מִשֶּׁל מִי רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר מִשֶּׁל בֵּן רַב נָתָן בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר מִשֶּׁל אָב אוֹרוֹ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב יִרְמְיָה וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַב יִרְמְיָה כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשֶּׁל אָב From whose funds must one give his father food and drink? Rav Yehuda says: From the money of the son. Rav Natan bar Oshaya said: From the money of the father. The Sages gave this following ruling to Rav Yirmeya, and some say they gave this following ruling to the son of Rav Yirmeya: The halakha is like the one who says it must be paid from the money of the father.
מֵיתִיבִי נֶאֱמַר כַּבֵּד אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אִמֶּךָ וְנֶאֱמַר כַּבֵּד אֶת ה' מֵהוֹנֶךָ מָה לְהַלָּן בְּחֶסְרוֹן כִּיס אַף כָּאן בְּחֶסְרוֹן כִּיס וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשֶּׁל אָב מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ לְבִיטּוּל מְלָאכָה The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: It is stated: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), and it is stated: “Honor the Lord with your wealth” (Proverbs 3:9), which teaches the following verbal analogy: Just as there one honors God “with your wealth,” i.e., through monetary loss, so too here one must honor his father through monetary loss. And if you say that one honors him from the money of the father, what difference does it make to the son, i.e., what monetary loss does he suffer? The Gemara answers: It makes a difference to him with regard to the neglect of his work. Although he is not required to spend his own money, the son must leave aside his work to honor his father, which will cause him some financial loss.
תָּא שְׁמַע שְׁנֵי אַחִים שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין הָאָב וּבְנוֹ הָרַב וְתַלְמִידוֹ פּוֹדִין זֶה לָזֶה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּמַאֲכִילִין זֶה לָזֶה מַעְשַׂר עָנִי The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Two brothers, or two partners in the ownership of produce, or a father and son, or a rabbi and his student, may redeem the second tithe for each other without adding one-fifth, as one who redeems the tithe of another, including these individuals, is not required to add one-fifth. And they may feed each other the poor man’s tithe. If one of them is poor, the other may give him the poor man’s tithe that he separated from his produce, and it is not considered as though the pauper ate the poor man’s tithe from his own produce.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשֶּׁל בֵּן נִמְצָא זֶה פּוֹרֵעַ חוֹבוֹ מִשֶּׁל עֲנִיִּים לָא צְרִיכָא לְהַעְדָּפָה The Gemara explains the proof from this baraita. And if you say that the obligation to honor one’s father is from the money of the son, one finds that this son repays his obligation from the produce of the poor, as he is taking care of his father with produce that should go to the poor. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where he has covered all of his father’s basic needs with his own money. At this stage, if his father needs surplus money, he may give it to him from the poor man’s tithe.
אִי הָכִי הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה תָּבֹא מְאֵירָה לְמִי שֶׁמַּאֲכִיל אֶת אָבִיו מַעְשַׂר עָנִי וְאִי לְהַעְדָּפָה מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא The Gemara asks: If so, consider that which is taught with regard to this baraita. Rabbi Yehuda says: May a curse come upon one who feeds his father the poor man’s tithe. And if this halakha, that one may feed his father the poor man’s tithe, was said with regard to a surplus, what difference is there? Since the son has fulfilled his obligation and simply adds something so that his father will have more, why is this person cursed? The Gemara answers: Even so, it is a disrespectful matter for one to feed his father with money that has been designated as charity for the poor.
תָּא שְׁמַע שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עַד הֵיכָן כִּיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם אָמַר לָהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אַרְנָקִי וְיִזְרְקֶנּוּ לַיָּם בְּפָנָיו וְאֵינוֹ מַכְלִימוֹ וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשֶּׁל אָב מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ בְּרָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear: They asked Rabbi Eliezer how far one must go in honoring his father and mother. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Such that the father takes a purse and throw it into the sea in front of his son, and the son does not embarrass him. And if you say that the son honors him from the money of the father, what difference does it make to the son? Why would the son care if his father throws away his own purse? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a son who is fit to inherit from him. Since the son thinks that the money will eventually belong to him, he has cause for anger.
וְכִי הָא דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא דְּרַב הוּנָא קְרַע שִׁירָאֵי בְּאַנְפֵּי רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ אָמַר אֵיזִיל אִיחְזֵי אִי רָתַח אִי לָא רָתַח וְדִלְמָא רָתַח וְקָעָבַר אַלִּפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל דְּמָחֵיל לֵיהּ לִיקָרֵיהּ And this is as reflected in an incident involving Rabba bar Rav Huna, when Rav Huna tore silk garments in front of his son Rabba. Rav Huna had said to himself: I will go and see if he becomes angry or does not become angry, i.e., he wanted to test him and see whether his son Rabba would honor him. The Gemara asks: But perhaps his son would become angry and Rav Huna would thereby violate the prohibition of: “Nor put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as by testing his son Rav Huna would have caused him to sin. The Gemara answers: It was a case where the father had forgone his honor from the outset. Consequently, even if the son grew angry with him, he would not have violated the mitzva.
וְהָא קָעָבַר מִשּׁוּם בַּל תַּשְׁחִית דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ בְּפוּמְבְּיָינֵי וְדִילְמָא מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא רָתַח דְּעָבֵד לֵיהּ בִּשְׁעַת רִיתְחֵיהּ The Gemara asks: But by tearing his clothes, he violates the prohibition: Do not destroy (see Deuteronomy 20:19). The Gemara answers that Rav Huna made a tear at the seam, so that the garment could be repaired. The Gemara asks: Perhaps it was due to that reason that the son did not become angry, because he saw that his father caused no actual damage? The Gemara answers: He did this when the son was already angry for some other reason, so that he would not notice this detail.
מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַב יְחֶזְקֵאל לְרָמִי בְּרֵיהּ הַנִּשְׂרָפִים בַּנִּסְקָלִים רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר יִדּוֹנוּ בִּסְקִילָה שֶׁהַשְּׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה The Gemara cites another story involving the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother. Rav Yeḥezkel taught his son Rami: If people sentenced to be burned became mingled with those sentenced to be stoned Rabbi Shimon says: All of them are judged with the punishment of stoning, as the punishment of burning is more severe. Since the death penalty of each is uncertain, all of them are treated leniently.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ אַבָּא לָא תַּיתְנְיֵיהּ הָכִי מַאי אִירְיָא שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּרוּבָּא נִסְקָלִים נִינְהוּ אֶלָּא הָכִי אַיתְנְיֵיהּ הַנִּסְקָלִים בַּנִּשְׂרָפִים Rav Yehuda, who was also Rav Yeḥezkel’s son, said to him: Father, do not teach the mishna this way, as, according to this version, why is this the halakha specifically because burning is more severe than stoning? Let him derive it from the fact that the majority are sentenced to be stoned. The wording of the baraita, which states that those who were supposed to be burned became mixed up with those who were to be stoned, indicates that the people sentenced to stoning are the majority. If so, one should simply follow the majority. Rather, I will teach it this way: If those who are sentenced to be stoned became mixed up with those who are sentenced to be burned, they are all judged with the punishment of stoning even though this is the minority, as they are all treated leniently.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יִדּוֹנוּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה שֶׁהַסְּקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מַאי אִירְיָא דִּסְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּרוּבָּא נִשְׂרָפִים נִינְהוּ Rav Yeḥezkel said to him: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say that they should be judged with the punishment of burning, as the punishment of stoning is more severe. According to your version, why is this the halakha specifically because stoning is more severe? Let him derive it due to the fact that the majority of people are sentenced to be burned, and one follows the majority.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָתָם רַבָּנַן הוּא דְּקָאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה לָא סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה His son Rav Yehuda said to him: The statement of the Rabbis is not difficult, as there the Rabbis are saying to Rabbi Shimon as follows: That which you said, that burning is more severe, is not the case; rather, stoning is more severe. In other words, the Rabbis were specifically responding to Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning, and therefore they stated the opposite claim and ignored the issue of which group is in the majority.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה שִׁינָּנָא לָא תֵּימָא לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּךְ הָכִי דְּתַנְיָא הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו עוֹבֵר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה אַל יֹאמַר לוֹ אַבָּא עָבַרְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ אַבָּא כָּךְ כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה כָּךְ כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה צַעוֹרֵי קָא מְצַעַר לֵיהּ אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ אַבָּא מִקְרָא כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה כָּךְ Later, Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Big-toothed one, do not speak to your father like that, as it is disrespectful. As it is taught in a baraita: If one’s father was transgressing a Torah matter, he should not say to him explicitly: Father, you transgressed a Torah matter. Rather, he should say to him: Father, so it is written in the Torah. The Gemara asks: If he says to him directly: This is what is written in the Torah, he will cause him suffering. Rather, he should say to him: Father, this verse is written in the Torah, and he should proceed to quote the verse, from which his father will understand on his own that he has acted improperly.
אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַתְיָא אוֹמֵר אַבָּא אוֹמֵר הַשְׁקֵינִי מַיִם וּמִצְוָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מַנִּיחַ אֲנִי כְּבוֹד אַבָּא וְעוֹשֶׂה אֶת הַמִּצְוָה שֶׁאֲנִי וְאַבָּא חַיָּיבִים בַּמִּצְוָה אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם אֶפְשָׁר לַמִּצְוָה לֵיעָשׂוֹת עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים תֵּיעָשֶׂה עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים וְיֵלֵךְ הוּא בִּכְבוֹד אָבִיו אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה הֲלָכָה כְּאִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה § Elazar ben Matya says: If my father says: Give me water, and there is a mitzva for me to perform at the same time, I set aside the honor of my father and perform the mitzva, as my father and I are both obligated in the mitzva. Isi ben Yehuda says: If it is possible for this mitzva to be performed by others, let it be performed by others, and he should go and attend to the honor due to his father, as the honor of his father is his obligation alone. Rav Mattana says: The halakha with regard to this matter is in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda.
אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא הָאָב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל הָרַב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל Rav Yitzḥak bar Sheila says that Rav Mattana says that Rav Ḥisda says: With regard to a father who forgoes his honor, his honor is forgone, and his son does not transgress if he does not treat him in the proper manner. By contrast, with regard to a rabbi who forgoes his honor, his honor is not forgone.
וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ הָרַב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַה' הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא הָתָם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עָלְמָא דִּילֵיהּ הוּא וְתוֹרָה דִּילֵיהּ הִיא מָחֵיל לֵיהּ לִיקָרֵיהּ And Rav Yosef says: Even with regard to a rabbi who forgoes his honor, his honor is forgone, as it is stated: “And the Lord went before them by day” (Exodus 13:21). God Himself, the Teacher of the Jewish people, had forgone the honor due Him and took the trouble to guide the people. Rava said: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, the world is His and the Torah is His, and therefore He can forgo His honor.