Kiddushin 32a — the Talmud in English

They raised a question before them:

the members of the academy were uncertain: regarding what we learned in the beraita, that a son feeds and gives drink to his father and honors him, ")

from

money

of whom

must he do this?

Does the son feed his father from his father’s money, or is he obligated to spend for this even from his own money?

And the Sages disagreed about this:

Rav Yehuda said: It is from the son’s [money]. Rav Natan bar Oshaya said: It is from the father’s [money].

They instructed

[they instructed]

the Sages instructed Rav Yirmeya, and some say

and some say

his son

[his son]

of Rav Yirmeya, in accordance with the one who says: It is from the father’s [money].

An objection was raised

a contradiction from a beraita:

For it was taught:

It is stated

[Exodus 20:12]:

“Honor your father and your mother,” and it is stated

[Proverbs 3:9]:

“Honor the Lord from your wealth,”

and since in both places the expression “honor” was mentioned, one should compare them to one another,

just as there, in

the honor of the Lord, “from your wealth” was stated, meaning honor that entails

loss of money, so too here

in honoring father and mother there is

loss of money.

And from here there is a difficulty against what we said above:

And if you say that it is from the father’s [money], what monetary loss comes to him,

what loss of money can come to the son from the father’s money? And we answer:

for loss of work,

the son is obligated to honor his father even though at that time he is idle from work and suffers monetary loss because of this. But he is not obligated to spend money from his pocket and give it to his father.

Come

come

hear

a proof that honoring a father is only from the father’s [money]:

One who redeems his own second tithe adds a fifth. One who redeems the second tithe of others does not add a fifth.

And we learned in a beraita:

two brothers,

and

two partners,

and likewise

a father and his son, a teacher and his student,

although they are fond of one another, nevertheless

redeem second tithe for one another

without adding a fifth. And we do not say: since one is beloved by the other, this is like redeeming his own second tithe. And likewise,

they feed one another poor man’s tithe,

if one of them separated poor man’s tithe from his produce, he may give it to the other if he was poor, although they are as fond of one another as of their own bodies; whereas if neither of them had poor man’s tithe produce in his possession, he would feed the other from his own money.

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

And the Gemara attempts to prove from here that honoring the father is performed only from the father’s money:

And if you say

in accordance with the one who says

it is from the son’s [money],

then it is difficult:

A person who owes money to a poor person may not repay his debt with poor man’s tithe produce in his possession, because the tithe produce belongs to the poor, and is not his at all.

And since we say that the son is obligated to spend his own money and feed his father, how then did we learn that the son feeds his father poor man’s tithe? But

it turns out that this

the son

repays

the

his debt from the poor’s [money]!

Rather, from here there is proof for the one who says that the obligation to honor a father is only from the father’s money.

And we reject the proof: indeed, according to the one who says that honoring is from the son’s [money], it is forbidden for the son to feed his father second tithe, because it is incumbent upon him to feed him from his own money.

But the son is obligated to feed his father only to an ordinary degree. And if the father requires an additional meal, the son is not obligated to sustain him from his own [money].

And according to this one should explain:

It is necessary

the beraita was needed to teach us only

about

the matter of

additional provision.

That is: with regard to that additional provision, which his father requires beyond an ordinary measure, it is permitted for the son to feed him from poor man’s tithe produce.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

if indeed this is speaking of additional provision, it is difficult:

this is what it teaches afterward,

regarding what we learned later in that same beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda said: May a curse come upon one who feeds his father poor man’s tithe.

And if,

if indeed the beraita is speaking

to

of the matter of

additional provision,

then

what difference is there,

what is wrong with this? Does he not give his father his livelihood from his own [money]?

And we answer: although this is speaking of additional provision,

even so, the matter is degrading for him,

it is disgraceful that a son does not provide his father’s additional sustenance from his own money.

Come

come

hear

a proof that honoring a father is even from the son’s [money]: we learned in a beraita:

They asked Rabbi Eliezer: To what extent does honoring a father extend?

He said to them:

until

such that

his father

takes his purse and throws it into the sea in his presence, and he does not shame him

for this.

