מַתְנִי' כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת וְכׇל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת וְכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְכׇל מִצְוֹת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה בֵּין שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים חַיָּיבִין חוּץ מִבַּל תַּקִּיף וּבַל תַּשְׁחִית וּבַל תִּטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים
גְּמָ' מַאי כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב אִילֵּימָא כׇּל מִצְוֹת דְּמִיחַיַּיב בְּרָא לְמִיעְבַּד לְאַבָּא נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת וְהָתַנְיָא אִישׁ אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה הָכִי קָאָמַר כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן הַמּוּטָּלוֹת עַל הָאָב לַעֲשׂוֹת לִבְנוֹ אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן הָאָב חַיָּיב בִּבְנוֹ לְמוּלוֹ וְלִפְדוֹתוֹ וּלְלַמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה וּלְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה וּלְלַמְּדוֹ אוּמָּנוּת וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים אַף לַהֲשִׁיטוֹ בַּמַּיִם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְלַמֵּד אֶת בְּנוֹ אוּמָּנוּת מְלַמְּדוֹ לִיסְטוּת לִיסְטוּת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אֶלָּא כְּאִילּוּ מְלַמְּדוֹ לִיסְטוּת
כׇּל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן וְכוּ' מַאי כׇּל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן אִילֵּימָא כֹּל מִצְוָתָא דְּמִיחַיַּיב אַבָּא לְמִיעְבַּד לִבְרֵיהּ נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת וְהָתַנְיָא הָאָב חַיָּיב בִּבְנוֹ לְמוּלוֹ וְלִפְדוֹתוֹ אָבִיו אֵין אִמּוֹ לֹא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה הָכִי קָאָמַר כׇּל מִצְוֹת הָאָב הַמּוּטָּלֹת עַל הַבֵּן לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָבִיו אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן אִישׁ אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר תִּירָאוּ הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ אִישׁ סִיפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת אִשָּׁה אֵין סִיפֵּק בְּיָדָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִים עָלֶיהָ אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב נִתְגָּרְשָׁה שְׁנֵיהֶם שָׁוִים
until he pulls or takes possession of it. Additionally, the Temple treasury has the following advantage: If a commoner pulled a consecrated item for the purpose of acquiring it with one hundred dinars, and he did not manage to redeem it by paying the one hundred dinars to the Temple treasurer before the item’s price stood at two hundred dinars, he gives two hundred dinars. What is the reason for this? It states: He will give the money and it will be assured to him (see Leviticus 27:19). This indicates that one can acquire an item from the Temple treasury only by the actual transfer of money. By contrast, in the reverse case, when the commoner pulled an item when it was worth two hundred dinars, and he did not manage to redeem it before the value of the item stood at one hundred dinars, he gives two hundred dinars. What is the reason for this? The power of a commoner should not be greater than that of the Temple treasury of consecrated property. Since a commoner completes his acquisition by pulling, the item is acquired by him at that price, and the Temple treasury should not suffer a loss in a case where the commoner could not have reneged on his commitment had he been dealing with another commoner. Similarly, if the commoner redeemed it at two hundred dinars, but he did not manage to pull it before its value stood at one hundred dinars, he gives two hundred dinars. What is the reason? It states: He will give the money and it will be assured to him, which indicates that the redemption of consecrated property is effected with money. By contrast, if he redeemed it at one hundred dinars and did not manage to pull it before it stood at two hundred dinars, what he redeemed is redeemed, and he gives only one hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: Why is this the halakha? So too, let us say: The power of a commoner should not be greater than that of the Temple treasury of consecrated property, and if this occurred in a case where he was dealing with another commoner he would need to pay the full two hundred dinars, which was the value of the item when he pulled it. Shouldn’t the Temple treasury have as much power as a common person? The Gemara answers: There is an additional impediment to reneging on an agreement with another commoner. Is that to say that a commoner who gave a seller money and changed his mind before acquiring the item is not forced to accept upon himself the curse of: He Who exacted payment from the generation of the flood (see Genesis, chapter 7) and the generation of the dispersion (see Genesis, chapter 11) will punish one who does not keep his word? Although a commoner can legally renege on his agreement at this stage, the Sages disapproved of such dishonest conduct, and one who did so would be cursed in this manner. Consequently, the power of a commoner is not greater than that of the Temple treasury, as it is not a simple matter to renege on an agreement with another commoner. MISHNA: With regard to all mitzvot of a son with regard to his father, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all mitzvot of a father with regard to his son, both men and women are obligated to perform them. The mishna notes an additional difference between the obligations of men and women in the performance of mitzvot: With regard to all positive, time-bound mitzvot, i.e., those which must be performed at specific times, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all positive mitzvot that are not time bound, both men and women are obligated to perform them. And with regard to all prohibitions, whether they are time-bound or whether they are not time-bound, both men and women are obligated to observe them, except for the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of your head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard, which are derived from the verse: “You shall not round the corners of your head and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), and a prohibition that concerns only priests: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse (see Leviticus 21:1). These mitzvot apply only to men, not women, despite the fact that they are prohibitions. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: All mitzvot of a son with regard to his father? If we say that it is referring to all mitzvot that the son is obligated to perform with regard to his father, are women exempt from obligations of this kind? But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning a verse that deals with the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3)? I have derived only that a man is obligated in this mitzva. From where do I derive that a woman is also obligated? When it says in the same verse: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), employing the plural form of the verb, this indicates that there are two that are obligated here, both a man and a woman. Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to all mitzvot of a son that are incumbent upon his father to perform for his son, men are obligated in them and women are exempt. 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 to a woman, and to teach him a trade. And some say: A father is also obligated to teach his son to swim. Rabbi Yehuda says: Any father who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry [listut]. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Can it enter your mind that he actually teaches him banditry? Rather, the baraita means that it is as though he teaches him banditry. Since the son has no profession with which to support himself, he is likely to turn to theft for a livelihood. This baraita accords with Rav Yehuda’s interpretation of the mishna. § The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to circumcise his son. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac” (Genesis 21:4). The Gemara comments: And in a case where one’s father did not circumcise him the court is obligated to circumcise him, i.e., if this obligation is not fulfilled by the father it applies to the community as a whole, as it is written: “Every male among you shall be circumcised” (Genesis 17:10), in the form of a general mitzva that does not apply only to the father. And in a case where the court did not circumcise him the son is obligated to circumcise himself when he reaches adulthood, as it is written: “And the uncircumcised male, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Genesis 17:14). From where do we derive that his mother is not obligated to circumcise her son? As it is written: “And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God commanded him” (Genesis 21:4). The verse emphasizes that God commanded him, and not her. We found a source for this mitzva immediately, i.e., when it was given to Abraham; from where do we derive that this is the halakha for the men of all generations? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that any place where it is stated: “Command,” it is nothing other than an expression of galvanization both immediately and for generations. The mitzva of circumcision is presented by means of this term. The Gemara elaborates: From where is it derived that the term “command” indicates a galvanization? As it is written: “And command Joshua, and encourage him and strengthen him” (Deuteronomy 3:28). In this context, the term “command” is not referring to a specific command but is a general expression of galvanization. From where is it derived that this applies immediately and for generations? As it is written: “From the day that the Lord commanded and onward throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:23). This shows that whenever the word “command” is used it is referring to that day onward for all generations. § The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to redeem his son. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20). And in a case where one’s father does not redeem him he is obligated to redeem himself, as it is written: “You shall redeem [pado tifde]” (Numbers 18:15). The repetition of the verb indicates that a firstborn is required to be redeemed in any case, even if his father neglects to do so. And from where do we derive that a mother is not commanded to redeem her son? As it is written: “You shall redeem [tifde]” which can be read as: You shall be redeemed [tippadeh]. This indicates that whoever is commanded to redeem himself is commanded to redeem others, and whoever is not commanded to redeem himself is not commanded to redeem others. Since a woman is not commanded to redeem herself, she is not commanded to redeem her son either. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that she is not obligated to redeem herself? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “You shall redeem [tifde],” which can be read as: You shall be redeemed [tippadeh]. This indicates that any person whom others are commanded to redeem is commanded to redeem himself, and any person whom others are not commanded to redeem is not commanded to redeem himself. Since there is no mitzva for a parent to redeem his daughter, there is similarly no mitzva for a daughter to redeem herself. And from where is it derived that others are not commanded to redeem a daughter? As the verse states: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20), i.e., your sons and not your daughters. The Sages taught: If a firstborn has not yet been redeemed and he himself has a firstborn son, he is obligated to redeem himself and he is also obligated to redeem his firstborn son, and he takes precedence over his son. If he does not have enough money to redeem both of them, he redeems himself. Rabbi Yehuda says: His son takes precedence over him. Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is that with regard to this one, the father, the mitzva of his redemption was upon his father, and only when his father did not observe the mitzva did it apply to the adult son. And that mitzva of the redemption of his firstborn son applies to him directly. Consequently, he should first fulfill the mitzva that applies to him by redeeming his son. Rabbi Yirmeya says: Everyone agrees
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן נֶאֱמַר כַּבֵּד אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אִמֶּךָ וְנֶאֱמַר כַּבֵּד אֶת ה' מֵהוֹנֶךָ הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב כִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם נֶאֱמַר אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְנֶאֱמַר אֶת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב מוֹרָאַת אָב וָאֵם לְמוֹרָאַת הַמָּקוֹם נֶאֱמַר מְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ מוֹת יוּמָת וְנֶאֱמַר אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב בִּרְכַּת אָב וָאֵם לְבִרְכַּת הַמָּקוֹם אֲבָל בְּהַכָּאָה וַדַּאי אִי אֶפְשָׁר וְכֵן בְּדִין שֶׁשְּׁלָשְׁתָּן שׁוּתָּפִין בּוֹ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן שְׁלֹשָׁה שׁוּתָּפִין הֵן בָּאָדָם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְאָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָדָם מְכַבֵּד אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עֲלֵיהֶם כְּאִילּוּ דַּרְתִּי בֵּינֵיהֶם וְכִבְּדוּנִי תַּנְיָא רַבִּי אוֹמֵר גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם שֶׁבֵּן מְכַבֵּד אֶת אִמּוֹ יוֹתֵר מֵאָבִיו מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּשַׁדַּלְתּוֹ בִּדְבָרִים לְפִיכָךְ הִקְדִּים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כִּיבּוּד אָב לְכִיבּוּד אֵם וְגָלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם שֶׁהַבֵּן מִתְיָירֵא מֵאָבִיו יוֹתֵר מֵאִמּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּלַמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה לְפִיכָךְ הִקְדִּים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מוֹרָא הָאֵם לְמוֹרָא הָאָב תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָדָם מְצַעֵר אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יָפֶה עָשִׂיתִי שֶׁלֹּא דַּרְתִּי בֵּינֵיהֶם שֶׁאִלְמָלֵי דַּרְתִּי בֵּינֵיהֶם צִיעֲרוּנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק כׇּל הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה בַּסֵּתֶר כְּאִילּוּ דּוֹחֵק רַגְלֵי שְׁכִינָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כֹּה אָמַר ה' הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיְּהַלֵּךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בְּקוֹמָה זְקוּפָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מְלֹא כׇל הָאָרֶץ כְּבוֹדוֹ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לָא מְסַגֵּי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בְּגִילּוּי הָרֹאשׁ אָמַר שְׁכִינָה לְמַעְלָה מֵרָאשֵׁי שָׁאַל בֶּן אַלְמָנָה אַחַת אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אַבָּא אוֹמֵר הַשְׁקֵינִי מַיִם וְאִימָּא אוֹמֶרֶת הַשְׁקֵינִי מַיִם אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם קוֹדֵם אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַנַּח כְּבוֹד אִמְּךָ וַעֲשֵׂה כְּבוֹד אָבִיךָ שֶׁאַתָּה וְאִמְּךָ חַיָּיבִים בִּכְבוֹד אָבִיךָ בָּא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר לוֹ כָּךְ אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נִתְגָּרְשָׁה מַהוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִבֵּין רִיסֵי עֵינֶיךָ נִיכָּר שֶׁבֶּן אַלְמָנָה אַתָּה הַטֵּל לָהֶן מַיִם בְּסֵפֶל וְקַעְקֵעַ לָהֶן כְּתַרְנְגוֹלִין דָּרֵשׁ עוּלָּא רַבָּה אַפִּיתְחָא דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה מַאי דִּכְתִיב יוֹדוּךָ ה' כׇּל מַלְכֵי אָרֶץ כִּי שָׁמְעוּ אִמְרֵי פִיךָ מַאֲמַר פִּיךָ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אִמְרֵי פִיךָ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָנֹכִי וְלֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֲמַרוּ אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם לִכְבוֹד עַצְמוֹ הוּא דּוֹרֵשׁ כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר כַּבֵּד אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אִמֶּךָ חָזְרוּ וְהוֹדוּ לְמַאֲמָרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת רָבָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא רֹאשׁ דְּבָרְךָ אֱמֶת רֹאשׁ דְּבָרְךָ וְלֹא סוֹף דְּבָרְךָ אֶלָּא מִסּוֹף דְּבָרְךָ נִיכָּר שֶׁרֹאשׁ דְּבָרְךָ אֱמֶת
“Say to wisdom: You are my sister, and call understanding your kinswoman” (Proverbs 7:4), which indicates that one should be as knowledgeable in the Torah as in the identity of his sister. And it states: “Bind them upon your fingers, you shall write them upon the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 7:3). And it states: “As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of one’s youth” (Psalms 127:4). And it states: “Sharp arrows of the mighty” (Psalms 120:4). And it states: “Your arrows are sharp, the peoples fall under you” (Psalms 45:6). And it states: “Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; they shall not be put to shame when they speak with their enemies in the gate” (Psalms 127:5). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “enemies in the gate” with regard to Torah study? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Even a father and his son, or a rabbi and his student, who are engaged in Torah together in one gate become enemies with each other due to the intensity of their studies. But they do not leave there until they love each other, as it is stated in the verse discussing the places the Jewish people engaged in battle in the wilderness: “Therefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, Vahev in Suphah [beSufa], and the valleys of Arnon” (Numbers 21:14). The word “vahev” is interpreted as related to the word for love, ahava. Additionally, do not read this as “in Suphah [beSufa]”; rather, read it as “at its end [besofa],” i.e., at the conclusion of their dispute they are beloved to each other. The Sages taught: “And you shall place [vesamtem] these words of Mine in your hearts” (Deuteronomy 11:18). Read this as though it stated sam tam, a perfect elixir. The Torah is compared to an elixir of life. There is a parable that illustrates this: A person hit his son with a strong blow and placed a bandage on his wound. And he said to him: My son, as long as this bandage is on your wound and is healing you, eat what you enjoy and drink what you enjoy, and bathe in either hot water or cold water, and you do not need to be afraid, as it will heal your wound. But if you take it off, the wound will become gangrenous. So too the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, I created an evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you are engaged in Torah study you will not be given over into the hand of the evil inclination, as it is stated: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted up?” (Genesis 4:7). One who engages in Torah study lifts himself above the evil inclination. And if you do not engage in Torah study, you are given over to its power, as it is stated: “Sin crouches at the door” (Genesis 4:7). Moreover, all of the evil inclination’s deliberations will be concerning you, as it is stated in the same verse: “And to you is its desire.” And if you wish you shall rule over it, as it is stated in the conclusion of the verse: “But you may rule over it” (Genesis 4:7). The Sages taught: So difficult is the evil inclination that even its Creator calls it evil, as it is stated: “For the inclination of a man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). Rav Yitzḥak says: A person’s evil inclination renews itself to him every day, as it is stated: “And that every inclination of the thoughts in his heart was only evil all day [kol hayyom]” (Genesis 6:5). “Kol hayyom” can also be understood as: Every day. And Rabbi Shimon ben Levi says: A person’s inclination overpowers him every day, and seeks to kill him, as it is stated: “The wicked watches the righteous and seeks to slay him” (Psalms 37:32). And if not for the fact that the Holy One, Blessed be He, assists each person in battling his evil inclination, he could not overcome it, as it is stated: “The Lord will not leave him in his hand” (Psalms 37:33). A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: My son, if this wretched one, the evil inclination, encounters you, pull it into the study hall, i.e., go and study Torah. If it is a stone it will melt, and if it is iron it will break, as it is stated with regard to the Torah: “Is not My word like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29). Just as a stone shatters a hammer, so too one can overcome his evil inclination, which is as strong as iron, through Torah study. With regard to the second part of the statement: If it is a stone it will melt, this is as it is stated with regard to the Torah: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1), and it states: “The water wears the stones” (Job 14:19), indicating that water is stronger than stone. § The baraita (29a) teaches that a father is commanded to marry his son to a woman. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this matter? As it is written: “Take wives and bear sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to men” (Jeremiah 29:6). The Gemara analyzes this verse: Granted with regard to his son, this is in his power, i.e., he can instruct him to marry a woman, as a man is the active agent in a marriage. But with regard to his daughter, is this in his power? She must wait for a man to marry her. The Gemara answers: This is what Jeremiah was saying to them in the aforementioned verse: Her father should give her something for her dowry, and he should dress and cover her with suitable clothing so that men will leap to marry her. § The baraita further states that a father is commanded to teach his son a trade. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Ḥizkiyya said: As the verse states: “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love” (Ecclesiastes 9:9). If this verse is interpreted literally, and it is referring to an actual woman, then one can derive as follows: Just as a father is obligated to marry his son to a woman, so too, he is obligated to teach him a trade, as indicated by the term: Life. And if the wife mentioned in this verse is allegorical, and it is the Torah, then one should explain the verse in the following manner: Just as he is obligated to teach him Torah, so too, he is obligated to teach him a trade. § The baraita adds: And some say that a father is also obligated to teach his son to swim in a river. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? It is necessary for his life, i.e., this is potentially a lifesaving skill. § The baraita further teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Any father who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that he actually teaches him banditry? Rather, the baraita means that it is as though he taught him banditry. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinion of the first tanna and that of Rabbi Yehuda? Both state that a father must teach his son a trade. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case where the father teaches him to engage in business. According to the first tanna this is sufficient, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he must teach him an actual trade. § The mishna teaches: With regard to all mitzvot of a father with regard to his son, both men and women are obligated to perform them. The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of the expression: All mitzvot of a father with regard to his son? If we say that this is referring to all of the mitzvot that a father is required to perform for his son, are women obligated in these? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A father is obligated with regard to his son to circumcise him, and to redeem him? This indicates that his father, yes, he is obligated to do these, but his mother, no, she is not obligated to perform these mitzvot for her son. Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to each mitzva for the father that is incumbent upon the son to perform for his father, both men and women are obligated in them. The Gemara comments: We already learned this, as the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3). I have derived only that a man is obligated in this mitzva; from where do I derive that a woman is also obligated? When it says in the same verse: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), employing the plural form of the verb, this indicates that there are two that are obligated here, both a man and a woman. If so, that both of them are obligated, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Man”? In the case of a man, it is in his power to perform this mitzva; whereas with regard to a woman, it is not always in her power to perform this mitzva, because she is under the authority of another person, i.e., her husband. As she is obligated to her husband to maintain her household, she is not always able to find time for her parents. Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav says: Consequently, if a woman is divorced, then both of them, a daughter and a son, are equal with regard to honoring and fearing their father and mother. The Sages taught that 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). In this manner, the verse equates the honor of one’s father and mother to the honor of the Omnipresent, as the term “honor” is used in both cases. Similarly, it is stated: “A man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), and it is stated: “You shall fear the Lord your God and Him you shall serve” (Deuteronomy 6:13). The verse equates the fear of one’s father and mother to the fear of the Omnipresent. Likewise, it is stated: “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:17), and it is stated: “Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15). The verse equates the blessing, a euphemism for cursing, of one’s father and mother to the blessing of the Omnipresent. But with regard to striking, i.e., with regard to the halakha that one who strikes his father or mother is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, it is certainly not possible to say the same concerning the Holy One, Blessed be He. And so too, the equating of one’s attitude toward his parents to his attitude toward God is a logical derivation, as the three of them are partners in his creation. As the Sages taught: There are three partners in the forming of a person: The Holy One, Blessed be He, who provides the soul, and his father and his mother. When a person honors his father and mother, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I ascribe credit to them as if I dwelt between them and they honor Me as well. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that a son honors his mother more than he honors his father, because she persuades him with many statements of encouragement and does not treat him harshly. Therefore, in the mitzva of: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of the honor due one’s father before mentioning the honor due one’s mother. The verse emphasizes the duty that does not come naturally. Similarly, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that a son fears his father more than his mother, because his father teaches him Torah, and consequently he is strict with him. Therefore, in the verse: “A man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of fear of the mother before the mention of fear of the father. A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: When a person causes his father and mother suffering, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I did well in not dwelling among them, for if I had dwelled among them they would have caused Me suffering as well, as it were. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Anyone who transgresses in private, it is considered as though he is pushing away the feet of the Divine Presence, i.e., he distances God from him, so to speak. As it is stated: “So says the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1). When someone sins in secret, he demonstrates that he thinks God is absent from that place, and it is as though he pushes His feet away from the earth. With regard to the same issue, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: It is prohibited for a person to walk even four cubits with an upright posture, which is considered an arrogant manner, as it is stated: “The entire world is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3). One who walks in an arrogant manner indicates a lack of regard for the glory and honor of God that is surrounding him, and thereby chases God from that place, as it were. The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, and I must act respectfully. The son of one widow asked Rabbi Eliezer: If my father says to me: Give me water to drink, and my mother also says to me: Give me water to drink, which of them should I honor first? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Set aside the honor of your mother, and perform the honor of your father, as you and your mother are both obligated in the honor of your father. He came before Rabbi Yehoshua and asked him the same question, and Rabbi Yehoshua said this same answer to him. The man said to him: My teacher, if one’s mother is divorced, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: From your eyelashes, which are filled with tears, it is evident that you are the son of a widow, and you have no father. Why, then, are you asking this question as though it were relevant for you? Consequently, Rabbi Yehoshua answered him sarcastically: Pour water for them into a pitcher and squawk at them as one does to summon chickens. In other words, if one’s mother is divorced, the same honor is due to both parents, and neither takes precedence. § Ulla the Great interpreted a verse homiletically at the entrance to the house of the Nasi. What is the meaning of that which is written: “All the kings of the earth shall give You thanks, O Lord, for they have heard the words of Your mouth” (Psalms 138:4)? It is not stated: The word of Your mouth, in the singular. Rather, the verse uses the expression: “The words of Your mouth,” in the plural. To what is this phrase referring? When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2), and, in the same verse: “You shall have no other gods before Me,” the nations of the world said: He teaches this for His own honor, as both statements entail respect for God. Once He said: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), they returned and conceded the truth of the first statements, which is why the verse uses the plural expression: “Words of Your mouth,” i.e., all the words of God’s mouth. Rava said: This can be derived from here: “The beginning of Your word is truth” (Psalms 119:160). Is the beginning of Your word truth but not the end of Your word? Rather, from the end of Your word it is apparent to everyone that the beginning of Your word is truth. The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Ulla: How far must one go to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother? Rav Ulla said to them: Go and see what one gentile did in Ashkelon, and his name was Dama ben Netina. Once the Sages sought to purchase merchandise [perakmatya] from him for six hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit, but the key for the container in which the merchandise was kept was placed under his father’s head, and he was sleeping at the time. And Dama ben Netina would not disturb his father by waking him, although he could have made a substantial profit. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They asked Rabbi Eliezer: How far must one go to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Go and see what one gentile did for his father in Ashkelon, and the name of the son was Dama ben Netina. Once the Sages wished to purchase precious stones from him for the ephod of the High Priest for six hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit, and Rav Kahana taught that it was eight hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit. And the key to the chest holding the jewels was placed under his father’s head, and he would not disturb him. The next year the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Dama ben Netina his reward, as a red heifer was born in his herd, and the Jews needed it. When the Sages of Israel came to him he said to them: I know, concerning you, that if I were to ask for all the money in the world you would give it to me. But I ask only that money that I lost due to the honor of Father. And Rabbi Ḥanina says: And if this is related about one who is not commanded by the Torah to honor his father, as Dama was a gentile, and nevertheless when he performs the mitzva he is given this great reward, all the more so is one rewarded who is commanded to fulfill a mitzva and performs it. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater is one who is commanded to do a mitzva and performs it than one who is not commanded to do a mitzva and performs it. Rav Yosef, who was blind, said: At first I would say: If someone would tell me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A blind person is exempt from fulfilling the mitzvot, I would make a festive day for the rabbis, as I am not commanded and yet I perform the mitzvot. This means my reward is very great. Now that I have heard that which Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater is one who is commanded to do a mitzva and performs it than one who is not commanded to do a mitzva and performs it, on the contrary: If someone would tell me that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and a blind person is obligated in mitzvot, I would make a festive day for the rabbis. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Once Dama ben Netina was wearing a fine cloak [sirkon] of gold, and was sitting among the nobles of Rome. And his mother came to him and tore his garment from him and smacked him on the head and spat in his face, and yet he did not embarrass her. Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There is a type of son who feeds his father pheasant [pasyonei] and yet this behavior causes him to be removed from the World, i.e., the World-to-Come; and there is one who makes him grind with a millstone, which is difficult work,
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב עוּלָּא עַד הֵיכָן כִּיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם אָמַר לָהֶם צְאוּ וּרְאוּ מָה עָשָׂה נׇכְרִי אֶחָד בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן וְדָמָא בֶּן נְתִינָה שְׁמוֹ פַּעַם אַחַת בִּקְּשׁוּ חֲכָמִים פְּרַקְמַטְיָא בְּשִׁשִּׁים רִיבּוֹא שָׂכָר וְהָיָה מַפְתֵּחַ מוּנָּח תַּחַת מְרַאֲשׁוֹתָיו שֶׁל אָבִיו וְלֹא צִיעֲרוֹ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עַד הֵיכָן כִּיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם אָמַר לָהֶם צְאוּ וּרְאוּ מָה עָשָׂה נׇכְרִי אֶחָד לְאָבִיו בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן וְדָמָא בֶּן נְתִינָה שְׁמוֹ בִּקְּשׁוּ מִמֶּנּוּ חֲכָמִים אֲבָנִים לָאֵפוֹד בְּשִׁשִּׁים רִיבּוֹא שָׂכָר וְרַב כָּהֲנָא מַתְנֵי בִּשְׁמוֹנִים רִיבּוֹא וְהָיָה מַפְתֵּחַ מוּנָּח תַּחַת מְרַאֲשׁוֹתָיו שֶׁל אָבִיו וְלֹא צִיעֲרוֹ לְשָׁנָה הָאַחֶרֶת נָתַן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה לוֹ פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה בְּעֶדְרוֹ נִכְנְסוּ חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶצְלוֹ אָמַר לָהֶם יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי בָּכֶם שֶׁאִם אֲנִי מְבַקֵּשׁ מִכֶּם כׇּל מָמוֹן שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אַתֶּם נוֹתְנִין לִי אֶלָּא אֵין אֲנִי מְבַקֵּשׁ מִכֶּם אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן שֶׁהִפְסַדְתִּי בִּשְׁבִיל כְּבוֹד אַבָּא וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא וּמָה מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה כָּךְ מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא גָּדוֹל מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מַאן דַּהֲוָה אָמַר לִי הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר סוֹמֵא פָּטוּר מִן הַמִּצְוֹת עָבֵידְנָא יוֹמָא טָבָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּהָא לָא מִיפְּקִידְנָא וְהָא עָבֵידְנָא הַשְׁתָּא דְּשַׁמְעִיתַהּ לְהָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא גָּדוֹל מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה יוֹתֵר מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה אַדְּרַבָּה מַאן דְּאָמַר לִי דְּאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה עָבֵידְנָא יוֹמָא טָבָא לְרַבָּנַן כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר פַּעַם אַחַת הָיָה לָבוּשׁ סִירְקוֹן שֶׁל זָהָב וְהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בֵּין גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי וּבָאתָה אִמּוֹ וּקְרָעַתּוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְטָפְחָה לוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְיָרְקָה לוֹ בְּפָנָיו וְלֹא הִכְלִימָהּ תָּנֵי אֲבִימִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ יֵשׁ מַאֲכִיל לְאָבִיו פַּסְיוֹנֵי וְטוֹרְדוֹ מִן הָעוֹלָם וְיֵשׁ מַטְחִינוֹ בָּרֵיחַיִם וּמְבִיאוֹ לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא
she persuades him with many statements of encouragement and does not treat him harshly. Therefore, in the mitzva of: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of the honor due one’s father before mentioning the honor due one’s mother. The verse emphasizes the duty that does not come naturally. Similarly, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that a son fears his father more than his mother, because his father teaches him Torah, and consequently he is strict with him. Therefore, in the verse: “A man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of fear of the mother before the mention of fear of the father. A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: When a person causes his father and mother suffering, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I did well in not dwelling among them, for if I had dwelled among them they would have caused Me suffering as well, as it were. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Anyone who transgresses in private, it is considered as though he is pushing away the feet of the Divine Presence, i.e., he distances God from him, so to speak. As it is stated: “So says the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1). When someone sins in secret, he demonstrates that he thinks God is absent from that place, and it is as though he pushes His feet away from the earth. With regard to the same issue, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: It is prohibited for a person to walk even four cubits with an upright posture, which is considered an arrogant manner, as it is stated: “The entire world is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3). One who walks in an arrogant manner indicates a lack of regard for the glory and honor of God that is surrounding him, and thereby chases God from that place, as it were. The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, and I must act respectfully. The son of one widow asked Rabbi Eliezer: If my father says to me: Give me water to drink, and my mother also says to me: Give me water to drink, which of them should I honor first? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Set aside the honor of your mother, and perform the honor of your father, as you and your mother are both obligated in the honor of your father. He came before Rabbi Yehoshua and asked him the same question, and Rabbi Yehoshua said this same answer to him. The man said to him: My teacher, if one’s mother is divorced, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: From your eyelashes, which are filled with tears, it is evident that you are the son of a widow, and you have no father. Why, then, are you asking this question as though it were relevant for you? Consequently, Rabbi Yehoshua answered him sarcastically: Pour water for them into a pitcher and squawk at them as one does to summon chickens. In other words, if one’s mother is divorced, the same honor is due to both parents, and neither takes precedence. § Ulla the Great interpreted a verse homiletically at the entrance to the house of the Nasi. What is the meaning of that which is written: “All the kings of the earth shall give You thanks, O Lord, for they have heard the words of Your mouth” (Psalms 138:4)? It is not stated: The word of Your mouth, in the singular. Rather, the verse uses the expression: “The words of Your mouth,” in the plural. To what is this phrase referring? When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2), and, in the same verse: “You shall have no other gods before Me,” the nations of the world said: He teaches this for His own honor, as both statements entail respect for God. Once He said: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), they returned and conceded the truth of the first statements, which is why the verse uses the plural expression: “Words of Your mouth,” i.e., all the words of God’s mouth. Rava said: This can be derived from here: “The beginning of Your word is truth” (Psalms 119:160). Is the beginning of Your word truth but not the end of Your word? Rather, from the end of Your word it is apparent to everyone that the beginning of Your word is truth. The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Ulla: How far must one go to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother? Rav Ulla said to them: Go and see what one gentile did in Ashkelon, and his name was Dama ben Netina. Once the Sages sought to purchase merchandise [perakmatya] from him for six hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit, but the key for the container in which the merchandise was kept was placed under his father’s head, and he was sleeping at the time. And Dama ben Netina would not disturb his father by waking him, although he could have made a substantial profit. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They asked Rabbi Eliezer: How far must one go to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Go and see what one gentile did for his father in Ashkelon, and the name of the son was Dama ben Netina. Once the Sages wished to purchase precious stones from him for the ephod of the High Priest for six hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit, and Rav Kahana taught that it was eight hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit. And the key to the chest holding the jewels was placed under his father’s head, and he would not disturb him. The next year the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Dama ben Netina his reward, as a red heifer was born in his herd, and the Jews needed it. When the Sages of Israel came to him he said to them: I know, concerning you, that if I were to ask for all the money in the world you would give it to me. But I ask only that money that I lost due to the honor of Father. And Rabbi Ḥanina says: And if this is related about one who is not commanded by the Torah to honor his father, as Dama was a gentile, and nevertheless when he performs the mitzva he is given this great reward, all the more so is one rewarded who is commanded to fulfill a mitzva and performs it. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater is one who is commanded to do a mitzva and performs it than one who is not commanded to do a mitzva and performs it. Rav Yosef, who was blind, said: At first I would say: If someone would tell me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A blind person is exempt from fulfilling the mitzvot, I would make a festive day for the rabbis, as I am not commanded and yet I perform the mitzvot. This means my reward is very great. Now that I have heard that which Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater is one who is commanded to do a mitzva and performs it than one who is not commanded to do a mitzva and performs it, on the contrary: If someone would tell me that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and a blind person is obligated in mitzvot, I would make a festive day for the rabbis. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Once Dama ben Netina was wearing a fine cloak [sirkon] of gold, and was sitting among the nobles of Rome. And his mother came to him and tore his garment from him and smacked him on the head and spat in his face, and yet he did not embarrass her. Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There is a type of son who feeds his father pheasant [pasyonei] and yet this behavior causes him to be removed from the World, i.e., the World-to-Come; and there is one who makes him grind with a millstone, which is difficult work, and this action brings him to the life of the World-to-Come. Rabbi Abbahu said: One such as Avimi, my son, properly fulfilled the mitzva of honoring his parents. The Gemara relates: Avimi had five sons during his father’s lifetime who were ordained to issue halakhic rulings, and he too was ordained. And yet when Rabbi Abbahu, his father, came and called at the gate to enter, Avimi would himself run and go to open the door for him. And before he arrived there, he would already say: Yes, yes, so that his father would not think that he was being ignored. One day Rabbi Abbahu said to Avimi his son: Give me water to drink. Before he brought him the water, Rabbi Abbahu dozed off. Avimi bent over and stood over him until his father awoke. The performance of this mitzva aided him, i.e., as a reward God helped him in his studies, and Avimi succeeded in homiletically interpreting the psalm: “A song to Asaph” (Psalms 79). Rav Ya’akov bar Avuh said to Abaye: With regard to one such as I, so beloved by my parents that before I return from the study hall my father brings me a cup and my mother pours for me, how should I act? Is it disrespectful to accept this honor from them? Abaye said to him: Accept it from your mother, but do not accept it from your father, as, since he is a Torah scholar he will be disheartened if his son does not show him the proper level of respect. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Tarfon had a certain manner of treating his mother, that whenever she wished to ascend into her bed he would bend over and help her to ascend, and whenever she wished to descend from the bed, she would descend onto him. He came and praised himself in the study hall for performing the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother so thoroughly. They said to him: You still have not reached even half of the honor due to her. Has it ever happened that she threw a purse into the sea in front of you, and you did not embarrass her? When Rav Yosef heard his mother’s footsteps, he would say: I will stand before the arriving Divine Presence. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Fortunate is one who never saw his father and mother, as it is so difficult to honor them appropriately. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself never saw his parents. When his mother was pregnant with him, his father died; and when she gave birth to him, his mother died. And the same is true of Abaye. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Abaye never saw his mother? But didn’t Abaye say on many occasions: My mother told me? The Gemara answers: That mother was actually his foster mother, not his birth mother. Rav Asi had an elderly mother. She said to him: I want jewelry, and he made jewelry for her. She said to him: I want a man whom I can marry, and he said to her: I will seek one for you. She said to him: I want a husband who is as handsome as you. At this point, he realized that she was senile, and that he would be unable to fulfill all her requests. Therefore, he left her and went to Eretz Yisrael. Rav Asi heard that she was following him to Eretz Yisrael. He came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to leaving Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Asi further asked: If one is going to greet his mother, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I do not know. Rav Asi waited a little while, and then came back to him. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Asi, you are evidently determined to leave. May the Omnipresent return you in peace, and he said no more. Rav Asi came before Rabbi Elazar, because he did not know how to interpret Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement. He said to Rabbi Elazar: God forbid, perhaps he is angry with me that I wished to leave? Rabbi Elazar said to him: What exactly did he say to you? Rav Asi said to him: May the Omnipresent return you in peace. Rabbi Elazar said to him: If it is so that he was angry, he would not have blessed you. Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly gave you permission to leave. In the meantime, while he was traveling to meet her, Rav Asi heard that her coffin was coming, i.e., his mother had died and her coffin was being brought to Eretz Yisrael. He said: Had I known I would not have left, as after his mother’s death he was not obligated to leave Eretz Yisrael to honor her. The Sages taught: One honors his father in his life and honors him in his death. How does he honor him in his life? One who goes to a place on the command of his father should not say to the people to whom he has been sent, to hurry them along: Send me on my journey on my own behalf, or: Hurry up on my own behalf, or: Allow me to take leave of this business on my own behalf. Rather, he should say all of the above in the following manner: Act in this manner on Father’s behalf, as a mark of respect for his father. How does he honor him in his death? If he says a matter he heard from his father’s mouth, he should not say: So said Father. Rather, he should say: So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting soul. And this halakha applies within twelve months of his death. From this time onward he says: May his memory be for a blessing, for the life of the World-to-Come. The Sages taught: A Sage who lectures in public must change the name of his father, i.e., when he quotes his father he should not mention him by name. And similarly, he changes the name of his teacher. The disseminator, who explains the statements of a Sage to the audience, changes neither the name of his father nor the name of his teacher. The Gemara asks: To whose father is this referring? If we say it is referring to the father of the disseminator, whom the Sage mentioned in his lecture, is that to say that the disseminator is not obligated to observe the mitzva of honoring one’s father? How can a disseminator mention his own father by name? Rather, Rava said: This is referring to the name of the Sage’s father and the name of the Sage’s teacher. This is like that which Mar bar Rav Ashi would do, as when he would teach Torah at his regular lecture and would mention a halakha in the name of his father, Rav Ashi, he would say: So said my father, my teacher; and his disseminator would say: So said Rav Ashi. Although a son may not mention his father’s name, the disseminator of his lecture may do so. The Sages taught: What is fear and what is honor? Fear of one’s father includes the following: One may not stand in his father’s fixed place, and may not sit in his place, and may not contradict his statements by expressing an opinion contrary to that of his father, and he may not choose sides when his father argues with someone else. What is considered honor? He gives his father food and drink, dresses and covers him, and brings him in and takes him out for all his household needs. A dilemma was raised before the Sages:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ כְּגוֹן אֲבִימִי בְּרִי קִיֵּים מִצְוַת כִּיבּוּד חַמְשָׁה בְּנֵי סְמִיכִי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לַאֲבִימִי בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו וְכִי הֲוָה אֲתָא רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ קָרֵי אַבָּבָא רָהֵיט וְאָזֵיל וּפָתַח לֵיהּ וְאָמַר אִין אִין עַד דְּמָטֵאי הָתָם יוֹמָא חַד אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַשְׁקְיַין מַיָּא אַדְּאַיְיתִי לֵיהּ נַמְנֵם גָּחֵין קָאֵי עֲלֵיהּ עַד דְּאִיתְּעַר אִיסְתַּיַּיעָא מִילְּתֵיהּ וּדְרַשׁ אֲבִימִי מִזְמוֹר לְאָסָף אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אֲבוּהּ לְאַבָּיֵי כְּגוֹן אֲנָא דְּעַד דְּאָתֵינָא מִבֵּי רַב אַבָּא מְדַלֵּי לִי כָּסָא וְאִמָּא מָזְגָה לִי הֵיכִי אֶיעֱבֵיד אֲמַר לֵיהּ מֵאִמָּךְ קַבֵּיל וּמֵאֲבוּךְ לָא תְּקַבֵּל דְּכֵיוָן דְּבַר תּוֹרָה הוּא חָלְשָׁה דַּעְתֵּיהּ רבי טרפון הוה ליה ההיא אמא דכל אימת דהות בעיא למיסק לפוריא גחין וסליק לה וכל אימת דהות נחית נחתת עלויה אתא וקא משתבח בי מדרשא אמרי ליה עדיין לא הגעת לחצי כיבוד כלום זרקה ארנקי בפניך לים ולא הכלמתה רַב יוֹסֵף כִּי הֲוָה שָׁמַע קָל כַּרְעָא דְאִמֵּיהּ אָמַר אֵיקוּם מִקַּמֵּי שְׁכִינָה דְּאָתְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַשְׁרֵי מִי שֶׁלֹּא חֲמָאָן רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כִּי עִבְּרַתּוּ אִמּוֹ מֵת אָבִיו יְלָדַתּוּ מֵתָה אִמּוֹ וְכֵן אַבָּיֵי אִינִי וְהָאָמַר אַבָּיֵי אֲמַרָה לִי אֵם הָהִיא מְרַבְּיָנְתֵּיהּ הֲוַאי רַב אַסִּי הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהִיא אִמָּא זְקֵינָה אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ בָּעֲיָנָא תַּכְשִׁיטִין עֲבַד לַהּ בָּעֲיָנָא גַּבְרָא נְיעַיֵּין לָךְ בָּעֲיָנָא גַּבְרָא דְּשַׁפִּיר כְּוָתָךְ שַׁבְקַהּ וַאֲזַל לְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמַע דְּקָא אָזְלָה אַבָּתְרֵיהּ אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַהוּ לָצֵאת מֵאֶרֶץ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֲמַר לֵיהּ אָסוּר לִקְרַאת אִמָּא מַהוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִתָּרַח פּוּרְתָּא הֲדַר אֲתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַסִּי נִתְרַצֵּיתָ לָצֵאת הַמָּקוֹם יַחֲזִירְךָ לְשָׁלוֹם אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם דִּלְמָא מִירְתָּח רָתַח אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַאי אֲמַר לָךְ אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַמָּקוֹם יַחֲזִירְךָ לְשָׁלוֹם אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְאִם אִיתָא דְּרָתַח לָא הֲוָה מְבָרֵךְ לֵךְ אַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי שְׁמַע לַאֲרוֹנַאּ דְּקָאָתֵי אָמַר אִי יְדַעִי לָא נְפַקִי
and this action brings him to the life of the World-to-Come. Rabbi Abbahu said: One such as Avimi, my son, properly fulfilled the mitzva of honoring his parents. The Gemara relates: Avimi had five sons during his father’s lifetime who were ordained to issue halakhic rulings, and he too was ordained. And yet when Rabbi Abbahu, his father, came and called at the gate to enter, Avimi would himself run and go to open the door for him. And before he arrived there, he would already say: Yes, yes, so that his father would not think that he was being ignored. One day Rabbi Abbahu said to Avimi his son: Give me water to drink. Before he brought him the water, Rabbi Abbahu dozed off. Avimi bent over and stood over him until his father awoke. The performance of this mitzva aided him, i.e., as a reward God helped him in his studies, and Avimi succeeded in homiletically interpreting the psalm: “A song to Asaph” (Psalms 79). Rav Ya’akov bar Avuh said to Abaye: With regard to one such as I, so beloved by my parents that before I return from the study hall my father brings me a cup and my mother pours for me, how should I act? Is it disrespectful to accept this honor from them? Abaye said to him: Accept it from your mother, but do not accept it from your father, as, since he is a Torah scholar he will be disheartened if his son does not show him the proper level of respect. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Tarfon had a certain manner of treating his mother, that whenever she wished to ascend into her bed he would bend over and help her to ascend, and whenever she wished to descend from the bed, she would descend onto him. He came and praised himself in the study hall for performing the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother so thoroughly. They said to him: You still have not reached even half of the honor due to her. Has it ever happened that she threw a purse into the sea in front of you, and you did not embarrass her? When Rav Yosef heard his mother’s footsteps, he would say: I will stand before the arriving Divine Presence. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Fortunate is one who never saw his father and mother, as it is so difficult to honor them appropriately. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself never saw his parents. When his mother was pregnant with him, his father died; and when she gave birth to him, his mother died. And the same is true of Abaye. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Abaye never saw his mother? But didn’t Abaye say on many occasions: My mother told me? The Gemara answers: That mother was actually his foster mother, not his birth mother. Rav Asi had an elderly mother. She said to him: I want jewelry, and he made jewelry for her. She said to him: I want a man whom I can marry, and he said to her: I will seek one for you. She said to him: I want a husband who is as handsome as you. At this point, he realized that she was senile, and that he would be unable to fulfill all her requests. Therefore, he left her and went to Eretz Yisrael. Rav Asi heard that she was following him to Eretz Yisrael. He came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to leaving Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Asi further asked: If one is going to greet his mother, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I do not know. Rav Asi waited a little while, and then came back to him. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Asi, you are evidently determined to leave. May the Omnipresent return you in peace, and he said no more. Rav Asi came before Rabbi Elazar, because he did not know how to interpret Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement. He said to Rabbi Elazar: God forbid, perhaps he is angry with me that I wished to leave? Rabbi Elazar said to him: What exactly did he say to you? Rav Asi said to him: May the Omnipresent return you in peace. Rabbi Elazar said to him: If it is so that he was angry, he would not have blessed you. Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly gave you permission to leave. In the meantime, while he was traveling to meet her, Rav Asi heard that her coffin was coming, i.e., his mother had died and her coffin was being brought to Eretz Yisrael. He said: Had I known I would not have left, as after his mother’s death he was not obligated to leave Eretz Yisrael to honor her. The Sages taught: One honors his father in his life and honors him in his death. How does he honor him in his life? One who goes to a place on the command of his father should not say to the people to whom he has been sent, to hurry them along: Send me on my journey on my own behalf, or: Hurry up on my own behalf, or: Allow me to take leave of this business on my own behalf. Rather, he should say all of the above in the following manner: Act in this manner on Father’s behalf, as a mark of respect for his father. How does he honor him in his death? If he says a matter he heard from his father’s mouth, he should not say: So said Father. Rather, he should say: So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting soul. And this halakha applies within twelve months of his death. From this time onward he says: May his memory be for a blessing, for the life of the World-to-Come. The Sages taught: A Sage who lectures in public must change the name of his father, i.e., when he quotes his father he should not mention him by name. And similarly, he changes the name of his teacher. The disseminator, who explains the statements of a Sage to the audience, changes neither the name of his father nor the name of his teacher. The Gemara asks: To whose father is this referring? If we say it is referring to the father of the disseminator, whom the Sage mentioned in his lecture, is that to say that the disseminator is not obligated to observe the mitzva of honoring one’s father? How can a disseminator mention his own father by name? Rather, Rava said: This is referring to the name of the Sage’s father and the name of the Sage’s teacher. This is like that which Mar bar Rav Ashi would do, as when he would teach Torah at his regular lecture and would mention a halakha in the name of his father, Rav Ashi, he would say: So said my father, my teacher; and his disseminator would say: So said Rav Ashi. Although a son may not mention his father’s name, the disseminator of his lecture may do so. The Sages taught: What is fear and what is honor? Fear of one’s father includes the following: One may not stand in his father’s fixed place, and may not sit in his place, and may not contradict his statements by expressing an opinion contrary to that of his father, and he may not choose sides when his father argues with someone else. What is considered honor? He gives his father food and drink, dresses and covers him, and brings him in and takes him out for all his household needs. A dilemma was raised before the Sages:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן מְכַבְּדוֹ בְּחַיָּיו וּמְכַבְּדוֹ בְּמוֹתוֹ בְּחַיָּיו כֵּיצַד הַנִּשְׁמָע בִּדְבַר אָבִיו לְמָקוֹם לֹא יֹאמַר שַׁלְּחוּנִי בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמִי מַהֲרוּנִי בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמִי פִּטְרוּנִי בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמִי אֶלָּא כּוּלְּהוּ בִּשְׁבִיל אַבָּא בְּמוֹתוֹ כֵּיצַד הָיָה אוֹמֵר דָּבָר שְׁמוּעָה מִפִּיו לֹא יֹאמַר כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא מָרִי הֲרֵינִי כַּפָּרַת מִשְׁכָּבוֹ וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי תּוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ אוֹמֵר זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן חָכָם מְשַׁנֶּה שֵׁם אָבִיו וְשֵׁם רַבּוֹ תּוּרְגְּמָן אֵינוֹ מְשַׁנֶּה לֹא שֵׁם אָבִיו וְלֹא שֵׁם רַבּוֹ אֲבוּהּ דְּמַאן אִילֵימָא אֲבוּהּ דִּמְתוּרְגְּמָן אַטּוּ תּוּרְגְּמָן לָאו בַּר חִיּוּבָא הוּא אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא שֵׁם אָבִיו שֶׁל חָכָם וְשֵׁם רַבּוֹ שֶׁל חָכָם כִּי הָא דְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי כִּי הֲוָה דָּרֵישׁ בְּפִירְקָא אִיהוּ אָמַר אַבָּא מָרִי וְאָמוֹרֵיהּ אָמַר הָכִי אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי
and this action brings him to the life of the World-to-Come. Rabbi Abbahu said: One such as Avimi, my son, properly fulfilled the mitzva of honoring his parents. The Gemara relates: Avimi had five sons during his father’s lifetime who were ordained to issue halakhic rulings, and he too was ordained. And yet when Rabbi Abbahu, his father, came and called at the gate to enter, Avimi would himself run and go to open the door for him. And before he arrived there, he would already say: Yes, yes, so that his father would not think that he was being ignored. One day Rabbi Abbahu said to Avimi his son: Give me water to drink. Before he brought him the water, Rabbi Abbahu dozed off. Avimi bent over and stood over him until his father awoke. The performance of this mitzva aided him, i.e., as a reward God helped him in his studies, and Avimi succeeded in homiletically interpreting the psalm: “A song to Asaph” (Psalms 79). Rav Ya’akov bar Avuh said to Abaye: With regard to one such as I, so beloved by my parents that before I return from the study hall my father brings me a cup and my mother pours for me, how should I act? Is it disrespectful to accept this honor from them? Abaye said to him: Accept it from your mother, but do not accept it from your father, as, since he is a Torah scholar he will be disheartened if his son does not show him the proper level of respect. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Tarfon had a certain manner of treating his mother, that whenever she wished to ascend into her bed he would bend over and help her to ascend, and whenever she wished to descend from the bed, she would descend onto him. He came and praised himself in the study hall for performing the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother so thoroughly. They said to him: You still have not reached even half of the honor due to her. Has it ever happened that she threw a purse into the sea in front of you, and you did not embarrass her? When Rav Yosef heard his mother’s footsteps, he would say: I will stand before the arriving Divine Presence. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Fortunate is one who never saw his father and mother, as it is so difficult to honor them appropriately. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself never saw his parents. When his mother was pregnant with him, his father died; and when she gave birth to him, his mother died. And the same is true of Abaye. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Abaye never saw his mother? But didn’t Abaye say on many occasions: My mother told me? The Gemara answers: That mother was actually his foster mother, not his birth mother. Rav Asi had an elderly mother. She said to him: I want jewelry, and he made jewelry for her. She said to him: I want a man whom I can marry, and he said to her: I will seek one for you. She said to him: I want a husband who is as handsome as you. At this point, he realized that she was senile, and that he would be unable to fulfill all her requests. Therefore, he left her and went to Eretz Yisrael. Rav Asi heard that she was following him to Eretz Yisrael. He came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to leaving Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Asi further asked: If one is going to greet his mother, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I do not know. Rav Asi waited a little while, and then came back to him. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Asi, you are evidently determined to leave. May the Omnipresent return you in peace, and he said no more. Rav Asi came before Rabbi Elazar, because he did not know how to interpret Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement. He said to Rabbi Elazar: God forbid, perhaps he is angry with me that I wished to leave? Rabbi Elazar said to him: What exactly did he say to you? Rav Asi said to him: May the Omnipresent return you in peace. Rabbi Elazar said to him: If it is so that he was angry, he would not have blessed you. Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly gave you permission to leave. In the meantime, while he was traveling to meet her, Rav Asi heard that her coffin was coming, i.e., his mother had died and her coffin was being brought to Eretz Yisrael. He said: Had I known I would not have left, as after his mother’s death he was not obligated to leave Eretz Yisrael to honor her. The Sages taught: One honors his father in his life and honors him in his death. How does he honor him in his life? One who goes to a place on the command of his father should not say to the people to whom he has been sent, to hurry them along: Send me on my journey on my own behalf, or: Hurry up on my own behalf, or: Allow me to take leave of this business on my own behalf. Rather, he should say all of the above in the following manner: Act in this manner on Father’s behalf, as a mark of respect for his father. How does he honor him in his death? If he says a matter he heard from his father’s mouth, he should not say: So said Father. Rather, he should say: So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting soul. And this halakha applies within twelve months of his death. From this time onward he says: May his memory be for a blessing, for the life of the World-to-Come. The Sages taught: A Sage who lectures in public must change the name of his father, i.e., when he quotes his father he should not mention him by name. And similarly, he changes the name of his teacher. The disseminator, who explains the statements of a Sage to the audience, changes neither the name of his father nor the name of his teacher. The Gemara asks: To whose father is this referring? If we say it is referring to the father of the disseminator, whom the Sage mentioned in his lecture, is that to say that the disseminator is not obligated to observe the mitzva of honoring one’s father? How can a disseminator mention his own father by name? Rather, Rava said: This is referring to the name of the Sage’s father and the name of the Sage’s teacher. This is like that which Mar bar Rav Ashi would do, as when he would teach Torah at his regular lecture and would mention a halakha in the name of his father, Rav Ashi, he would say: So said my father, my teacher; and his disseminator would say: So said Rav Ashi. Although a son may not mention his father’s name, the disseminator of his lecture may do so. The Sages taught: What is fear and what is honor? Fear of one’s father includes the following: One may not stand in his father’s fixed place, and may not sit in his place, and may not contradict his statements by expressing an opinion contrary to that of his father, and he may not choose sides when his father argues with someone else. What is considered honor? He gives his father food and drink, dresses and covers him, and brings him in and takes him out for all his household needs. A dilemma was raised before the Sages:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן אֵיזֶהוּ מוֹרָא וְאֵיזֶהוּ כִּיבּוּד מוֹרָא לֹא עוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וְלֹא יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וְלֹא סוֹתֵר אֶת דְּבָרָיו וְלֹא מַכְרִיעוֹ כִּיבּוּד מַאֲכִיל וּמַשְׁקֶה מַלְבִּישׁ וּמְכַסֶּה מַכְנִיס וּמוֹצִיא אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ 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 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 תָּא שְׁמַע שְׁנֵי אַחִים שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין הָאָב וּבְנוֹ הָרַב וְתַלְמִידוֹ פּוֹדִין זֶה לָזֶה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּמַאֲכִילִין זֶה לָזֶה מַעְשַׂר עָנִי וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשֶּׁל בֵּן נִמְצָא זֶה פּוֹרֵעַ חוֹבוֹ מִשֶּׁל עֲנִיִּים לָא צְרִיכָא לְהַעְדָּפָה 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 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 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 וְהָא קָעָבַר מִשּׁוּם בַּל תַּשְׁחִית דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ בְּפוּמְבְּיָינֵי וְדִילְמָא מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא רָתַח דְּעָבֵד לֵיהּ בִּשְׁעַת רִיתְחֵיהּ
מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַב יְחֶזְקֵאל לְרָמִי בְּרֵיהּ הַנִּשְׂרָפִים בַּנִּסְקָלִים רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר יִדּוֹנוּ בִּסְקִילָה שֶׁהַשְּׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ אַבָּא לָא תַּיתְנְיֵיהּ הָכִי מַאי אִירְיָא שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּרוּבָּא נִסְקָלִים נִינְהוּ אֶלָּא הָכִי אַיתְנְיֵיהּ הַנִּסְקָלִים בַּנִּשְׂרָפִים אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יִדּוֹנוּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה שֶׁהַסְּקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מַאי אִירְיָא דִּסְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּרוּבָּא נִשְׂרָפִים נִינְהוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָתָם רַבָּנַן הוּא דְּקָאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה לָא סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה 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
and this action brings him to the life of the World-to-Come. Rabbi Abbahu said: One such as Avimi, my son, properly fulfilled the mitzva of honoring his parents. The Gemara relates: Avimi had five sons during his father’s lifetime who were ordained to issue halakhic rulings, and he too was ordained. And yet when Rabbi Abbahu, his father, came and called at the gate to enter, Avimi would himself run and go to open the door for him. And before he arrived there, he would already say: Yes, yes, so that his father would not think that he was being ignored. One day Rabbi Abbahu said to Avimi his son: Give me water to drink. Before he brought him the water, Rabbi Abbahu dozed off. Avimi bent over and stood over him until his father awoke. The performance of this mitzva aided him, i.e., as a reward God helped him in his studies, and Avimi succeeded in homiletically interpreting the psalm: “A song to Asaph” (Psalms 79). Rav Ya’akov bar Avuh said to Abaye: With regard to one such as I, so beloved by my parents that before I return from the study hall my father brings me a cup and my mother pours for me, how should I act? Is it disrespectful to accept this honor from them? Abaye said to him: Accept it from your mother, but do not accept it from your father, as, since he is a Torah scholar he will be disheartened if his son does not show him the proper level of respect. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Tarfon had a certain manner of treating his mother, that whenever she wished to ascend into her bed he would bend over and help her to ascend, and whenever she wished to descend from the bed, she would descend onto him. He came and praised himself in the study hall for performing the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother so thoroughly. They said to him: You still have not reached even half of the honor due to her. Has it ever happened that she threw a purse into the sea in front of you, and you did not embarrass her? When Rav Yosef heard his mother’s footsteps, he would say: I will stand before the arriving Divine Presence. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Fortunate is one who never saw his father and mother, as it is so difficult to honor them appropriately. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself never saw his parents. When his mother was pregnant with him, his father died; and when she gave birth to him, his mother died. And the same is true of Abaye. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Abaye never saw his mother? But didn’t Abaye say on many occasions: My mother told me? The Gemara answers: That mother was actually his foster mother, not his birth mother. Rav Asi had an elderly mother. She said to him: I want jewelry, and he made jewelry for her. She said to him: I want a man whom I can marry, and he said to her: I will seek one for you. She said to him: I want a husband who is as handsome as you. At this point, he realized that she was senile, and that he would be unable to fulfill all her requests. Therefore, he left her and went to Eretz Yisrael. Rav Asi heard that she was following him to Eretz Yisrael. He came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to leaving Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Asi further asked: If one is going to greet his mother, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I do not know. Rav Asi waited a little while, and then came back to him. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Asi, you are evidently determined to leave. May the Omnipresent return you in peace, and he said no more. Rav Asi came before Rabbi Elazar, because he did not know how to interpret Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement. He said to Rabbi Elazar: God forbid, perhaps he is angry with me that I wished to leave? Rabbi Elazar said to him: What exactly did he say to you? Rav Asi said to him: May the Omnipresent return you in peace. Rabbi Elazar said to him: If it is so that he was angry, he would not have blessed you. Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly gave you permission to leave. In the meantime, while he was traveling to meet her, Rav Asi heard that her coffin was coming, i.e., his mother had died and her coffin was being brought to Eretz Yisrael. He said: Had I known I would not have left, as after his mother’s death he was not obligated to leave Eretz Yisrael to honor her. The Sages taught: One honors his father in his life and honors him in his death. How does he honor him in his life? One who goes to a place on the command of his father should not say to the people to whom he has been sent, to hurry them along: Send me on my journey on my own behalf, or: Hurry up on my own behalf, or: Allow me to take leave of this business on my own behalf. Rather, he should say all of the above in the following manner: Act in this manner on Father’s behalf, as a mark of respect for his father. How does he honor him in his death? If he says a matter he heard from his father’s mouth, he should not say: So said Father. Rather, he should say: So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting soul. And this halakha applies within twelve months of his death. From this time onward he says: May his memory be for a blessing, for the life of the World-to-Come. The Sages taught: A Sage who lectures in public must change the name of his father, i.e., when he quotes his father he should not mention him by name. And similarly, he changes the name of his teacher. The disseminator, who explains the statements of a Sage to the audience, changes neither the name of his father nor the name of his teacher. The Gemara asks: To whose father is this referring? If we say it is referring to the father of the disseminator, whom the Sage mentioned in his lecture, is that to say that the disseminator is not obligated to observe the mitzva of honoring one’s father? How can a disseminator mention his own father by name? Rather, Rava said: This is referring to the name of the Sage’s father and the name of the Sage’s teacher. This is like that which Mar bar Rav Ashi would do, as when he would teach Torah at his regular lecture and would mention a halakha in the name of his father, Rav Ashi, he would say: So said my father, my teacher; and his disseminator would say: So said Rav Ashi. Although a son may not mention his father’s name, the disseminator of his lecture may do so. The Sages taught: What is fear and what is honor? Fear of one’s father includes the following: One may not stand in his father’s fixed place, and may not sit in his place, and may not contradict his statements by expressing an opinion contrary to that of his father, and he may not choose sides when his father argues with someone else. What is considered honor? He gives his father food and drink, dresses and covers him, and brings him in and takes him out for all his household needs. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: 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 ben 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.
