The Nature of Holiness
(א) וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יי אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ (ב) דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־כׇּל־עֲדַ֧ת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל וְאָמַרְתָּ֥ אֲלֵהֶ֖ם קְדֹשִׁ֣ים תִּהְי֑וּ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֖י יי אֱלֹקֵיכֶֽם׃
(1) יי spoke to Moses, saying: (2) Speak to the whole Israelite community and say to them: You shall be holy, for I, your God יי, am holy.
'Shemirah' Guarding Place
(טו) וַיִּקַּ֛ח יי אֱלֹקִ֖ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיַּנִּחֵ֣הוּ בְגַן־עֵ֔דֶן לְעׇבְדָ֖הּ וּלְשׇׁמְרָֽהּ׃
(15) God יי settled the Human in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it.
'Shemirah' Guarding Time
(טז) וְשָׁמְר֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּ֑ת לַעֲשׂ֧וֹת אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּ֛ת לְדֹרֹתָ֖ם בְּרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם׃ (יז) בֵּינִ֗י וּבֵין֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל א֥וֹת הִ֖וא לְעֹלָ֑ם כִּי־שֵׁ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֗ים עָשָׂ֤ה יי אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבַיּוֹם֙ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י שָׁבַ֖ת וַיִּנָּפַֽשׁ׃ {ס}
(16) The Israelite people shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout the ages as a covenant for all time: (17) it shall be a sign for all time between Me and the people of Israel. For in six days יי made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day [God] ceased from work and was refreshed.
'Shemirah' Guarding Time
(יב) שָׁמ֛֣וֹר אֶת־י֥וֹם֩ הַשַּׁבָּ֖֨ת לְקַדְּשׁ֑֜וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖֣ ׀ יי אֱלֹקֶֽ֗יךָ׃
(12) Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as your God יי has commanded you.
'Shemirah' Guarding Ourselves
(טו) וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּ֥ם מְאֹ֖ד לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶ֑ם כִּ֣י לֹ֤א רְאִיתֶם֙ כׇּל־תְּמוּנָ֔ה בְּי֗וֹם דִּבֶּ֨ר יי אֲלֵיכֶ֛ם בְּחֹרֵ֖ב מִתּ֥וֹךְ הָאֵֽשׁ׃
(15) For your own sake, therefore, be most careful—since you saw no shape when יי spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire—
Declaration of the Rights of the Child אתר האינטרנט של משרד הרווחה. כתובת: http://www.molsa.gov.il/MisradHarevacha
הצהרת זכויות הילד
במלאת ארבעים שנה להקמתה של מדינת ישראל, ברוח מסורת ישראל מדורי דורות, על בסיס עקרונות מגילת העצמאות, הכרזת זכויות הילד של עצרת האו"ם, אמנות בינלאומיות, החלטות מועצת אירופה והמלצות ארגונים בינלאומיים למען הילד, אנו מכריזים בזאת על: הצהרת זכויות הילד בישראל
On Human and Animal Parents: The Obligation of Sustaining Sons and Daughters
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲנִינָא בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם זָן אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנוֹתָיו כְּשֶׁהֵן קְטַנִּים אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ אוֹ אֵין הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ תָּא שְׁמַע כִּי הֲוָה אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר לְהוּ יָארוּד יָלְדָה וְאַבְּנֵי מָתָא שָׁדְיָא כִּי הֲוָה אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא אֲמַר לְהוּ כְּפוֹ לֵיהּ אֲסִיתָא בְּצִבּוּרָא וְלֵיקוּם וְלֵימָא עוֹרְבָא בָּעֵי בְּנֵיהּ וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא לָא בָּעֵי בְּנֵיהּ וְעוֹרְבָא בָּעֵי בְּנֵיהּ וְהָכְתִיב לִבְנֵי עוֹרֵב אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָאוּ לָא קַשְׁיָא הָא בְּחִיוָּרֵי הָא בְּאוּכָּמֵי כִּי הֲוָה אָתֵי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ נִיחָא לָךְ דְּמִיתַּזְנִי בְּנָיךְ מִצְּדָקָה וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא אֲמִיד אֲבָל אֲמִיד כָּפֵינַן לֵיהּ עַל כֻּרְחֵיהּ כִּי הָא דְּרָבָא כַּפְיֵיהּ לְרַב נָתָן בַּר אַמֵּי וְאַפֵּיק מִינֵּיהּ אַרְבַּע מְאָה זוּזֵי לִצְדָקָה
§ Rabbi Ile’a said that Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥanina: In Usha the Sages instituted that a man should sustain his sons and daughters when they are minors. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the halakha in accordance with his opinion or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? Must a man feed his young children in practice or not? The Gemara answers: Come and hear: When they would come before Rav Yehuda to complain about a father who refused to sustain his children, he would say to them: The jackal [yarod] bears offspring and casts the obligation to feed them on the residents of the town? Even a jackal feeds its young, and it is certainly proper for a father to support his children. When they would come before Rav Ḥisda to register a similar complaint, he would say to them: Turn over a mortar for him in public, as a raised platform, and let that father stand up and say about himself: The raven wants to care for its sons, and yet this man does not want to support his sons. The Gemara questions this statement: And does the raven want to feed its sons? But isn’t it written: “He gives to the beast its food, to the young ravens that cry” (Psalms 147:9)? This verse indicates that the parents of young ravens do not feed them. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as in this case it is referring to white ones, and in that case it is referring to black ones. There are different types of ravens, some of which feed their young while others do not. The Gemara further relates: When an incident of this kind would come before Rava, he would say to the father: Is it satisfactory to you that your sons are sustained through charity? All these incidents prove that the halakha is not in accordance with the enactment of Usha; although these Sages stated forcefully that it is proper for a father to support his children, they did not force him to do so by the authority of the court. The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only when he is not wealthy and must toil hard to provide food for his children, but if he is wealthy we coerce him against his will to sustain them. Like this case of Rava, who coerced Rav Natan bar Ami, who was a wealthy man, to donate to charity, and collected from him four hundred dinars for charity. This shows that even in the absence of a particular obligation, the court will compel a person to give charity if he can afford it. The same reasoning certainly applies to a man’s own children.
מַאי לָאו בְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין לָא בְּשֶׁלֹּא עָמַד בַּדִּין וְהָא מִדְּרֵישָׁא בְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין סֵיפָא נָמֵי בְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין דְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דְּבָרִים שֶׁמְּשַׁלְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה וְהָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וּמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע מִנַּיִן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל רִיבָּה הֵיכִי דָמֵי אִי דְּלֹא עָמַד בַּדִּין כְּפֵילָא מִי אִיכָּא אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין וּמִדְּרֵישָׁא בְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין סֵיפָא נָמֵי בְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין אֲמַר לֵיהּ יָכֵילְנָא לְשַׁנּוֹיֵי לָךְ רֵישָׁא בְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין וְסֵיפָא בְּשֶׁלֹּא עָמַד בַּדִּין וְכוּלַּהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא וְשִׁינּוּיֵי דְּחִיקֵי לָא מְשַׁנֵּינַן לָךְ דְּאִם כֵּן אָמְרַתְּ לִי לִיתְנֵי רֵישָׁא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אוֹ לִיתְנֵי סֵיפָא דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא כּוּלַּהּ בְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין וְרֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וּמוֹדֵינָא לָךְ לְעִנְיַן קׇרְבַּן שְׁבוּעָה דְּרַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרֵיהּ מִוְּכִחֵשׁ וְכִי קָאָמֵינָא מָמוֹן הָוֵי לְהוֹרִישׁוֹ לְבָנָיו אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אִם לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לִגְבּוֹת עַד שֶׁמֵּת הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל עַצְמָהּ וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מָמוֹן הָוֵי לְהוֹרִישׁוֹ לְבָנָיו לְעַצְמָהּ אַמַּאי דְּאַחִין בָּעֵי מִיהְוֵי אָמַר רָבָא הַאי מִילְּתָא קְשַׁאי בַּהּ רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין שְׁנִין וְלָא אִיפְּרַק עַד דִּיתֵיב רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵישָׁא וּפָירְקַהּ שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשּׁוֹכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה חֲמִשִּׁים כֶּסֶף לֹא זִיכְּתָה תּוֹרָה לָאָב אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה וְכִי קָאָמַר רַבָּה מָמוֹנָא הָוֵי לְהוֹרִישׁוֹ לְבָנָיו בִּשְׁאָר קְנָסוֹת אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה גַּבֵּי עֶבֶד דִּכְתִיב כֶּסֶף שְׁלֹשִׁים שְׁקָלִים יִתֵּן לַאדוֹנָיו הָכִי נָמֵי לֹא זִיכְּתָה תּוֹרָה לָאָדוֹן אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה יִתֵּן לְחוּד וְנָתַן לְחוּד אִי הָכִי תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכִחֵשׁ תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְנָתַן מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ אָמַר רָבָא כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ וְכִחֵשׁ כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָמְדָה בַּדִּין וּבָגְרָה וּמֵתָה דְּהָתָם כִּי קָא יָרֵית אָבִיהָ מִינַּהּ דִּידַהּ קָא יָרֵית אִי הָכִי יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵן קְנָס מָמוֹן הוּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁעִיקָּרָן קְנָס אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ טַעְמָא דְּלֹא עָמַד בַּדִּין הָא עָמַד בַּדִּין דִּמְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ קׇרְבַּן שְׁבוּעָה נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ לְדִידִי אַף עַל גַּב דְּעָמַד בַּדִּין רַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרֵיהּ מִוְּכִחֵשׁ אֶלָּא לְדִידְכוּ אוֹדוֹ לִי מִיהַת הֵיכָא דְּלֹא עָמַד בַּדִּין דְּכִי קָא תָּבַע קְנָסָא קָא תָּבַע
