Does Kibbud Av v'Em Apply to In-Laws

R' Yaakov ben Asher (1270-1340)

One is obligated to respect their father-in-law, as it is written, "See, Avi, also see".

See, Avi, also see the corner of your cloak in my hand; for when I cut off the corner of your cloak, I did not kill you. You must see plainly that I have done nothing evil or rebellious, and I have never wronged you. Yet you are bent on taking my life.

R' Yosef Caro (1488-1575)

And regarding what [the Tur] writes, that one is obligated to respect their father-in-law, B"H writes this in Orchot Chaim, as it is written, "See, avi, also see", David says this to Shaul and calls him 'avi' because he was his father-in-law.

When David heard it, he said to him "ואבי ראה". From here we learn that one is obligated to honour their father-in-law like their father. R' Yehuda says "אבי" was said to Shaul [and] "גם ראה" was said to Avner. But the Rabbis say "אבי ראה" was said to Avner who was a lion of the Torah [and] 'גם' was said to Shaul.

Joel ben Samuel Sirkis (1561-1640)

[The Midrash] concludes, "R' Yehuda said [regarding the words] "See, avi, also see", that 'אבי ראה" was said to Shaul, "וגם ראה" was said to Avner, but the Rabbis say "אבי ראה" was said to Avner who was his master in Torah, "גם ראה" was said to Shaul. And since the Rabbis say that he did not call Shaul "Avi", there is no proof from there that one has to respect their father-in-law like their father. And we hold like them because they are the majority, and because of this the decisors omit [this law].

R' Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829-1908)

One is obligated to respect their father-in-law and mother-in-law, for David called Shaul "Avi", as it is written, "See, avi, also see". So writes the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Seif 24 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 240:24). And I do not understand the proof, for behold Elisha also calls to Eliyahu "Avi, avi! The chariots of Israel and their riders". And if that was because [Eliyahu] was his Rav muvhak, then one could say the same regarding Shaul, since he was King. And similarly the servants of Naaman officer of the army of the King Aram called Naaman "Avi", as it is written, "And his servants approached and spoke to him and said, "Avi, a difficult thing..."." And "avi" is just a title of respect, as Eliyahu says to Eov, "Avi that Eov were tried to the limit". And possibly because Shaul was chasing David, and so there was no [reason] for David to love and respect him, and if the title of 'father' did not apply to one's father-in-law, he would not have called him "avi". And they write that the intent is not that one is obligated in respecting them like a son (respects a father], rather to respect them like other important old people (Bach and Shach SK 22). And see what I wrote in Seif 35.

(7) Moshe went out to meet his father-in-law; he bowed low and kissed him; ish asked after his welfare, and they went into the tent.

(7) (Exodus 18:7) "And Moshe went out to his father-in-law"...

(8) "and he bowed down to him and he kissed him": I would not know who bowed down to whom or who kissed whom, were it not written (Ibid.) "And ish asked after his welfare." Who is called "ish"? Moshe, as it is written (Numbers 12:3) "And ish Moshe, was exceedingly humble." It was Moshe, then, who bowed down to his father-in-law and kissed him. From here they ruled that a man should be prepared to honour his father-in-law."

R' Baruch Epstein (1860-1941)

[On the Mekhilta]

Seemingly it is not clear what is added with the description 'ish' and what the novelty is here, since the word 'ish' is a general name for all people. Moreover, we find [the verse says] 'Moshe consented to stay with the ish' (Parashat Shemot) and that [term ish] applies to Yitro. And it seems the intent [of the Mekhilta] is that generally where it says 'ish' that comes in place of the use of the name itself...but where the name itself is used there is no need to add the word 'ish', and this wording [the superfluous 'ish'] we only found regarding Moshe, like this 'Moshe the ish', 'and the ish Moshe', and this teaches that the term 'ish' relates a high and important level for a person, like in the Mishna on Yoma 18a [where it refers to] Ishi Kohen Gadol.

And regarding this derivation that one is obligated to honour their father-in-law, this requires investigation because the decisors do not learn that from here and [instead] bring it from the Midrash Shochar Tov regarding David calling Shaul, his father-in-law, 'avi', as it is written "See, avi, also see", see Tur Yoreh Deah at the end of Section 240. And in Rambam, Chapter 6 of Mamrim, this law is not brought at all. And this is puzzling because the wording of the Mekhilta here implies that this is a clear and known halacha. And the Bach on the Tur there writes that the reason the decisors omitted this law is because in Midrash Shochar Tov there is the view of the Rabbis that the words that David said 'and avi see' was said not to Shaul but to Avner, and if so that would dismiss the crux of this law. But what should we do with this derivation before us whose source is the Torah and it is repeated without disagreement, and this greatly requires explanation.

A man and woman are equally [obligated] in honouring and revering their father and mother. However, a woman does not have the means to do so once she is attached to her husband, therefore she is exempt from honouring her father and mother as long as she is married, but if she is divorced or widowed she is [again] obligated.

R' Yosef Caro (1488-1575)

A person is obligated to honor his father-in-law.

Joel ben Samuel Sirkis (1561-1640)

One is obligated to respect their father-in-law, as it is written, "See, avi, also see". And the law is the same for one's mother-in-law. And this is written explicitly in the sefer Tzidah Laderech.

R' David Halevi Segal (1586-1667)

To honour one's father-in-law. As it is written, "See, avi, also see", and David said this to Shaul who was his father-in-law, and he called him father. And my teacher and father-in-law (the Bach) writes that the law is the same for one's mother-in-law, and the same is written in Sefer Tzidah Laderech.

R' Avraham Hirsch Eisenstadt (1812-1868)

See the Be'er Heitev that this is the law for one's mother-in-law, and this is explained in the Shulchan Aruch below 374:7 where he writes due to the honour of one's father-in-law and mother-in-law, see there.

R' Yosef Caro (1488-1575)

So too, she mourns with him only when her father-in-law or her mother-in-law died, but [for] all his other near-of-kin who died, she does not mourn with him.

R' Yosef Caro (1488-1575)

One must take great care concerning his father and mother's honor and fear... What is fear? He should not stand in the place designated for him to stand in consultation of the elders with his colleagues, or the place designated for him to pray, nor should he sit in the place designated for him to recline in his home, nor refute his words nor contradict his words in his presence, even to say 'Father's words appear to be,' nor call him by his name, neither in life nor in death, but rather say 'Father, my teacher.' Had his father's name been like the name of others, he changes them...

R' Yosef Caro (1488-1575)

There is a mitzva to stand before the elderly, meaning [someone who is at least] 70 years old.

R' Yaakov ben Asher (1270-1340)

One is obligated to honour their older brother like they honour their father. And one is obligated to respect their father-in-law, as it is written, "See, Avi, also see".

Joel ben Samuel Sirkis (1561-1640)

One is obligated to respect their father-in-law, as it is written, "See, avi, also see", and this is also the law for one's mother-in-law. And this is written explicitly in Sefer Tzidah Laderech. It is obvious and we see from the wording of the [Tur] that one is only obligated to respect them in the way one respects elders, with standing and hiddur and the like.

But in Midrash Shochar Tov, it is written as follows: "See, avi, also see", from here [we derive] one's obligation to honour their father-in-law like the honour (they must give) to their father," which implies that whatever one is obligated to do for their father, they are also obligated to do for their father-in-law. And it is puzzling that [the Tur] does not write this explicitly, and other authors do not bring this law at all. And it seems [the reason is] because after this it concludes, "R' Yehuda said [regarding the words] "See, avi, also see", that "See, avi" was said to Shaul, "also see" was said to Avner, but the Rabbis say "See, avi" was said to Avner who was his master in Torah, "also see" was said to Shaul. And since the Rabbis say that he did not call Shaul "Avi", there is no proof from there that one has to respect their father-in-law like their father. And we hold like them because they are the majority, and because of this the decisors omit [this law] but [the Tur] holds that nevertheless one is obligated to respect [their in-laws] like other important old people, as is explained that since he says "also see", there is some similarity to respecting one's father.

R' Baruch Epstein (1860-1941)

And likewise what the Bach writes, that the view of the Tur is that even if one is obligated they are only obligated in the way one is towards other zekeinim and not in the way of honouring one's [own] father, and his proof is from the fact that David says "See, avi, also see", and the wording 'also see' implies that there is some hint to honouring [a father-in-law like] one's father. But this is a very weak source, for of what relevance is this wording [of 'also see'] to the wording 'avi' which was the crux of the derivation.

...and this [the obligation to honour one's father-in-law] is written in [Midrash] Shochar Tov on this verse and it is brought in the Yalkut [Shimoni] there. And see there the disagreement between R' Yehuda and the Rabbis. Nevertheless, in terms of the law, the implication is that there is no disagreement.

And regarding what is further written, that one is obligated to honour them like one would other zekeinim, so writes the Shach in the name of the Bach. And it seems this is clear from [what is written] above in sub-section 17 that a married woman is exempt etc., for if it were not so, she would be obligated since her husband is also obligated to honour her father because it is his father-in-law, and as in sub-section 14 and see there.

Rav Aḥa bar Abba arrived at the house of Rav Ḥisda, his son-in-law. He took his daughter’s daughter and placed her on his lap. [Rav Ḥisda] said to him: Doesn’t the Master think that she [might already be] betrothed? [Rav Aḥa] said to him: [If that is true,] you have transgressed [the ruling] of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say [it was said by] Rabbi Elazar: It is prohibited for a man to betroth his daughter when she is a minor, until she grows up and says: I want [to marry] so-and-so, [as otherwise she might reject the designated husband and ultimately sin by committing adultery. Rav Ḥisda replied]: The Master has likewise transgressed [the words] of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: One may not make use of a woman, [so how can you hold her on your lap]? He said to him: I hold in accordance with another statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: All [such actions] are [permitted] for the sake of Heaven.

It was taught in a baraita: A person may bathe with anyone except for his father, and his father-in-law, and his mother’s husband, and his sister’s husband. And Rabbi Yehuda permits [one to bathe] with his father, due to the honor [that he can accord] his father. The same is true for one’s mother’s husband.

R' Baruch Epstein (1860-1941)

It is written regarding Moshe that he bowed and kissed, and from here we learn of honouring one's father-in-law, and certainly one is not obligated in bowing and kissing for general zekeinim.