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 אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא הָאָב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל הָרַב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל 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 הָכָא תּוֹרָה דִּילֵיהּ הִיא הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא אִין תּוֹרָה דִּילֵיהּ הִיא דִּכְתִיב וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה אִינִי וְהָא רָבָא מַשְׁקֵי בֵּי הִלּוּלָא דִּבְרֵיהּ וְדַל לֵיהּ כָּסָא לְרַב פָּפָּא וּלְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְקָמוּ מִקַּמֵּיהּ לְרַב מָרִי וּלְרַב פִּנְחָס בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְלָא קָמוּ מִקַּמֵּיהּ אִיקְּפַד וַאֲמַר הָנוּ רַבָּנַן רַבָּנַן וְהָנוּ רַבָּנַן לָאו רַבָּנַן וְתוּ רַב פָּפָּא הֲוָה מַשְׁקֵי בֵּי הִלּוּלָא דְּאַבָּא מָר בְּרֵיהּ וְדַלִּי לֵיהּ כָּסָא לְרַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה וְלָא קָם מִקַּמֵּיהּ וְאִיקְּפַד אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי הִידּוּר מֶיעְבַּד לֵיהּ בָּעוּ אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָרַב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל נָשִׂיא שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל מֵיתִיבִי מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי צָדוֹק שֶׁהָיוּ מְסוּבִּין בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְהָיָה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עוֹמֵד וּמַשְׁקֶה עֲלֵיהֶם נָתַן הַכּוֹס לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְלֹא נְטָלוֹ נְתָנוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְקִיבְּלוֹ אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מָה זֶה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָנוּ יוֹשְׁבִין וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרִיבִּי עוֹמֵד וּמַשְׁקֶה עָלֵינוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָצִינוּ גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ אַבְרָהָם גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ וְשִׁמֵּשׁ אַבְרָהָם גְּדוֹל הַדּוֹר הָיָה וְכָתוּב בּוֹ וְהוּא עָמַד עֲלֵיהֶם וְשֶׁמָּא תֹּאמְרוּ כְּמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת נִדְמוּ לוֹ לֹא נִדְמוּ לוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַרְבִיִּים וְאָנוּ לֹא יְהֵא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרִיבִּי עוֹמֵד וּמַשְׁקֶה עָלֵינוּ אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי צָדוֹק עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם מַנִּיחִים כְּבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם וְאַתֶּם עוֹסְקִים בִּכְבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵשִׁיב רוּחוֹת וּמַעֲלֶה נְשִׂיאִים וּמוֹרִיד מָטָר וּמַצְמִיחַ אֲדָמָה וְעוֹרֵךְ שׁוּלְחָן לִפְנֵי כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד וְאָנוּ לֹא יְהֵא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרִיבִּי עוֹמֵד וּמַשְׁקֶה עָלֵינוּ אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נָשִׂיא שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל מֶלֶךְ שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ
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 ben 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. By contrast, here, is it his Torah, that the teacher can forgo its honor? Rava then said: Yes, if he studies, it is his Torah, as it is written: “For his delight is the Torah of the Lord, and in his Torah he meditates day and night” (Psalms 1:2). This indicates that at first it is “the Torah of the Lord,” but after he studies, it becomes “his Torah.” The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rava served drinks to the guests at his son’s wedding celebration, and he poured a cup for Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and they stood before him when he approached them. When he poured a cup for Rav Mari and for Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ḥisda, they did not stand before him. Rava became angry and said: Are these Sages, i.e., Rav Mari and Rav Pineḥas, Sages, and are those Sages, who stood to honor me, not Sages? Do you think you are so great that you are not required to honor a Sage? And furthermore, it happened that Rav Pappa was serving drinks to the guests at the wedding celebration [hillula] of Abba Mar, his son, and he poured a cup for Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, and he did not stand before him, and Rav Pappa became angry. These anecdotes indicate that even when a rabbi forgoes the honor due to him by serving drinks to his guests, his honor is not forgone. The Gemara answers: A rabbi can forgo the full measure of honor due to him, but even so, others are required to perform some act of reverence, such as preparing to stand before him. Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that if a rabbi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is forgone, if a Nasi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is not forgone. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok, who were reclining at the wedding of Rabban Gamliel’s son. And Rabban Gamliel, who was Nasi of the Sanhedrin at the time, was standing over them and serving them drinks. He gave the cup to Rabbi Eliezer and he would not accept it; he gave it to Rabbi Yehoshua and he accepted it. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua? We sit and the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stands over us and serves us drinks? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: We found one greater than him who served his guests, as our forefather Abraham was greater than him and he served his guests. Abraham was the greatest man of his generation and it is written about him: “And he stood over them under the tree, and they ate” (Genesis 18:8). And lest you say: His guests appeared to him as ministering angels, and that is why he honored them, in fact they appeared to him only as Arabs. And if so, should not the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stand over us and serve us drinks? Rabbi Tzadok said to them: For how long will you ignore the honor due to the Omnipresent, and deal with the honor of people? You could cite a proof from God Himself. After all, the Holy One, Blessed be He, makes the winds blow, and raises the clouds, and brings the rain, and causes the earth to sprout, and sets a table before each and every creature. And should not the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stand over us and serve us drinks? This discussion indicates that even a Nasi may forgo the honor due him. Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that if a Nasi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is forgone, if a king forgoes the honor due him, his honor is not forgone. As it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), which indicates that his fear should be upon you. The people are commanded to fear a king, and therefore it is not permitted for him to forgo the honor due to him. § The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “Before the hoary head you shall stand and you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 19:32): One might have thought that it is obligatory to stand before a simple [ashmai] elder. Therefore, the verse states: “elder,” and an “elder” means nothing other than a wise man, as it is stated: “Gather unto Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel, whom you know to be the Elders of the people” (Numbers 11:16). Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: An “elder [zaken]” means nothing other than one who has acquired wisdom. He interprets the word zaken as a contraction of the phrase zeh kanna, meaning: This one has acquired. Elsewhere the word kanna is used in reference to wisdom, as it is stated that wisdom says: “The Lord acquired me [kanani] at the beginning of His way” (Proverbs 8:22). The baraita continues: One might have thought that one must stand before an elder as soon as he sees him, even from a distance. Therefore the verse states: “You shall stand and you shall revere” (Leviticus 19:32), which teaches: I said that one is obligated to stand only in a place where there is reverence. If he stands while the elder is still far away, it is not clear that he is doing so in his honor. The baraita continues: One might have thought that he should revere him through money, i.e., that one is required to give an elder money in his honor. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall stand and you shall revere.” Just as standing includes no monetary loss, so too, reverence is referring to an action that includes no monetary loss. One might have thought that one should also stand before him in the lavatory or in the bathhouse. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall stand and you shall revere,” which indicates: I said the mitzva of standing only in a place where there is reverence. It is inappropriate to show respect for someone in places of this kind. The baraita continues: One might have thought that one may close his eyes like one who does not see the elder. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the hoary head you shall stand and you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 19:32). With regard to any matter given over to the heart, it is stated: “And you shall fear your God.” This phrase is referring to a situation where it is impossible to prove whether one purposefully made it appear as if he were not aware that he was obligated to perform a mitzva, as only that individual and God know the truth. The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where is it derived that an elder should not trouble others to honor him? The verse states: “And you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God.” The phrase “an elder, and you shall fear,” read by itself, without the rest of the verse, indicates that an elder is also commanded to fear God, and not purposefully act in a manner to cause others to have to honor him. In conclusion, the baraita cites another opinion. Isi ben Yehuda says that the verse: “Before the hoary head you shall stand,” indicates that even any person of hoary head is included in this mitzva, not only a Sage. The Gemara analyzes this baraita. Apparently the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is the same as that of the first tanna, as they both say that an elder is a Torah scholar. What does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili add? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to one who is young and wise. The first tanna maintains: One who is young and wise is not considered an elder, as the mitzva applies only to one who is both elderly and wise. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains: It is even a mitzva to honor one who is young and wise. According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the mitzva is not referring to old age at all, but only to wisdom. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? He could have said to you that if enters your mind to explain as the first tanna says, that for the obligation to honor another be in effect that person must be both elderly and wise, if so, let the Merciful One write: Before the hoary head of an elder you shall stand and you shall revere. What is the difference between the two terms “hoary head” and “elder,” that the Merciful One separates them? This serves to say that this term is not the same as that one, and that term is not the same as this one, i.e., an elder is not required to have a hoary head. Learn from the verse that even one who is young and wise is called an elder. And the first tanna would say that the verse is written this way because the Torah wants to juxtapose “elder” with “and you shall fear,” in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s statement above that an elder should not trouble others to honor him. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the first tanna? Why does he maintain that one is obligated to stand only before an elder, wise man? The Gemara answers: The first tanna maintains that if it enters your mind to explain as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says, let the Merciful One write:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה תָּקוּם יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ מִפְּנֵי זָקֵן אַשְׁמַאי תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר זָקֵן וְאֵין זָקֵן אֶלָּא חָכָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר אֵין זָקֵן אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁקָּנָה חׇכְמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ יָכוֹל יַעֲמוֹד מִפָּנָיו מִמָּקוֹם רָחוֹק תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ לֹא אָמַרְתִּי קִימָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ הִידּוּר יָכוֹל יְהַדְּרֶנּוּ בְּמָמוֹן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ מָה קִימָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס אַף הִידּוּר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס יָכוֹל יַעֲמוֹד מִפָּנָיו מִבֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וּמִבֵּית הַמֶּרְחָץ תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ לֹא אָמַרְתִּי קִימָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ הִידּוּר יָכוֹל יַעֲצִים עֵינָיו כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָהוּ תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר תָּקוּם וְיָרֵאתָ דָּבָר הַמָּסוּר לַלֵּב נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִנַּיִן לְזָקֵן שֶׁלֹּא יַטְרִיחַ תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר זָקֵן וְיָרֵאתָ אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה תָּקוּם אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל שִׁיבָה בַּמַּשְׁמָע רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ יַנִּיק וְחַכִּים תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר יַנִּיק וְחַכִּים לָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי סָבַר אֲפִילּוּ יַנִּיק וְחַכִּים מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אָמַר לָךְ אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא אִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה זָקֵן תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ מַאי שְׁנָא דְּפַלְגִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֵימַר דְּהַאי לָאו הַאי וְהַאי לָאו הַאי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ יַנִּיק וְחַכִּים וְתַנָּא קַמָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי לְמִיסְמַךְ זָקֵן וְיָרֵאתָ וְתַנָּא קַמָּא מַאי טַעְמָא אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְקָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ פְּנֵי זָקֵן וּמִדְּלָא כְּתַב הָכִי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חַד הוּא