What, is it not referring to a case where he has stood trial, and yet Rabbi Shimon does not render him liable for the oath as the payment was originally a fine? Rabba refutes this argument: No, that baraita is referring to a situation where he has not stood trial. Abaye persists: But from the fact that the first clause of the baraita deals with one who has stood trial, it follows that the latter clause also deals with one who has stood trial. As the baraita teaches in its first clause: I have derived the halakha only for matters for which one pays the principal. With regard to the payments that are double the principal, and payments that are four and five times the principal, and those of the rapist, and the seducer, and the defamer, from where is it derived that all these are included in the liability to bring an offering for falsely taking an oath on a deposit? The verse states: “If anyone sin and commit a trespass [ma’ala ma’al]” (Leviticus 5:21). The doubled usage of the word trespass serves to amplify and include any false oath taken in denial of monetary liability. Abaye analyzes this statement: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a situation when he has not stood trial, is there double payment in that case? Everyone agrees that one who admits his guilt is exempt from the double payment, and yet this obligation is mentioned in the baraita. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a case where it is claimed that he has already stood trial and was declared liable to pay the double payment, and the accused individual denies this claim. Abaye summarizes his question: And from the fact that the first clause of this baraita deals with one who has stood trial, the latter clause also deals with one who has stood trial, and even so Rabbi Shimon does not deem him liable to bring an offering for his oath. Rabba said to him: I could answer you that the first clause deals with one who is accused of already having stood trial and been deemed liable, and the latter clause deals with one who has not stood trial, and this entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. According to this answer, Rabbi Shimon concedes that after one has been deemed liable in court, the double payment attains the status of a regular monetary obligation rather than a fine, and therefore in the first case in the baraita he is liable to bring an offering and a payment for his admission. But I will not answer you a far-fetched answer, for if it is so, that the entire baraita represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, you could say to me: Let the tanna of the baraita either teach explicitly in the first clause: Rabbi Shimon says, or let him teach in the latter clause: This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabba continued: Rather, I will say that the entire baraita is referring to one who has stood trial, and as for the difference in halakha, the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem one liable to bring the offering of an oath in a case where the plaintiff says that the defendant stood trial, was found liable, and swore falsely. And the latter clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who exempts one who confesses from bringing the offering of an oath. And I concede to you, Abaye, with regard to the liability to bring an offering for falsely taking an oath on a deposit, that the Merciful One exempts him from this offering here, based upon the verse “And deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of a deposit,” (Leviticus 5:21), which indicates that one is liable to bring an offering only if he lied about a claim that was originally a monetary obligation. And when I say that Rabbi Shimon maintains that after one is declared liable in court his obligation to pay is considered a regular monetary payment rather than a fine, that is not to say that he is liable to bring an offering for falsely denying a monetary claim, but rather to say that the recipient of the payment bequeaths it to his sons. Unlike a fine, which does not pass by inheritance to one’s heirs, this is classified as a regular monetary payment. Consequently, if the perpetrator was deemed liable in court and ordered to pay the father of the girl he raped or seduced, and the father died before receiving payment, his sons inherit the right to that payment. Abaye raised an objection to this last point from the mishna. Rabbi Shimon says: If the daughter did not manage to collect the payments before the father died, they belong to her. And if you say that this fine is a monetary payment to the extent that one can bequeath it to his sons after the trial, why does the money belongs to her? Since the trial has taken place, it should be the property of the brothers by inheritance from their father, as it is already considered a regular monetary obligation that is owed