איבעיא להו: משל מי? רב יהודה אמר: משל בן. רב נתן בר אושעיא אמר: משל אב. אורו ליה רבנן לרב ירמיה, ואמרי לה לבריה דרב ירמיה כמ"ד משל אב.
דין- מי משלם על כיבוד ההורים, האב או הבן?
תשובת הדין- רב יהודה אומר הבן משלם ורב נתן בר אושעיא שהאב משלם ולפי חכמים האב משלם.
2)הדיון בשאלה האם מצוות כיבוד הורים מחייבת את האדם לכלכל את הוריו מממונו, היא עתיקת יומין. ההלכה בירושלמי היא שעל הילדים חובה לדאוג לכלכלת הוריהם, ובכך לקיים את מצוות התורה: 'כבד את אביך ואת אמך'. לעומת זאת, ההלכה בבבלי היא שאין על הילדים חובה לכלכל את הוריהם מממונם הם. לכן, החובה לדאוג להורים אינה מתבטאת בהוצאת כסף מהילדים לטובת ההורים. הכבוד להורים הוא בהקדשת הזמן ותשומת הלב להם, אך לא בהוצאה כספית.
מיתיבי?: נאמר (שמות כ, יא) "כבד את אביך ואת אמך", ונאמר (משלי ג, ט) "כבד את ה' מהונך" מה להלן בחסרון כיס אף כאן בחסרון כיס. ואי אמרת משל אב, מאי נפקא ליה מיניה? לביטול מלאכה.
קושיה- איך רשום כבד את אביך ואת אמך וכתוב גם כבד את ה' מהונך? אז מי אמור לשלם?
תירוץ- שהבן מפסיד שעות עבודה וכך הוא מפסיד כסף (מוציא כסף לכיבוד הורים) ואז זה נחשב לכיבוד הורים מהכסף של הבן!
...ת"ש: שאלו את רבי אליעזר עד היכן כיבוד אב ואם? אמר להם: כדי שיטול ארנקי ויזרקנו לים בפניו ואינו מכלימו. ואי אמרת משל אב, מאי נפקא ליה מיניה? בראוי ליורשו.
קושיה- שואלים את רבי אליעזר מה "הקצה" של כיבוד הורים?
הוכחה- לחיזוק הדעה משלם הבן שהאבא לוקח את ארנקו ומשליך לים הבן צריך לשתוק וכך מבצע כיבוד הרים
תירוץ- זה יכול להיות לחיזוק דעה משל אב ולא משל בן, ולמה?!
משום שהבן מכבד את האב שהוא זרק את הארנק למרות שהארנק הוא לא של מי שמשלם על כיבוד ההורים אבל זאת הירושה של הבן, ואם שתק הוא עשה כיבוד הורים!
3)אפילו אם אחד ההורים לוקח את הארנק וזורק אותו לים בפני הילד – יש לכבדו, ואין לבייש את ההורה המבצע פעולה זו.
מסיקה הגמרא מאמירתו של רבי אליעזר שהוצאות כיבוד הורים חלות על הבן. כי אם היו חלות על ההורים, הרי כנראה שמדובר בארנקו של ההורים, אם כן – מה הבעיה בכך שההורה זורק את הארנק לים, הרי מדובר בארנקו וכספו של ההורה? אלא כנראה, מסיקה הגמרא, מדובר בארנק של הילד, ובכל אופן – כאשר ההורה נוהג באופן מוזר שכזה, גם אז, חובה על הילד לשתוק, ולא לבייש את ההורה, לא לגעור בו ולא להעליבו.
דוחה הגמרא את הראיה ומסבירה: גם ארנק של ההורה בעצם שייך ''פוטנציאלית'' לַבֵּן. שהרי אם ההורה ימות, בסופו של דבר הבן יורשו. ולכן, גם אם נאמר שחובת הוצאות כיבוד הורים חל על ההורים, גם אז יש ''חידוש'' בדין של רבי אליעזר, שהרי הבן ''מפסיד'' את הכסף שהיה יכול לקבל לאחר פטירתו של האבא.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. § 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 bar Yehuda. 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. 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.
