The Gemoro (Sanhedrin 66a) attempts to learn the prohibition to curse one's father, e.g. from issuring to curse nosi and dayan, and later limudim.
Why does the Gemoro say this would apply to cursing a father, rather than cursing any Jew?
("Af ani ovi Ovicho shebeAmcha")
(I saw that Tosfos on omud beis learns cursing a chaver from a father, but why could the limudim on omud aleph not go straight to a chaver?)
Gmar chasima Tova
Meir Eliezer Bergman
Manchester UK
It seems to me that the Gemara could not say that it applies to cursing any Jew, because if so the Gemara could have asked a Pircha on the Limud from Nasi and Dayan, as follows: One cannot learn a Binyan Av from Nasi and Dayan because we could say that both Nasi and Dayan have a "Tzad Chamur" -- the Tzad Chamur of Nasi is that one is Chayav Misah for defying his command, and the Tzad Chamur of Dayan is that one is Chayav Misah for not following his Hora'ah. An ordinary Jew has no such Tzad Chamur. In contrast, the father does have a Tzad Chamur -- namely, that "Hukash Kevodo l'Kavod ha'Makom," his honor is equal to the honor of Hash-m, as Rashi (DH she'Ken writes). Therefore, the Gemara only learns cursing the father from the Tzad ha'Shaveh, not from an ordinary Jew.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Rav David,
This was wonderful to learn. Tizke lamitzvot and shana tova!
1) I looked more into this Sugya and saw that the Chidushei ha'Ran here writes that when the Gemara says, "If it is not needed for itself, learn it for his father" ("Tenehu l'Aviv"), this does not actually mean only his father, but really it means any Jew. The Ran writes that the reason why the Gemara mentions the father is that the father is included in the prohibition, since he is no less than any Yisrael.
2) The Maharsha (66b, DH v'Da) cites a dispute between Rashi to Vayikra 19:14 and the Ramban there. The verse there states, "Do not curse a deaf person," and Rashi writes that the prohibition against cursing anyone else is derived from Shemos 22:27, "In your people you shall not curse." The Ramban writes that what Rashi writes is not consistent with our Gemara. However, the Maharsha cites the Mizrachi on the above Ramban who defends Rashi, but the Maharsha criticizes the Mizrachi on a certain point that he makes -- namely, the Mizrachi writes that the prohibiton against cursing the rest of the people is derived in our Sugya from, "'Do not curse Elokim' -- if this is not required for itself, learn it for the rest of the people" ("Tenehu l'She'ar ha'Am"). The Maharsha writes that the Mizrachi was inaccurate in writing "Tenehu l'She'ar ha'Am" because the Gemara does not actually say that. Rather, the Gemara states "Tenehu l'Aviv" -- "learn it for his father." The Maharsha writes that the reason why the father is different is that his honor is compared to the honor of Hash-m. He adds that this is stated by Tosfos (beginning of 66b), who says that we learn it from Cheresh and the father, after the Torah revealed this through the father. (This is in fact what I wrote in my first reply. Baruch she'Kivanti to the words of the Maharsha! -DB)
3) So we see that there is a dispute between the Maharsha and the Mizrachi. According to the Maharsha, the words "Tenehu l'Aviv" are to be taken literally -- that one learns only the father directly from this Limud, while according to the Mizrachi the Limud goes directly to the Chaver. The Mizrachi has the Chidushei ha'Ran (and it would seem the Ramban also) on his side, while the Maharsha has Tosfos (and possibly Rashi also) on his side.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom