Kiddushin 32a (לב.) — the Talmud in English

Ive'iya lehu,

uchilis' v beit-midrash: o tom, chto my uchili v barayte, chto syn kormit i poit otca i okazyvaet emu uvazhenie,

iz

sredstv

kogo

on dolzhen eto delat'?

Dolzhen li syn kormit' otca iz sredstv otca ili on obyazan rashodovat' na eto dazhe svoi sobstvennye sredstva?

Mudretsy razoshlis' v etom voprose:

Rav Yehuda skazal: iz sredstv syna. Rav Natan bar Oshaya skazal: iz sredstv otca.

Oni postanovili dlya

[they instructed]

Rava Yirmeya; a po drugomu mneniyu,

dlya

ego syna

to his son]

postanovili sledovat' mneniyu togo, kto skazal: iz sredstv otca.

Meytivi

protivorechie iz barayty:

Kak skazano:

skazano [Shemot 20:12]:

[Exodus 20:12]:

«Pochitay otca tvoego i mat' tvoey», i skazano [Mishley 3:9]:

[Proverbs 3:9]:

«Pochitay Gospoda iz sostoyaniya tvoego»,

a poskol'ku v oboikh mestakh upotrebleno slovo «pochitay», ikh sleduet sopostavit' drug s drugom:

kak tam iz

sostoyaniya skazano o pochetenii Gospoda, to est' o pochetenii, svyazannom

s denezhnymi zatratami, tak zdes'

v pochetenii otca i materi rech' idet

o denezhnykh zatratakh.

I otsyuda voznikayet trudnost' dlya skazannogo vyshe:

a esli iz sredstv otca, kakoy emu v etom ushcherb,

kakaya denezhnaya zatrata mozhet lech' na syna iz sredstv otca? I otvechaem:

iz-za otvlecheniya ot raboty,

syn obyazan pochitat' otca, dazhe esli iz-za etogo v eto vremya on ne rabotaet i neset denezhnyye potери. No on ne obyazan dostavat' den'gi iz sobstvennogo karmana i davat' ikh otcu.

Ta

pridi

shma

dokazatel'stvo tomu, chto pochetenie otca osushchestvlyaetsya tol'ko iz sredstv otca:

Tot, kto vykupaet prinadlezhashchiy emu ma'aser sheni, pribavlyaet pyatuyu chast'. Tot, kto vykupaet ma'aser sheni drugikh, pyatuyu chast' ne pribavlyaet.

I uchili v barayte:

dva brata,

i

dva partnera,

a takzhe

otets i syn, rav i ego uchenik,

nesmotrya na to chto oni lyubyat drug druga, vse zhe

vykupayut drug dlya druga ma'aser sheni

bez pribavleniya pyatoy chasti. I ne govoryat: raz odin lyubim drugomu, znachit, eto podobno vykupu prinadlezhashchego emu samomu ma'aser sheni. Takzhe

mogut davat' drug drugu ma'aser ani,

to est' esli odin iz nikh otdelil ma'aser ani iz svoikh plodov, on mozhet dat' ego drugomu, esli tot beden, nesmotrya na to chto oni lyubyat drug druga kak samikh sebya; ved' esli by u odnogo iz nikh ne bylo plodov ma'aser ani, on kormil by drugogo iz sobstvennykh sredstv.

Do sih por privodilis' slova barayty.

Gemara pytayetsya dokazat' otsyuda, chto pochetenie otca osushchestvlyaetsya tol'ko iz sredstv otca:

A esli ty skazhesh'

po mneniyu togo, kto govorit

«iz sredstv syna»,

voznikayet trudnost':

Chelovek, kotoryy dolzhen den'gi bednyaku, ne mozhet pogasit' dolg plodami ma'aser ani, nakhodyashchimisya u nego, poskol'ku plody ma'aser prinadlezhat bednyakam i voobshche ne yavlyayutsya ego sobstvennost'yu.

A poskol'ku my govorim, chto syn obyazan raskhodovat' sobstvennye sredstva i kormit' otca, kak zhe togda my uchili, chto syn kormit otca ma'aser ani? Ved'

poluchaetsya, chto etot

syn

pogashaet

svoi

dolg iz sredstv bednyakov!

No otsyuda dokazatel'stvo mneniyu togo, kto skazal, chto obyazannost' pochitaniya otca osushchestvlyaetsya tol'ko iz sredstv otca.

Otvergayem eto dokazatel'stvo: deystvitel'no, po mneniyu togo, kto skazal, chto pochetenie osushchestvlyaetsya iz sredstv syna, synu zapreshcheno kormit' otca ma'aser ani, poskol'ku na nem lezhit obyazannost' kormit' ego iz svoikh sredstv.

No syn obyazan kormit' otca tol'ko v sredney mere. A esli otcu trebuetsya bolee obil'naya trapeza, syn ne obyazan kormit' ego za svoy schet.

I soglasno etomu sleduet istolkovat':

ne trebuetsya

barayte uchit' nas nichego, krome

v

oprosa

dopolnitel'nogo.

To est': tu chast' sverkh sredney mery, kotoraya potrebna otcu, synu razreshaetsya predostavit' emu iz plodov ma'aser ani.

Vozrazhayut:

esli tak,

esli zdes' deystvitel'no rech' idet o dopolnitel'noy chasti, vozrazhenie takovo:

imenno eto ved' skazano dalee,

v prodolzhenii toy zhe barayty:

Rabi Yehuda skazal: «Da postignet proklyatie togo, kto kormit svoego otca ma'aser ani».

A esli

v barayte deystvitel'no rech' idet

o

voprose

dopolnitel'noy chasti,

togda

kakaya raznitsa,

chto v etom plokhogo? Ved' na obychnye sredstva k ego soderzhaniyu on dayot otcu iz sobstvennykh sredstv!

Otvechayut: nesmotrya na to chto rech' idet o dopolnitel'noy chasti,

daже tak, eto unizitel'no dlya nego,

tak kak pozorno, chto syn predostavlyaet otcu sredstva na dopolnitel'nuyu edu ne iz svoikh sredstv, a iz sredstv bednyakov.

Ta

pridi

shma

dokazatel'stvo tomu, chto pochetenie otca osushchestvlyaetsya dazhe iz sredstv syna: my uchili v barayte:

sprosili Rabi Eliezera: «Do kakoy stepeni nuzhno pochitat' otca?»

On skazal im: do togo,

As far as

chtoby

otets

vzyal ego koshelek i brosil ego v more u nego na glazakh, a syn ne oskorbil ego

za eto.

Gemara ponimaet, chto po mneniyu togo, kto skazal «iz sredstv syna», dazhe esli otets brosil koshelek syna, synu zapreshcheno oskorblyat' ego. No po mneniyu togo, kto skazal «iz sredstv otca», esli otets brosil koshelek syna, syn mozhet oskorbit' ego, poskol'ku on ne obyazan pochitat' ego za svoy schet .

A esli ty skazhesh'

chto obyazannost' pochitaniya otca ogranichena tol'ko

sredstvami otca,

neizbezhno, chto Rabi Eliezer govoril o koshel'ke otca [ved' esli rech' idet o koshel'ke syna, syn mozhet oskorbit' ego].

I togda voznikayet trudnost': kakoe osoboe dostoinstvo v tom, chto syn ne oskorblyaet ego? Razve

kakaya emu raznitsa?

Chto on terяет iz-za togo, chto otets brosil svoj koshelek?

Otvechayut:

esli syn

imeet pravo

nasledovat' ego,

syn serditsya na otca za to, chto tot brosayet koshelek, chtoby lishit' ego nasledstva, no i togda synu zapreshcheno oskorblyat' ego.

Gemara privodit teper' sluchay, podobnyy skazannomu Rabi Eliezerom: otets syna brosil koshelek, a syn ne oskorblyaet ego.

I podobno sluchayu

i podobno sluchayu

Ravy bar Rav Huny:

Rav Huna porval silk pered Ravoy, svoim synom,

porvav pered nim doroguyu shelkovuyu odezhdu. I

skazal

v serdtse svoem:

«Poydu posmotryu, razozlitsya on ili ne razozlitsya»,

vyyschu i uvidyu, razozlitsya li on ili net.

Vozrazhayut: kak Rav Huna mog tak postupit'? Ved' emu sleduet opasat'sya,

chto, vozmozhno, on razozlitsya,

i Ravа, ego syn, skazhet otcu oskorbitel'nye slova,

i

togda

narushit'

zapret

«Ne stavi prepyatstviya pered slepym»,

ved' on stanет prichinoy grekha syna!

Otvechayut:

on otkazalsya ot svoey chesti,

Rav Huna otkazalsya ot pochitaniya ego synom; poetomu, dazhe esli by Rava razozlilsya i govoril nepravil'no, on ne sovershil by grekha.

Vozrazhayut: kak emu razreshalos' rvat' shelkovuyu odezhdu?

Ved' on

a

narushal

zapret

«Ne unichtozhay» [Devarim 20:19]!

Otvechayut:

on sdelal eto v mestе skladki,

Rav Huna porval odezhdu v meste shva [v podvorote]; pri razryve odezhdy v etom meste ee stoimost' ne umen'shaetsya.

Vozrazhayut na etot otvet: ved' Rav Huna khotel proverit', razozlitsya li ego syn Rava ili net; kak zhe on mog uznat' eto?

Mozhet byt', imenno poetomu on ne razozlilsya,

potomu chto razryv byl sdelan v meste, gde odezhda ne portitsya! Otvechayut:

on sdelal eto v moment ego gneva,

Rav Huna proveril Ravu v moment, kogda tot byl razgнеvan; razdrazhitel'nyy chelovek v gneve ne zamechaet, v kakom meste porvana odezhda, i esli Rava ne razozlilsya iz-za razryva, iz etogo sleduet, chto on ne razdrazhitel'nyy chelovek.

Teper' Gemara privodit sluchay, chtoby nauchit' nas, kak postupat' synu, esli otets oshibsya, i kak syn mozhet ukazat' emu na ego oshibku:

V Tore upomyanuty chetyre vida kazni smert'yu po resheniyu beit-dina: pobivanie kamnyami, sozhzhenie, kazn' mechem i udushenie.

Esli osuzhdennye na kazn' smert'yu po resheniyu beit-dina smeshalis' drug s drugom [naprimer, osuzhdennye na sozhzhenie smeshalis' s osuzhdennymi na pobivanie kamnyami i t. p.] i neizvestno, kto iz nikh podlezhal bolee legkoy kazni, a kto — bolee tyazheloy, vsekh kaznyat' bolee legkoy iz etikh kazney, poskol'ku nel'zya nakazat' cheloveka, zasluzhivshego legkuyu kazn', bolee tyazheloy kazn'yu, kotoroy on ne zasluzhil.

Mudretsy i Rabi Shimon razoshlis' v voprose o pobivanii kamnyami i sozhzhenii: kotoraya iz nikh schitaetsya bolee tyazheloy kazn'yu. Po mneniyu Rabi Shimona, sozhzhenie tyazhelee, a po mneniyu Mudretsov, pobivanie kamnyami tyazhelee, kak skazano dalee:

Rav Yehezkel prepodaval Rami, svoemu synu,

baraytu:

Osuzhdennye na sozhzhenie,

smeshavshiesya

s osuzhdennymi na pobivanie kamnyami, Rabi Shimon govorit:

vse

dolzhny byt' nakazany pobivaniem kamnyami,

poskol'ku

sozhzhenie tyazhelee

nego, poetomu nel'zya kaznit' ikh sozhzheniem.

Rav Yehuda, ego syn, skazal emu:

poskol'ku ty uchish' «osuzhdennye na sozhzhenie, smeshavshiesya s osuzhdennymi na pobivanie kamnyami», iz etogo sleduet, chto pered nami stoyalo neskol'ko osuzhdennykh na pobivanie kamnyami, a odin iz osuzhdennykh na sozhzhenie otdelilsya i smeshalsya s nimi. Poluchaetsya, chto bol'shinstvo sostavlyayut osuzhdennye na pobivanie kamnyami.