And the Gemara understands that according to the one who says, “It is from the son’s [money],” even if the father threw the son’s purse, he is forbidden to shame him. But according to the one who says, “It is from the father’s [money],” if the father threw the son’s purse, the son is permitted to shame him, since he is not commanded to honor him from his own money.

And if you say

that the obligation to honor a father is only

from the father’s [money],

it is necessarily the case that Rabbi Eliezer spoke of the father’s purse [for with the son’s purse, the son is permitted to shame him].

And if so, it is difficult: what additional virtue is there in the fact that the son does not shame him? Is it that

what difference does it make to him?

What does he lose through the throwing of the father’s purse?

And we answer:

when the son is fit

the son

to inherit him,

and the son is angry that the father throws the purse in order to deprive him of it, and nevertheless he is forbidden to shame him.

And the Gemara brings an incident resembling what Rabbi Eliezer said, involving a son whose father threw a purse and he did not shame him.

And it is like

and resembling the incident

of Rabba bar Rav Huna:

for Rav Huna tore a silk garment in the presence of Rabba his son,

he tore an important silk garment in the presence of Rabba his son. And

he said

in his heart:

I will go and see whether he becomes angry or does not become angry,

I will go out and see whether he will become angry or not become angry.

And we raise a difficulty: how was Rav Huna permitted to do this? Surely he should have been concerned

perhaps he will become angry

lest Rabba his son become angry and say a contemptuous thing to his father,

and

then

he would transgress a

prohibition

“You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind,”

for he caused his son to sin!

And we answer:

for he relinquished his honor to him,

Rav Huna relinquished his honor to his son, and therefore even if Rabba had become angry and spoken improperly, he would not have committed a transgression.

And we raise a difficulty: how was he permitted to tear silk garments?

But he

a

transgressed

a prohibition

because of “Do not destroy” [ [דברים כ יט]] [Deuteronomy 20:19]!

And we answer:

for he did it at the seam,

Rav Huna tore it at the place where the garment was sewn [at the fold], for when the garment is torn there, none of its value is diminished.

And we raise a difficulty against the answer: Rav Huna wanted to test and see whether his son Rabba became angry or not; how could he know this?

And perhaps it was for this reason that he did not become angry,

because the tearing was in a place where the garment was not damaged! And we answer:

for he did it at a time of his anger,

Rav Huna tested Rabba at a time of anger, and an angry person does not notice during his anger where the garment was torn; and if Rabba did not become angry over the tearing, one may learn from this that he was not an angry person.

And the Gemara now brings an incident to teach us what the law is regarding a father who erred, and how the son is permitted to correct him regarding his error:

Four obligations of court-imposed death are stated in the Torah: stoning, burning, execution [by the sword], and strangulation.

Those liable for deaths who became mixed with one another [for example, those liable for burning who became mixed with those liable for stoning, and the like], and it is not known which of them is judged to the lighter death and which is judged to the more severe, are all judged by the lighter death among them, because you are not permitted to punish a person who incurred a light punishment with a severe punishment that he did not incur.

And the Sages and Rabbi Shimon disagreed regarding stoning and burning, which of them is considered the more severe death. According to Rabbi Shimon, burning is more severe; and according to the Sages, stoning is more severe, as follows:

Rav Yehezkel taught a beraita to Rami his son:

a beraita:

Those who are burned

who became mixed

with those who are stoned, Rabbi Shimon says:

all of them

shall be judged by stoning,

because

burning is more severe

than it, therefore you are not permitted to put them to death by burning.

Rav Yehuda his son said to him:

Since you teach, “those who are burned among those who are stoned,” it implies that several who were to be stoned stood before us, and one of those who were to be burned separated and became mixed among them. It follows that the majority are those to be stoned.

However,

do not teach it this way,

do not teach it so! For there is a difficulty against your words:

Why specifically,

did Rabbi Shimon need to say that

burning is more severe?

For even if we say that burning and stoning are equal in their severity,

it follows,

I would still have to judge them by stoning, because

the majority are stoned,

the stoned are the majority, and throughout the entire Torah, “follow the majority”!

Rather, this is how it is taught,

change the beraita in this wording:

“The stoned

who became mixed

with the burned.”