to the father. Rava said: This matter was difficult for Rabba and Rav Yosef for twenty-two years without resolution, until Rav Yosef sat at the head of the academy and resolved it in the following manner: There, in the case of a rape, it is different, as the verse states: “And the man who laid with her shall give the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver” (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred: The Torah entitled the father to this money only from the time of giving. Consequently, if the father dies before receiving the money, he does not bequeath his right to the money to his sons. Instead, the daughter is considered to take her father’s place as the plaintiff, because she was the victim, and the money is paid to her. And when Rabba said that the fine imposed by a court is considered a regular monetary obligation with regard to one’s ability to bequeath it to his sons, he was not referring to this particular case of a rapist or seducer, but only to other fines, which do have the status of regular monetary obligations after the court delivers its verdict. The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, that the verb “give” is explained in this manner, with regard to an ox that killed a slave, where it is written: “He shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver” (Exodus 21:32), so too will you say that the Torah entitled the master only from the time of giving? The Gemara answers: “Shall give [yiten],” is distinct, and “shall give [venatan],” is distinct. The first expression, which is stated with regard to an ox that killed a slave, does not indicate that the recipient acquires the right to the money only from the moment it is given, whereas the formulation employed in the case of rape does indicate that this is the case. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that the main source for this halakha is the phrase “shall give [venatan],” when it was taught in the baraita that a man who rapes or seduces a woman is not liable to bring the offering for a false oath in denial of a monetary claim, rather than saying that this is derived from the fact that the verse states “and deal falsely,” he should have said that it is derived from the fact that the verse states “shall give,” as this is the phrase that teaches that the payment is considered a fine even after he has stood trial. In answer to this question, Rava said: When it was necessary to cite a proof from “and deal falsely,” it was with regard to a situation where the young woman’s case was brought to trial, and the court ruled in her favor, and she reached majority and subsequently died before the money was paid. The reason that “and deal falsely” is necessary in that case is because there, when the father inherits, it is from her that he inherits. The Gemara raises another difficulty: If so, the language of the baraita: Excluding these, as they are a fine, is inaccurate, as it is a regular monetary payment, not a fine. In answer to this question, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this phrase means: Excluding these, as they are originally a fine, and it is only once the court orders the man to pay that they are viewed as regular monetary payments. Abaye raised an objection to this explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, based upon the mishna in Shevuot cited above (42a), which states: Rabbi Shimon exempts him, as he does not pay a fine on his own admission. The Gemara infers: The reason that he is not liable to bring a guilt-offering is because he has not stood trial. However, if he has stood trial and been found guilty, in which case he pays on his own admission when he later admits that he was already convicted in court, he should also be liable to bring an offering if he denies that he was convicted in court and takes an oath to that effect. This contradicts the claim that, according to Rabbi Shimon, even after one is convicted in court, the payment is still considered a fine. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis themselves, as follows: According to my opinion, although he has stood trial, the Merciful One exempts him from the offering, as derived from the verse: “And deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of a deposit” (Leviticus 5:21), which indicates that he is liable only for a claim that originally concerned regular a monetary payment. However, according to your opinion, you should at least concede to me in a case where he has not stood trial, that when one claims the money, he claims a fine and not a regular monetary payment.
במסגרת סדרת הלימודים של בין הורים וילדים עומד לימוד זה שעניינו מצוות הבן המוטלות על האב או חובות האב כלפי בנו. נרצה להתבונן בסוגיה זו מתוך השקפה אישית, מתוך מקורות חז"ל ומתוך מקור בן ימינו - הצהרת זכויות הילד.
What are the Obligations of a Parent Towards Their Child?
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
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.
