Rabbi Eliezer said to [the other rabbis]: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, this carob tree will prove it. The carob tree was uprooted from its place one hundred cubits, and some say four hundred cubits. The Rabbis said to him: One does not cite halakhic proof from the carob tree.
Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, the stream will prove it. The water in the stream turned backward and began flowing in the opposite direction. They said to him: One does not cite halakhic proof from a stream.
Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, the walls of the study hall will prove it. The walls of the study hall leaned inward and began to fall. Rabbi Yehoshua scolded the walls and said to them: If Torah scholars are contending with each other in matters of halakha, what is the nature of your involvement in this dispute? The Gemara relates: The walls did not fall because of the deference due Rabbi Yehoshua, but they did not straighten because of the deference due Rabbi Eliezer, and they still remain leaning.
Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it. A Divine Voice emerged from Heaven and said: Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion? Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice,
Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.
(א) איש אמו ואביו תיראו.
(1) איש אמו ואביו תראו means, EVERYONE OF YOU SHALL FEAR HIS MOTHER AND HIS FATHER; this is the literal sense.
תנינא להא דת"ר האב חייב בבנו למולו ולפדותו וללמדו תורה ולהשיאו אשה וללמדו אומנות וי"א אף להשיטו במים
The Gemara comments: According to this interpretation, we learn in this mishna that which the Sages taught in a baraita: A father is obligated with regard to his son to circumcise him, and to redeem him if he is a firstborn son who must be redeemed by payment to a priest, and to teach him Torah, and to marry him, and to teach him a trade. And some say: A father is also obligated to teach his son to swim.
ת"ש שאלו את ר"א עד היכן כיבוד אב ואם אמר להם כדי שיטול ארנקי ויזרקנו לים בפניו ואינו מכלימו ואי אמרת משל אב מאי נפקא לי' מיניה בראוי ליורשו
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.
(21) And everyone who excelled in ability and everyone whose spirit moved him came, bringing to the LORD his offering for the work of the Tent of Meeting and for all its service and for the sacral vestments. (22) Men and women, all whose hearts moved them, all who would make an elevation offering of gold to the LORD, came bringing brooches, earrings, rings, and pendants—gold objects of all kinds. (23) And everyone who had in his possession blue, purple, and crimson yarns, fine linen, goats’ hair, tanned ram skins, and dolphin skins, brought them; (24) everyone who would make gifts of silver or copper brought them as gifts for the LORD; and everyone who had in his possession acacia wood for any work of the service brought that. (25) And all the skilled women spun with their own hands, and brought what they had spun, in blue, purple, and crimson yarns, and in fine linen. (26) And all the women who excelled in that skill spun the goats’ hair.
The sages of yore said: “One might say: Behold! I will study the Divine law, for the purpose of becoming rich, or of being called Rabbi, or of receiving the promised reward in the world to come; observe therefore that it is expressly said: That thou mayst love the Lord, (Deut. 30. 20); implying that every thing that is done by you in compliance with His ordinances, must be done solely out of love of Him.—Again the sages say: “It is written: Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, that delighteth greatly in His Commandments, (Ps. 112. 1): signifying, that man must find his delight in the Divine commandments themselves, and not for the sake of the reward attached to them.”
Now in conformity with this, the most eminent men amongst the sages, especially enjoined upon their intelligent disciples: “Be ye not like servants who serve their master for the purpose of being rewarded;” but be ye like servants who serve their master, “not for the purpose of being rewarded;” meaning that their service is due to Him, because He is their Master; in other words: Serve Him out of love.
(יז) כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:
(17) Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.
A woman who studied Torah receives a reward, but not like that of a man, because she is not obligated yet performs the commandment. And even though she earns a reward, our rabbis have commanded that one should not teach his daughter Torah, because the majority of women are not intellectually prepared to be taught, and remove words of Torah to words of emptiness due to their intellectual limitations. The rabbis said: One who teaches his daughter Torah is as if he taught her frivolity.
Rama: Nonetheless, a woman is obligated to study laws that are relevant to her. And a woman is not obligated to teach her son Torah. Nonetheless, if she assists her son or husband to study Torah, she receives reward along with them.