Mechilta: He is only Chayav if he sold him completely, not only half of him. 1
To preclude a Chatzi Eved and Chatzi ben Chorin. See Torah Temimah, note 126.
What are the Implications of "ve'Nimtza be'Yado"?
Rashi and Targum Yonasan: It implies that witnesses saw the victim in the kidnapper's possession before he sold him. 1
Ramban (citing Sanhedrin, 85b): It implies that he is only Chayav if he actually takes him into his domain prior to selling him. 2
Mechilta: It implies that he is only Chayav if he takes his victim into his domain, but precludes someone who kidnaps his own son, who is already in his domain.
The Ramban objects to this explanation, since it is obvious that, without witnesses who saw the kidnapping and the sale, he will not be Chayav Misah! However the Mechiltas Darshens 'Ein Metzi'a Ela be'Ridim; Ein be'Yado Ela bi'Reshuso'.
So that when subsequently selling him, he transfers him from his domain to that of the purchaser (See Ramban).
Which of the four Chayvei Misos Beis-Din is the kidnapper Chayav?
Rashi: He is Chayav Chenek (strangulation). 1
Rashi (citing Sanhedrin, 84b): Because every S'tam Misah in the Torah refers to Chenek.
Why does the Torah write kidnapping in between striking one's parents and cursing them?
Ramban citing R. Sa'adya Ga'on, Rosh and Hadar Zekenim #1: One who kidnaps a child and causes him to grow up among others, he is estranged from his parents, and may come to strike and curse them without even realizing that they are his parents 1 .
Riva citing Tosfos Shantz, Hadar Zekenim #2: The Torah teaches Aveiros of increasing severity. One is liable for murder, and one who strikes a parent for a mere wound, and a kidnapper without any blow, and cursing a parent without even touching.
Riva #1, Hadar Zekenim #3: One Aveirah causes the next. Amidst striking a colleague, one comes to strike his father. Beis Din sentences him to death; he flees and kidnaps, for he does not know a trade. The kidnapped child does not know his parents, and may come to curse them, or the kidnapper himself might do so when he is caught to be executed.
Riva #2, Da'as Zekenim: A kidnapper and one who strikes parents are choked; one who curses parents is put afterwards, for he is stoned. Kidnapping was not put before striking parents 2 , in order to put striking [and killing] next to striking parents.
Rashi, Ramban, Hadar Zekenim #4, Moshav Zekenim (17): Kidnapping interrupts, lest we learn stoning from striking parents from cursing parents. 3
Ramban: Consequently, the kidnapper deserves the same punishment as the child who strikes his parents.
Presumably, it would be good to do so in order to put striking parents next to cursing parents. (PF)
Rashi, Moshav Zekenim: There is an argument about this. One opinion learns to obligate one who strikes one parent from a Hekesh to cursing. The other opinion obligates choking for striking parents; he does not learn from cursing.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "Ish Gonev Nefesh" obligates a man who kidnaps a woman or minor, and our verse obligates for a woman who kidnaps a man. What is the source for a woman who kidnaps a woman?
Riva, from Sanhedrin 85b: We learn from "u'Mes ha'Ganav ha'Hu."
Rashi writes that our verse obligates a woman who kidnaps. Why is this needed? Men are equated to women for all punishments in the Torah!
Moshav Zekenim (17, citing Ri): This is only when the Torah wrote in the masculine, but when it says "Ish", this excludes women. 1 Hadar Zekenim, Riva, citing R"A - this is why a Drashah was needed to teach that women can pledge Erchin.
Moshav Zekenim: Likewise, we need verse 17 to obligate a woman who curses her parents.