That is: the burned are the majority, and one of the stoned became mixed among them. And Rabbi Shimon said about this: even though the burned are the majority, nevertheless we judge them all by stoning, because burning is more severe.

He said to him,

his father, Rav Yehezkel, challenged him:

If so,

if indeed the beraita was taught in this wording, “the stoned mixed with the burned,”

say the latter part,

explain to me the latter part of the beraita:

We learned there as follows:

And the Sages say: they are judged by burning

because

stoning is more severe.

And since you, Rav Yehuda, teach “the stoned mixed with the burned,” that is: the majority are the burned, one must then challenge:

Why specifically,

why did the Sages need to say

that stoning is more severe?

For even if we say that burning and stoning are equal in their severity,

it follows,

I would still need to judge them by burning,

for

after all,

the majority are burned!

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda: Indeed, the Sages did not need to justify their words by saying that stoning is more severe, since even if they are equal, one follows the majority. Rather, this is how the words of the Sages are to be explained:

There, it is the Sages who said to Rabbi Shimon,

the Sages came to answer Rabbi Shimon’s claim—

what you said,

what you, Rabbi Shimon, said, that

burning is more severe

and therefore they should be judged by stoning in order to make it easier for them,

no,

you have not made it easier for them; on the contrary! You are making it more severe for them, for

stoning is more severe

than burning!

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda,

his student:

Sharp one

[sharp and incisive]

! Do not say to your father this way,

do not say to your father as you said to him, “Do not teach it this way” [do not teach it thus]! For you are explicitly telling him that he is mistaken, and you are embarrassing and distressing him!

For it was taught: If one’s father

of a person

is transgressing the words of Torah, he should not say to him, ‘Father, you have transgressed the words of Torah,’ but rather he should say to him, ‘Father, this is what is written

in the Torah.’

That is: in contrast to what you are doing. And immediately we ask: when he says

“This is what is written in the Torah,” he distresses him,

for this is as though he explicitly said to him, “You have transgressed the words of Torah”! And we answer:

Rather,

it is necessary to say that this is what he says to him:

“Father, a verse is written in the Torah thus,”

and so on; that is: he tells him the verse that is written in the Torah as it is, and the father himself will understand from the verse that he was mistaken.

And just as when the father transgresses the words of Torah, the son may not say to him, “You have transgressed the words of Torah,” so you, Rav Yehuda, should not say to your father when he is mistaken, “Father, do not teach it this way.”

And the Gemara brings another beraita concerning honoring father and mother:

Elazar ben Matya says:

If

“Father says, ‘Give me water,’ and

there lies before me

a mitzva

other

to perform,

such as burying the dead or accompanying him, then

I set aside

the

honor of Father and perform the mitzva.

Because

I and Father are obligated in the mitzva.

Issi ben Yehuda

disagrees and

says: If it is possible for the mitzva to be performed by others, let it be performed by others, and let him go

and engage

in honoring his father.

Rav Matנה said: The halakha is according to Issi ben Yehuda.

And the Gemara brings another statement concerning honoring a father:

Rav Yitzhak bar Shila said in the name of Rav Matנה, who said in the name of Rav Hisda: A father who forgoes his honor, his honor is forgone,

and his son is not obligated to honor him.

But

a teacher who forgoes his honor, his honor is not forgone,

and his student is obligated to honor him.

And Rav Yosef said: Even a teacher who forgoes his honor, his honor is forgone. As it is stated

[Exodus 13:21]:

“And the Lord went before them by day

in a pillar of cloud to lead them on the way, and at night in a pillar of fire to give them light.” And since the Holy One, blessed be He, forgave His honor and, as it were, served Israel, all the more so may a teacher forgo his honor.

Rava said: How can this be compared!?

What is the comparison!? For one cannot prove from the Holy One, blessed be He forgiving His honor that a teacher may forgive his honor, since one must distinguish between them:

There,

in the cited verse,

the Holy One, blessed be He—the world is His and the Torah is His—He may forgo His honor,

since the world is His and even the Torah is His, He has the right to forgo His honor and the honor of the Torah, for they belong to Him.