הלכה: כָּל־מִצְוַת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן כול׳. מִצְוֹת שֶׁהָאָב חַייָב לַעֲשׂוֹת לִבְנוֹ. לְמוֹהֲלוֹ לִפְדוֹתוֹ לְלַמְּדוֹ תוֹרָה וּלְלַמְּדוֹ אוֹמָנוּת לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אַף לְלַמְּדוֹ לָשׁוֹט עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם. לְמוֹהֲלוֹ. בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ. לִפְדוֹתוֹ דִּכְתִיב וְכָל־בְּכוֹר אָדָם בְּבָנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה. לְלַמְּדוֹ תוֹרָה. וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אוֹתָם אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם. לְלַמְּדוֹ אוֹמָנוּת. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִים. זוֹ אוֹמָנוּת. לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה. וְהוֹדַעְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ וְלִבְנֵי בָנֶיךָ. אֵימָתַי אַתָּה זוֹכֶה לְבָנֶיךָ וְלִבְנֵי בָנֶיךָ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאַתְּ מַשִּׂיא אֶת בָּנֶיךָ קְטַנִּים. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אַף לָשׁוֹט עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם. דִּכְתִיב לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה אַתָּה וְזַרְעֶיךָ. מַה. לְמִצְוָה אוֹ לְעִיכּוּב. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. בַּר תָּרִימָה אָתָא לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי אִימִּי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. פַּייֵס לְאַבָּא דְּיַסְבֵּינִי אִתָא. פַּייְסֵיהּ וְלָא קְבִיל עֲלוֹי. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה לְמִצְוָה. אִין תֵּימַר לְעִיכּוּב. הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְכוֹפְנֵיהּ. מְנַיִין שֶׁאִם לֹא עָשָׂה לוֹ אָבִיו שֶׁהוּא חַייָב לַעֲשׂוֹת לְעַצְמוֹ. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר אָדָם תִּפְדֶּה. וּנְמַלְתֶּם אוֹתָם. וְלִמַּדִתֶם אוֹתֶם. וְהוֹדַעְתָּ אַתָּה. לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה אַתָּה.
HALAKHAH: “Any commandment the father has to fulfill towards his son,” etc. “To circumcise him, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade, and to marry him to a wife. Rebbi Aqiba says, also to teach him to swim in water.” To circumcise him, “on the eighth day, he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin.” “To redeem him,” as is written: “Any firstborn human among your sons you shall redeem.” To teach him Torah, “you shall teach them to your sons.” To teach him a trade, Rebbi Ismael stated: “Choose life,” that is a trade. To marry him to a wife, “make it known to your children and grandchildren.” When do you have children and grandchildren: if you marry off your sons when young. Rebbi Aqiba says, also to swim in water. “That you shall live together with your descendants.” How is this? Is it a commandment or is it obligatory? Let us hear from the following: Bar Tarima came to Rebbi Immi and said to him, talk to my father that he should marry me to a woman. He talked to [the father], but the latter refused. That means it is a commandment, for if it were obligatory, he should have forced him. From where that if his father did not do these things for him, he is required to do them himself? The verse says a human you shall redeem”, “you shall circumcise” them, “you shall study them”, “you shall know” yourself, “that you shall live.”
Gratitude of a Child Toward Their Parents
משרשי מצוה זו, שראוי לו לאדם שיכיר ויגמל חסד למי שעשה עמו טובה, ולא יהיה נבל ומתנכר וכפוי טובה שזו מדה רעה ומאוסה בתכלית לפני אלקים ואנשים. ושיתן אל לבו כי האב והאם הם סבת היותו בעולם, ועל כן באמת ראוי לו לעשות להם כל כבוד וכל תועלת שיוכל, כי הם הביאוהו לעולם, גם יגעו בו כמה יגיעות בקטנתו, וכשיקבע זאת המדה בנפשו יעלה ממנה להכיר טובת האל ברוך הוא שהוא סבתו וסבת כל אבותיו עד אדם הראשון, ושהוציאו לאויר העולם וספק צרכו כל ימיו והעמידו על מתכנתו ושלמות אבריו, ונתן בו נפש יודעת ומשכלת, שאלולי הנפש שחננו האל, יהיה כסוס כפרד אין הבין, ויעריך במחשבתו כמה וכמה ראוי להזהר בעבודתו ברוך הוא.
From the roots of this commandment is that it is fitting for a person to acknowledge and return kindness to people who were good to him, and not to be an ungrateful scoundrel, because that is a bad and repulsive attribute before God and people. And he should take to heart that the father and the mother are the cause of his being in the world; and hence it is truly fitting to honor them in every way and give every benefit he can to them, because they brought him to the world, and worked hard for him when he was little. And once he fixes this idea in his soul, he will move up from it to recognize the good of God, Blessed be He, who is his cause and the cause of all his ancestors until the first man (Adam), and that he took him out into the world's air, and fulfilled his needs every day, and made his body strong and able to stand, and gave him a mind that knows and learns - for without the mind that God granted him, he would be 'like a horse or a mule who does not understand.' And he should think at length about how very fitting it is to be careful in his worship of the Blessed be He.
התנהגותה של המשיבה חמורה היא. היא פגעה קשות בגופו ובנפשו של תלמיד קטין שהיה נתון לאחריותה החינוכית. אלימות פיזית כלפי תלמיד אסורה היא. מלקות, מכות ומשיכות אזניים - אין מקומן בבית הספר. חדר הכיתה הוא מקום הוראה ולא זירת אלימות. גופו של תלמיד ונפשו אינם הפקר. כבודו כאדם נפגע אם מוריו מפעילים כלפיו אלימות פיזית
(ו) חֲנֹ֣ךְ לַ֭נַּעַר עַל־פִּ֣י דַרְכּ֑וֹ גַּ֥ם כִּי־יַ֝זְקִ֗ין לֹֽא־יָס֥וּר מִמֶּֽנָּה׃
(6) Train a lad in the way he ought to go;
He will not swerve from it even in old age.
He will not swerve from it even in old age.
(כד) חוֹשֵׂ֣ךְ שִׁ֭בְטוֹ שׂוֹנֵ֣א בְנ֑וֹ וְ֝אֹהֲב֗וֹ שִׁחֲר֥וֹ מוּסָֽר׃
(24) He who spares the rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him early.
But he who loves him disciplines him early.
(כה) וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹקִים֩ אֶת־חַיַּ֨ת הָאָ֜רֶץ לְמִינָ֗הּ וְאֶת־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ לְמִינָ֔הּ וְאֵ֛ת כׇּל־רֶ֥מֶשׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֖ה לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹקִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃ (כו) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכׇל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכׇל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (כז) וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹקִ֤ים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹקִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃ (כח) וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹקִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹקִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכׇל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(25) God made wild beasts of every kind and cattle of every kind, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. And God saw that this was good. (26) And God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.”
(27) And God created humankind in the divine image,
creating it in the image of God—
creating them male and female. (28) God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.”
(27) And God created humankind in the divine image,
creating it in the image of God—
creating them male and female. (28) God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.”
נֶאֱמַר אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְנֶאֱמַר אֶת יי אֱלֹקֶיךָ תִּירָא וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב מוֹרָאַת אָב וָאֵם לְמוֹרָאַת הַמָּקוֹם נֶאֱמַר מְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ מוֹת יוּמָת וְנֶאֱמַר אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹקָיו 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
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
(י) מִי שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו אוֹ שֶׁל אִמּוֹ מִשְׁתַּדֵּל לִנְהֹג עִמָּהֶם כְּפִי דַּעְתָּם עַד שֶׁיְּרֻחַם עֲלֵיהֶן. וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לַעֲמֹד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּטּוּ בְּיוֹתֵר יְנִיחֵם וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ וִיצַוֶּה אֲחֵרִים לְהַנְהִיגָם כָּרָאוּי לָהֶם:
(10) If one's father or mother has become mentally disordered, he should make an effort to behave toward them according to their state of mind until they will be shown mercy [and get cured]. But if he is unable to endure the strain any longer, because they have become utterly insane, he may leave them and go elsewhere, charging others to take proper care of them.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא לְעוֹלָם אַל יָטִיל אָדָם אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי פִּילֶגֶשׁ בַּגִּבְעָה הֵטִיל עָלֶיהָ בַּעֲלָהּ אֵימָה יְתֵירָה וְהִפִּילָה כַּמָּה רְבָבוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב כׇּל הַמֵּטִיל אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ סוֹף הוּא בָּא לִידֵי שָׁלֹשׁ עֲבֵירוֹת גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים וְחִילּוּל שַׁבָּת אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הָא דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים צָרִיךְ אָדָם לוֹמַר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה עִשַּׂרְתֶּם עֵרַבְתֶּם הַדְלִיקוּ אֶת הַנֵּר צָרִיךְ
Rav Ḥisda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and this ultimately caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews in the resulting war (see Judges 19–20). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Anyone who imposes excessive fear upon the members of his household will ultimately come to commit three sins: Engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as the wife will be so fearful of her husband that she will sometimes tell him that she has immersed in a ritual bath after her menstruation has ended when she has not done so; and he will also end up committing bloodshed, as she is likely to run away from him and expose herself to dangers; and desecration of Shabbat, as she will cook for him on Shabbat because she is scared that he will be angry with her for neglecting to do so beforehand. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said a halakha with regard to this statement that the Sages said: There are three matters a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall. He should ask the members of his household: Have you tithed the produce that required tithing? Have you placed the eiruv for joining the courtyards? If you have already done so, light the lamp in honor of Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that one must