No

ne uchи ee tak,

ne prepodavay ee v takom vide! Ved' protiv tvoikh slov mozhno vozrazit':

Why specifically

did Rabbi Shimon need to say that the

burning is more severe?

But even if we were to say that burning and stoning are equal in severity,

it would suffice to say

that I must still judge them by stoning, because

the majority are stoned,

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

Rather, this is how it should be read,

the beraita should be revised to read as follows:

“The stoned

who became mixed together

with those sentenced to burning.”

That is: Those sentenced to burning are the majority, and one of those sentenced to stoning became mixed among them. Rabbi Shimon said concerning this: Although those sentenced to burning are the majority, we nevertheless judge them all by stoning, because burning is more severe.

He said to him,

His father, Rav Yehezkel, challenged him:

If so,

if the beraita was indeed taught in this wording, “The stoned who became mixed together with those sentenced to burning,”

say the latter clause,

explain the latter clause of the beraita to me:

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 who became mixed together with those sentenced to burning,” meaning that those sentenced to burning are the majority, the following difficulty arises:

Why specifically

did the Sages need to say

that stoning is more severe?

But even if we were to say that burning and stoning are equal in severity,

it would suffice to say

that I must still judge them by burning,

for

after all,

the majority are sentenced to burning!

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda replied: Indeed, the Sages did not need to justify their ruling by saying that stoning is more severe, since even if the two forms of execution were equal, one follows the majority. Rather, this is how the statement of the Sages should be understood:

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

the Sages came to respond to Rabbi Shimon’s argument—

you say,

what you, Rabbi Shimon, said, namely, that

burning is more severe

and therefore they should be judged by stoning in order to be lenient with them,

no,

you have not been lenient with them; on the contrary, you have been stringent with them, for

stoning is more severe

than burning!

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda,

his student:

Sharp one

[sharp and incisive]

! Do not say this to your father,

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

For it was taught in a beraita: If one’s father

is

violating the words of the Torah, he should not say to him: “Father, you have violated the words

of the Torah,”

but rather: “Father, it is written thus in the Torah.” That is: In contrast to what you are doing. The Gemara immediately asks: But when he says

“It is written thus in the Torah,” he is distressing him,

for this is equivalent to explicitly saying to him, “You have violated the words of the Torah”! And it answers:

Rather,

one must say that he says to him as follows:

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

and so on; that is, he recites to him the verse as it is written in the Torah, and the father himself will understand from the verse that he has erred.

Just as when a father violates the words of the Torah, his son may not say to him, “You have violated the words of the Torah,” so too you, Rav Yehuda, should not say to your father when he is mistaken, “Father, do not teach it this way.”

The Gemara cites another beraita concerning honoring one’s father and mother:

Elazar ben Matya says:

If

Father says, “Give me water,” and

there is

a mitzva

of another kind

to perform,

such as burying the dead or accompanying the dead, then

I set aside

the

honor of Father and perform the mitzva.

Because

Father and I are both obligated in the mitzva.

Isi ben Yehuda

disagrees and

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

and engage

in honoring his father.

Rav Mattana said: The halakha is in accordance with Isi ben Yehuda.

The Gemara cites another statement concerning honoring one’s father:

Rav Yitzḥak bar Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Rav Ḥisda said: If a father waives his honor, his honor is waived,

and his son is not obligated to honor him.

However,

if a teacher waives his honor, his honor is not waived,

and his student is obligated to honor him.

And Rav Yosef said: Even if a teacher waives his honor, his honor is waived. As it is stated

[Exodus 13:21]:

“And the Lord went before them by day

in a pillar of cloud to guide them on the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light.” Since the Holy One, blessed be He, waived His honor and, as it were, served Israel, all the more so may a teacher waive his honor.

Rava said: How can these cases be compared?!

What is the comparison?! One cannot prove from the Holy One, blessed be He, waiving His honor that a teacher may waive his honor, because a distinction must be made between them:

There,

in the cited verse,

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

since the world is His and the Torah too is His, He has the right to waive His own honor and the honor of the Torah, for they belong to Him.