We continue in the seventh chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin, with Mishnah 8 (and according to the division of the Bavli - a continuation of Mishnah 4). One of the transgressions listed among those punished by stoning is "hamechalel et haShabbat" - one who desecrates the Shabbat. The Mishnah defines what type of Shabbat desecration is involved: "bedavar shechayav al zedono karet ve'al shigato chatat" - for a matter that one is liable to karet for its intentional violation, and a chatat offering for its unintentional violation.
That is to say, the transgression for which a person may be liable to stoning is that type of Shabbat desecration whose law is karet - being cut off by Heaven or early death - when he did so intentionally but without witnesses and a warning; whereas if he transgressed unintentionally, not knowing that the day was Shabbat or not knowing that this act was a forbidden labor, he brings a chatat offering.
To which case is the Mishnah referring?
Seemingly, this definition is correct regarding all thirty-nine forbidden labors: anyone who transgresses a Torah prohibition of desecrating the Shabbat is subject to the liability of karet or a chatat offering. What, then, does the Mishnah come to exclude by emphasizing this condition? The answer is that there are several opinions in the words of the Tanna'im that the Mishnah takes into account, even though the halachah does not follow any of them:
The opinion of Rabbi Akiva - going outside the boundary: The halachah is that one may not go beyond two thousand amot around the perimeter of the city, which is the boundary, as we learned in Tractate Eruvin. According to Rabbi Akiva, this restriction is from the Torah, and thus one who goes outside the boundary transgresses a Torah prohibition, yet he is not liable to stoning.
The opinion of Rabbi Yosi HaGelili - kindling: In his opinion, even one who kindles a fire on Shabbat is not liable to karet, a chatat offering, or stoning. His reasoning: The Torah does not explicitly list the rest of the thirty-nine forbidden labors, whereas regarding kindling it explicitly states "lo teva'aru esh" - you shall not kindle fire. From this, Rabbi Yosi HaGelili derived that the verse separated this labor from the rest of the labors and was lenient regarding it. The halachah is also not decided according to this opinion, and thus the Mishnah in its plain sense is not the halachah.
Driving an animal: There is a Torah prohibition on Shabbat for which one is not liable to karet or stoning, and that is the prohibition of driving an animal - a person who leads his animal and brings it to perform labor, such as carrying a burden in the public domain on Shabbat. The verse says, "You shall not do any work, you... and your animal," and from here it is incumbent upon a person to ensure that even his animal does not perform labor. Seemingly, this is what is being discussed, except that regarding driving an animal, the person himself does not desecrate the Shabbat but rather the animal does, and therefore this is not the exact intention of the Mishnah; nevertheless, this is a case of Torah-level Shabbat desecration that does not carry the liability of karet and stoning. This concludes the first part of the Mishnah.
One who curses his father and his mother:
The second part of the Mishnah deals with another law from those listed in Mishnah 4 (and in the Bavli it is brought as a Mishnah of its own): "hamekalel aviv ve'imo eino chayav ad sheyekalelam baShem" - one who curses his father and his mother is not liable until he curses them with the Name. One who curses his parents is not liable unless he used the Name of Hashem, and specifically one of the seven Names that may not be erased.
If he said to his father or to his mother, "May Hashem strike you," while using the Name of Hashem, or if he used one of the Names: Shaddai, E-loah, E-l, E-lokim, Tzevaot, or Eheyeh - he is liable to stoning, as this is the prohibition to which the Mishnah refers.
But if he did not use the Name, but rather used a foreign term or a substitute - such as "the Merciful One," Compassionate, Gracious, and the like - there is no liability of stoning for this, and nevertheless it carries lashes, since one who curses any Jew in such a manner is liable to lashes. The special liability of stoning for parents only applies with the use of the Name of Hashem, as arises from the verses.
At this point, the Mishnah brings a dispute: What is the law of one who curses with a substitute, with one of the words describing the conduct of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and His attributes, such as Compassionate and Gracious? Rabbi Meir deems him liable to stoning even for this, and the Sages say he is not liable - and the halachah is decided in accordance with them.
The severity of one who curses compared to one who strikes:
It is worth noting that cursing one's parents is more severe than striking and wounding them in two ways:
Severity of punishment: Stoning is prescribed for cursing one's parents, but not for striking them. The reason for this is that cursing also involves the Name of Hashem, and this is what makes the act more severe.
After death: The prohibition against cursing one's parents applies even after they have passed away, which is not the case with striking them - since there is no death penalty at all for striking deceased parents.