By contrast, here, is it his Torah, that the teacher can forgo its honor? Rava then said: Yes, if he studies, it is his Torah, as it is written: “For his delight is the Torah of the Lord, and in his Torah he meditates day and night” (Psalms 1:2). This indicates that at first it is “the Torah of the Lord,” but after he studies, it becomes “his Torah.” The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rava served drinks to the guests at his son’s wedding celebration, and he poured a cup for Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and they stood before him when he approached them. When he poured a cup for Rav Mari and for Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ḥisda, they did not stand before him. Rava became angry and said: Are these Sages, i.e., Rav Mari and Rav Pineḥas, Sages, and are those Sages, who stood to honor me, not Sages? Do you think you are so great that you are not required to honor a Sage? And furthermore, it happened that Rav Pappa was serving drinks to the guests at the wedding celebration [hillula] of Abba Mar, his son, and he poured a cup for Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, and he did not stand before him, and Rav Pappa became angry. These anecdotes indicate that even when a rabbi forgoes the honor due to him by serving drinks to his guests, his honor is not forgone. The Gemara answers: A rabbi can forgo the full measure of honor due to him, but even so, others are required to perform some act of reverence, such as preparing to stand before him. Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that if a rabbi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is forgone, if a Nasi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is not forgone. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok, who were reclining at the wedding of Rabban Gamliel’s son. And Rabban Gamliel, who was Nasi of the Sanhedrin at the time, was standing over them and serving them drinks. He gave the cup to Rabbi Eliezer and he would not accept it; he gave it to Rabbi Yehoshua and he accepted it. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua? We sit and the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stands over us and serves us drinks? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: We found one greater than him who served his guests, as our forefather Abraham was greater than him and he served his guests. Abraham was the greatest man of his generation and it is written about him: “And he stood over them under the tree, and they ate” (Genesis 18:8). And lest you say: His guests appeared to him as ministering angels, and that is why he honored them, in fact they appeared to him only as Arabs. And if so, should not the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stand over us and serve us drinks? Rabbi Tzadok said to them: For how long will you ignore the honor due to the Omnipresent, and deal with the honor of people? You could cite a proof from God Himself. After all, the Holy One, Blessed be He, makes the winds blow, and raises the clouds, and brings the rain, and causes the earth to sprout, and sets a table before each and every creature. And should not the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stand over us and serve us drinks? This discussion indicates that even a Nasi may forgo the honor due him. Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that if a Nasi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is forgone, if a king forgoes the honor due him, his honor is not forgone. As it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), which indicates that his fear should be upon you. The people are commanded to fear a king, and therefore it is not permitted for him to forgo the honor due to him. § The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “Before the hoary head you shall stand and you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 19:32): One might have thought that it is obligatory to stand before a simple [ashmai] elder. Therefore, the verse states: “elder,” and an “elder” means nothing other than a wise man, as it is stated: “Gather unto Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel, whom you know to be the Elders of the people” (Numbers 11:16). Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: An “elder [zaken]” means nothing other than one who has acquired wisdom. He interprets the word zaken as a contraction of the phrase zeh kanna, meaning: This one has acquired. Elsewhere the word kanna is used in reference to wisdom, as it is stated that wisdom says: “The Lord acquired me [kanani] at the beginning of His way” (Proverbs 8:22). The baraita continues: One might have thought that one must stand before an elder as soon as he sees him, even from a distance. Therefore the verse states: “You shall stand and you shall revere” (Leviticus 19:32), which teaches: I said that one is obligated to stand only in a place where there is reverence. If he stands while the elder is still far away, it is not clear that he is doing so in his honor. The baraita continues: One might have thought that he should revere him through money, i.e., that one is required to give an elder money in his honor. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall stand and you shall revere.” Just as standing includes no monetary loss, so too, reverence is referring to an action that includes no monetary loss. One might have thought that one should also stand before him in the lavatory or in the bathhouse. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall stand and you shall revere,” which indicates: I said the mitzva of standing only in a place where there is reverence. It is inappropriate to show respect for someone in places of this kind. The baraita continues: One might have thought that one may close his eyes like one who does not see the elder. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the hoary head you shall stand and you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 19:32). With regard to any matter given over to the heart, it is stated: “And you shall fear your God.” This phrase is referring to a situation where it is impossible to prove whether one purposefully made it appear as if he were not aware that he was obligated to perform a mitzva, as only that individual and God know the truth. The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where is it derived that an elder should not trouble others to honor him? The verse states: “And you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God.” The phrase “an elder, and you shall fear,” read by itself, without the rest of the verse, indicates that an elder is also commanded to fear God, and not purposefully act in a manner to cause others to have to honor him. In conclusion, the baraita cites another opinion. Isi ben Yehuda says that the verse: “Before the hoary head you shall stand,” indicates that even any person of hoary head is included in this mitzva, not only a Sage. The Gemara analyzes this baraita. Apparently the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is the same as that of the first tanna, as they both say that an elder is a Torah scholar. What does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili add? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to one who is young and wise. The first tanna maintains: One who is young and wise is not considered an elder, as the mitzva applies only to one who is both elderly and wise. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains: It is even a mitzva to honor one who is young and wise. According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the mitzva is not referring to old age at all, but only to wisdom. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? He could have said to you that if enters your mind to explain as the first tanna says, that for the obligation to honor another be in effect that person must be both elderly and wise, if so, let the Merciful One write: Before the hoary head of an elder you shall stand and you shall revere. What is the difference between the two terms “hoary head” and “elder,” that the Merciful One separates them? This serves to say that this term is not the same as that one, and that term is not the same as this one, i.e., an elder is not required to have a hoary head. Learn from the verse that even one who is young and wise is called an elder. And the first tanna would say that the verse is written this way because the Torah wants to juxtapose “elder” with “and you shall fear,” in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s statement above that an elder should not trouble others to honor him. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the first tanna? Why does he maintain that one is obligated to stand only before an elder, wise man? The Gemara answers: The first tanna maintains that if it enters your mind to explain as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says, let the Merciful One write: Before the hoary head of an elder you shall stand and revere; you shall stand and revere the face of an elder. From the fact that the Merciful One did not write this and thereby divide the two concepts, learn from it that “elder” and “hoary head” are together referring to one type of person. The Master said previously in the baraita: One might have thought that he should revere him through money, i.e., he is required to give him money in his honor; therefore, the verse states: “You shall stand and you shall revere” (Leviticus 19:32). Just as standing includes no monetary loss, so too, reverence is referring to an action that includes no monetary loss. The Gemara asks: And does standing include no monetary loss at all? Are we not dealing with a case where he was piercing pearls, a highly remunerative task, and in the meantime he must stand for the elder and thereby neglect his work, which causes him a loss? Rather, the verse juxtaposes standing to reverence: Just as reverence does not include neglect of work, so too, standing does not include neglect of work; therefore, one who is engaged in work is not obligated to stand before an elder. And the verse also juxtaposes reverence to standing: Just as standing includes no monetary loss, as standing applies only when it does not entail neglect of work, as explained previously, so too, reverence is referring to an action that includes no monetary loss. From here the Sages stated: Craftsmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars when they are engaged in their work. The Gemara asks: And are craftsmen not required to stand before Torah scholars? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:3): When farmers bring their first fruits to Jerusalem, all craftsmen stand before them, and greet them, and say to them: Our brothers from such and such a place, welcome! Since craftsmen would stand even for those engaged in a mitzva, all the more so should they stand for Torah scholars. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is no difficulty here, as indeed they stood before those bringing first fruits, and yet they would not stand before Torah scholars. Based on this Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: Come and see how beloved is a mitzva performed in its proper time, as the craftsmen stood before those who were fulfilling a mitzva, whereas they did not stand before Torah scholars. The Gemara responds: This does not prove that the same applies to all mitzvot performed in their proper times, as perhaps it is different there, with regard to the bringing of the first fruits; for if so, i.e., if one does not treat those who bring first fruits with such honor, they will not want to come at all, and you will cause them to stumble and sin in the future. Consequently, the Sages instituted that those bringing first fruits should be treated with special honor. This reasoning does not apply to people performing other mitzvot. The Master said previously: One might have thought that one should also stand before an Elder in the lavatory or in the bathhouse; therefore, the verse said: “You shall stand and you shall revere,” which indicates that the mitzva of standing applies only in a place where there is reverence. The Gemara asks: And does one not show honor in a lavatory? But Rabbi Ḥiyya was sitting in a bathhouse and Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi passed by, and he did not stand before him. And Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi became angry and went and said to his father, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: I taught Rabbi Ḥiyya two of the five parts of the book of Psalms, and yet he did not stand before me. This indicates that a display of honor is appropriate even in a bathhouse. And furthermore, bar Kappara, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yosei, was sitting in a bathhouse. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi entered and passed by, and he did not stand before him. Rabbi Shimon became angry and went and said to his father: I taught him two of the nine parts of Torat Kohanim, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus, and yet he did not stand before me. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Shimon: Perhaps he was sitting and contemplating what you taught him and did not see you come in. The Gemara explains the proof: The fact that the reason he might have been exempt was that he was sitting and pondering the lessons indicates that if that were not so, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not have justified such behavior. One must stand before a Sage even in a bathhouse. The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This halakha, that one is not required to stand in a bathhouse, applies to the inner rooms, where everyone is naked; standing in a place of this kind certainly does not bestow honor. That halakha, that one is obligated to stand in a bathhouse, applies to the outer rooms, where people are still dressed. Standing is a sign of respect in these rooms. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct explanation, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah everywhere, except for the bathhouse and the lavatory. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi suggested that the student might have been sitting and pondering his studies, it can be assumed that the episode occurred in a location where only some of the halakhot governing one’s behavior in a bathhouse apply, i.e., the outer rooms. The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps one whose studies are beyond his control is different; it is possible he was so absorbed in Torah study that he forgot that he was in a place where it is prohibited to think about sacred matters. It is taught in the same baraita: One might have thought that one may close his eyes like one who does not see the elder; therefore, the verse states: “Before the hoary head you shall stand, and you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 19:32). The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people who would intentionally act this way to avoid fulfilling a mitzva? Rather, this means: One might have thought that one may close his eyes before the obligation to stand arrives, i.e., when the elder is still far off. This would mean that when the obligation does arrive he will not see him, such that he would be required to stand before him. In this manner he thinks that he can avoid the obligation altogether. Therefore the verse states: “You shall stand…and you shall fear,” i.e., one should fear He who knows the secrets of one’s heart. § A Sage taught: What is the type of standing that indicates reverence? You must say that this applies when it is clear that one is standing in the elder’s honor, which is within four cubits of him. Abaye said: We said this halakha, that one must stand within four cubits of the elder, only with regard to one who is not his primary teacher; but for his primary teacher he must stand when he is within his range of vision, i.e., as soon as he sees him, even if he is more than four cubits away. The Gemara likewise reports that Abaye would stand as soon as he saw the ear of Rav Yosef’s donkey coming toward him. The Gemara relates: Abaye was riding a donkey along the bank of the Sagya River. Rav Mesharshiyya and other rabbis were sitting on the other bank of the river, and they did not stand before him. Abaye said to them: Am I not your primary teacher? You are therefore required to stand before me, despite the fact that I am far away. They said to him: That did not enter our minds, i.e., we did not see you at all. § It was further stated in the baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where is it derived that an elder should not trouble others to honor him? The verse states: “And you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God.” Abaye said: We have a tradition that if a Sage circumnavigates an area so that people will not have to stand before him, he will live a long life. The Gemara relates that Abaye would circumnavigate an area, and likewise Rabbi Zeira would circumnavigate an area. The Gemara cites another incident involving honor one demonstrates for his teacher. Once, when Ravina was sitting before Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti, a certain man passed before him and did not cover his head. Ravina said: How rude is this man, who does not show respect by covering his head in honor of a rabbi. Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said to him: Perhaps he is from the city of Mata Meḥasya, where rabbis are common and the people living there are consequently not as careful to display honor as those in other places. § It was stated previously that Isi ben Yehuda says that as the verse states: “Before the hoary head you shall stand,” it indicates that even anyone of hoary head is included, not only a Torah scholar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yoḥanan himself would stand before Aramean, i.e., gentile, elders. He said: How many experiences [harpatkei] have occurred to these individuals. It is appropriate to honor them, due to the wisdom they have garnered from their long lives. Rava would not stand before them, but he displayed reverence to them. Abaye would extend a hand to elders so that they could lean on him. Rava would send his agent to help them. Rav Naḥman would send officers [goza’ei], his servants, to assist elders. He said: If not for the Torah, how many people named Naḥman bar Abba would there be in the marketplace? In other words, I am not permitted to treat my Torah study lightly by assisting them myself, as I can perform this mitzva through others. Rabbi Aivu says that Rabbi Yannai says:
אָמַר מָר יָכוֹל יְהַדְּרֶנּוּ בְּמָמוֹן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ מָה קִימָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס אַף הִידּוּר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס וְקִימָה לֵית בַּהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דְּקָא נָקֵיב מַרְגָּנִיתָא אַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי קָאֵים מִקַּמֵּיהּ וּבָטֵיל מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ אֶלָּא אַקֵּישׁ קִימָה לְהִידּוּר מָה הִידּוּר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בִּיטּוּל אַף קִימָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ בִּיטּוּל וְאַקֵּישׁ נָמֵי הִידּוּר לְקִימָה מָה קִימָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס אַף הִידּוּר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ אֵין בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲמוֹד מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹסְקִין בִּמְלַאכְתָּם וְלָא וְהָתְנַן כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת עוֹמְדִים מִפְּנֵיהֶם וְשׁוֹאֲלִים בִּשְׁלוֹמָם וְאוֹמְרִים לָהֶם אַחֵינוּ אַנְשֵׁי מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בּוֹאֲכֶם לְשָׁלוֹם אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִים מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין עוֹמְדִים אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין בּוֹא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה חֲבִיבָה מִצְוָה בִּשְׁעָתָהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי מִפְּנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִים מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין עוֹמְדִים וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאִם כֵּן אַתָּה מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא אָמַר מָר יָכוֹל יַעֲמוֹד מִפָּנָיו מִבֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וּמִבֵּית הַמֶּרְחָץ וְלָא וְהָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא הֲוָה יָתֵיב בֵּי מַסְחוּתָא וְחָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי וְלָא קָם מִקַּמֵּיהּ וְאִיקְּפַד וַאֲתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּהּ שְׁנֵי חוּמָּשִׁים שָׁנִיתִי לוֹ בְּסֵפֶר תְּהִלִּים וְלֹא עָמַד מִפָּנַי וְתוּ בַּר קַפָּרָא וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוָה יָתֵיב בֵּי מַסְחוּתָא עָל וְאָזֵיל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי וְלָא קָם מִקַּמֵּיהּ וְאִיקְּפַד וַאֲתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּהּ שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי שְׁלִישׁ שָׁנִיתִי לוֹ בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים וְלֹא עָמַד מִפָּנַי וְאָמַר לוֹ שֶׁמָּא בָּהֶן יוֹשֵׁב וּמְהַרְהֵר טַעְמָא דְּבָהֶן יוֹשֵׁב וּמְהַרְהֵר הָא לָאו הָכִי לָא לָא קַשְׁיָא הָא בְּבָתֵּי גַּוָּאֵי הָא בְּבָתֵּי בָּרָאֵי הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּכׇל מָקוֹם מוּתָּר לְהַרְהֵר חוּץ מִבֵּית הַמֶּרְחָץ וּמִבֵּית הַכִּסֵּא דִּילְמָא לְאוּנְסֵיהּ שָׁאנֵי
Before the hoary head of an elder you shall stand and revere; you shall stand and revere the face of an elder. From the fact that the Merciful One did not write this and thereby divide the two concepts, learn from it that “elder” and “hoary head” are together referring to one type of person. The Master said previously in the baraita: One might have thought that he should revere him through money, i.e., he is required to give him money in his honor; therefore, the verse states: “You shall stand and you shall revere” (Leviticus 19:32). Just as standing includes no monetary loss, so too, reverence is referring to an action that includes no monetary loss. The Gemara asks: And does standing include no monetary loss at all? Are we not dealing with a case where he was piercing pearls, a highly remunerative task, and in the meantime he must stand for the elder and thereby neglect his work, which causes him a loss? Rather, the verse juxtaposes standing to reverence: Just as reverence does not include neglect of work, so too, standing does not include neglect of work; therefore, one who is engaged in work is not obligated to stand before an elder. And the verse also juxtaposes reverence to standing: Just as standing includes no monetary loss, as standing applies only when it does not entail neglect of work, as explained previously, so too, reverence is referring to an action that includes no monetary loss. From here the Sages stated: Craftsmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars when they are engaged in their work. The Gemara asks: And are craftsmen not required to stand before Torah scholars? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:3): When farmers bring their first fruits to Jerusalem, all craftsmen stand before them, and greet them, and say to them: Our brothers from such and such a place, welcome! Since craftsmen would stand even for those engaged in a mitzva, all the more so should they stand for Torah scholars. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is no difficulty here, as indeed they stood before those bringing first fruits, and yet they would not stand before Torah scholars. Based on this Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: Come and see how beloved is a mitzva performed in its proper time, as the craftsmen stood before those who were fulfilling a mitzva, whereas they did not stand before Torah scholars. The Gemara responds: This does not prove that the same applies to all mitzvot performed in their proper times, as perhaps it is different there, with regard to the bringing of the first fruits; for if so, i.e., if one does not treat those who bring first fruits with such honor, they will not want to come at all, and you will cause them to stumble and sin in the future. Consequently, the Sages instituted that those bringing first fruits should be treated with special honor. This reasoning does not apply to people performing other mitzvot. The Master said previously: One might have thought that one should also stand before an Elder in the lavatory or in the bathhouse; therefore, the verse said: “You shall stand and you shall revere,” which indicates that the mitzva of standing applies only in a place where there is reverence. The Gemara asks: And does one not show honor in a lavatory? But Rabbi Ḥiyya was sitting in a bathhouse and Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi passed by, and he did not stand before him. And Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi became angry and went and said to his father, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: I taught Rabbi Ḥiyya two of the five parts of the book of Psalms, and yet he did not stand before me. This indicates that a display of honor is appropriate even in a bathhouse. And furthermore, bar Kappara, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yosei, was sitting in a bathhouse. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi entered and passed by, and he did not stand before him. Rabbi Shimon became angry and went and said to his father: I taught him two of the nine parts of Torat Kohanim, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus, and yet he did not stand before me. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Shimon: Perhaps he was sitting and contemplating what you taught him and did not see you come in. The Gemara explains the proof: The fact that the reason he might have been exempt was that he was sitting and pondering the lessons indicates that if that were not so, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not have justified such behavior. One must stand before a Sage even in a bathhouse. The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This halakha, that one is not required to stand in a bathhouse, applies to the inner rooms, where everyone is naked; standing in a place of this kind certainly does not bestow honor. That halakha, that one is obligated to stand in a bathhouse, applies to the outer rooms, where people are still dressed. Standing is a sign of respect in these rooms. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct explanation, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah everywhere, except for the bathhouse and the lavatory. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi suggested that the student might have been sitting and pondering his studies, it can be assumed that the episode occurred in a location where only some of the halakhot governing one’s behavior in a bathhouse apply, i.e., the outer rooms. The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps one whose studies are beyond his control is different; it is possible he was so absorbed in Torah study that he forgot that he was in a place where it is prohibited to think about sacred matters. It is taught in the same baraita: One might have thought that one may close his eyes like one who does not see the elder; therefore, the verse states: “Before the hoary head you shall stand, and you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 19:32). The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people who would intentionally act this way to avoid fulfilling a mitzva? Rather, this means: One might have thought that one may close his eyes before the obligation to stand arrives, i.e., when the elder is still far off. This would mean that when the obligation does arrive he will not see him, such that he would be required to stand before him. In this manner he thinks that he can avoid the obligation altogether. Therefore the verse states: “You shall stand…and you shall fear,” i.e., one should fear He who knows the secrets of one’s heart. § A Sage taught: What is the type of standing that indicates reverence? You must say that this applies when it is clear that one is standing in the elder’s honor, which is within four cubits of him. Abaye said: We said this halakha, that one must stand within four cubits of the elder, only with regard to one who is not his primary teacher; but for his primary teacher he must stand when he is within his range of vision, i.e., as soon as he sees him, even if he is more than four cubits away. The Gemara likewise reports that Abaye would stand as soon as he saw the ear of Rav Yosef’s donkey coming toward him. The Gemara relates: Abaye was riding a donkey along the bank of the Sagya River. Rav Mesharshiyya and other rabbis were sitting on the other bank of the river, and they did not stand before him. Abaye said to them: Am I not your primary teacher? You are therefore required to stand before me, despite the fact that I am far away. They said to him: That did not enter our minds, i.e., we did not see you at all. § It was further stated in the baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where is it derived that an elder should not trouble others to honor him? The verse states: “And you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God.” Abaye said: We have a tradition that if a Sage circumnavigates an area so that people will not have to stand before him, he will live a long life. The Gemara relates that Abaye would circumnavigate an area, and likewise Rabbi Zeira would circumnavigate an area. The Gemara cites another incident involving honor one demonstrates for his teacher. Once, when Ravina was sitting before Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti, a certain man passed before him and did not cover his head. Ravina said: How rude is this man, who does not show respect by covering his head in honor of a rabbi. Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said to him: Perhaps he is from the city of Mata Meḥasya, where rabbis are common and the people living there are consequently not as careful to display honor as those in other places. § It was stated previously that Isi ben Yehuda says that as the verse states: “Before the hoary head you shall stand,” it indicates that even anyone of hoary head is included, not only a Torah scholar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yoḥanan himself would stand before Aramean, i.e., gentile, elders. He said: How many experiences [harpatkei] have occurred to these individuals. It is appropriate to honor them, due to the wisdom they have garnered from their long lives. Rava would not stand before them, but he displayed reverence to them. Abaye would extend a hand to elders so that they could lean on him. Rava would send his agent to help them. Rav Naḥman would send officers [goza’ei], his servants, to assist elders. He said: If not for the Torah, how many people named Naḥman bar Abba would there be in the marketplace? In other words, I am not permitted to treat my Torah study lightly by assisting them myself, as I can perform this mitzva through others. Rabbi Aivu says that Rabbi Yannai says: