Yevamot 6

Daf Ditty Yevamot 6: Kibbud Av, limits
The cost of isolating frail elders in nursing homes — many of which have been on a
literal lockdown for months — is taking an even steeper toll than aging advocates
feared. A new survey of 365 nursing home residents in 36 states, conducted in July
2020, by the nonprofit Altarum Institute shows that pandemic restrictions have
affected nearly every part of their lives, especially their mental health.1
Liz Seegert
1
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/covid-19-is-taking-a-huge-emotional-toll-on-nursing-home-residents
1
I’ll bring you cherries and I’ll pit them, as
once you did for toddlers: yours at first,
then mine.
I won’t fluster you by quizzing

Which fruit is this? although
I want so much to know that you remember –
instead I’ll relish your delight,
your momentary wonder
as you taste their ruby sweetness.
I’ll rub you lightly on your back –

its fragile curve a shipwrecked hull
ridged beneath my fingers.
I’ll draw the shawl up closer

across your rounded shoulders
to shield you from the all-pervading cold.
I’ll tenderly receive your litany of misery

and I’ll gently blot your tears,
as once you dried my own
and I’ll revel in your smiles
as they flicker on your lips,
uncertain as the rays of sun in winter.
I will not interrupt as you sift

for missing words, and nor will I correct you
when the word you net is wrong.
I will match my pace to yours and I’ll waive
my usual hurry, as you inch your way
so wearily across your waning world.
I’ll bring you potted jasmine,

delicate white stars with heady fragrant scent
that may stir buried memories
of walking home on summer nights
beneath the moon you see now
only through the window frame.
I’ll play you gentle symphonies, as once

you played for me, that you might drowse
and dream of somewhere better
2
and when you wake
I’ll look into your shuttered eyes
and wait with you once more.
Elizabeth Topper2
2
https://parashapoems.wordpress.com/?s=contact
3
§ The Gemara asks: If so, rather than that principle in which we maintain that a positive mitzva
comes and overrides a prohibition, let us derive from here that it does not override even a
regular prohibition.
Just as it was inferred above from the case of ritual fringes, in which the positive mitzva overrides
the prohibition against diverse kinds, that all other positive mitzvot similarly override any
prohibition, perhaps one should infer from the case of honoring one’s parents that positive mitzvot
do not override prohibitions at all.
4
5
And if you say that one should not infer this from here, as the prohibitions of Shabbat are
different in that they are more serious, and for this reason the mitzva to honor one’s parents does
not override these prohibitions, this cannot be the case, as the tanna speaks generally of a father
who instructs a son to perform a regular prohibition, not to desecrate Shabbat, and he does not
raise any difficulty of this kind.
6
7
As it is taught in a different baraita: One might have thought that if one’s father said to his son,
who is a priest or nazirite: Be rendered ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, so
as to bring me an item from a ritually impure place, or if he said to him: Do not return this lost
item, it might have been supposed that his son should obey him. Therefore, the verse states:
‫שׁבּ ֹת ַתַי‬ -‫ ְו ֶאת‬,‫ָראוּ‬ ‫ְו ָא ִביו‬ ‫ג ִאישׁ‬ 3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father,
‫תּי‬ ‫ִאמּוֹ‬
.‫אֵ◌הי ֶכם‬aֱ ‫ ָוה‬,‫ינא‬ :‫מוּ‬
‫שׁ ר‬ and ye shall keep My sabbaths: I am the LORD your
‫יה‬ ‫ִתּ‬ God.
Lev 19:3
“You shall fear every man his mother and his father and you shall keep My Shabbatot, I am the
Lord your God” This verse teaches: All of you are obligated in My honor. This proves that the
tanna does not differentiate between desecrating Shabbat, which is a severe prohibition, and a
priest becoming ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, which is a lighter prohibition.
§ Rather, the Gemara rejects this line of reasoning and accepts the claim that the baraita does not
speak of one whose father asked him to desecrate Shabbat by performing a prohibited labor that
entails karet, but of a father who instructed his son to drive a laden animal.
As for the difficulty that this apparently indicates that a positive mitzva does not override any type
of prohibition, the reason that this is not the case is because there is room to refute this argument.
8
The Gemara explains how the previous claim can be countered: What about the fact that these
instructions of a father are different, as when one drives an animal on Shabbat in honor of his
parents this is merely preparation for the mitzva of honoring one’s parents, since the son is not
actually feeding or clothing his father at the time.
Consequently, this is not a proper fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and therefore the case of a father
who instructs his son to drive an animal cannot be used as a source with regard to other instances.
Rather, it could enter your mind to say: The principle that a positive mitzva overrides even a
prohibition that entails karet is derived from the building of the Temple. As it is taught in a
9
baraita: One might have thought that the building of the Temple should override Shabbat;
therefore, the verse states:
.‫ יה ָוה‬,‫ינא‬ :‫ִתּי ָראוּ‬ sanctuary: I am the LORD.

Lev 19:30
“You shall keep My Shabbatot and revere My Sanctuary, I am the Lord” which means that all
of you are obligated in My honor.
God is honored when Shabbat is observed, and He demands the observance of Shabbat even when
the Temple is being built.
Summary
10
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3
The Gemora had stated: We have successfully found a source teaching the principle that a positive
commandment overrides a standard prohibition; where do we find that a positive commandment
overrides a prohibition that is subject to the penalty of kares, thus requiring the verse aleha to teach
that one cannot perform yibum on his wife’s sister?
The Gemora continues: Perhaps it can be derived from the mitzvah of honoring one’s father and
mother. It was taught in a braisa: One might have thought that the mitzvah of honoring one’s father
and mother overrides Shabbos (if a parent would instruct their son to violate the Shabbos, he would
be obligated to listen); the Torah writes [Vayikra 19:3]: Every man: Your mother and father shall
you revere, and My Shabbos’ shall you observe, I am HaShem your G-d. We infer from here:
Everyone is obligated to honor HaShem, including the father and the mother. The Gemora assumes
that the Torah is referring to a case where the parent said to his son, “Slaughter for me,” or Cook
for me,” which is a kares prohibition. The reason he shouldn’t obey the father is because of the
specific verse (mentioned above), but otherwise, the positive commandment of obeying one’s
parent would override a prohibition, even one that consists of kares.
3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Yevamos_6.pdf
11
The Gemora objects to this proof: The Torah are referring to a case where the parent instructed
him to lead a loaded animal on Shabbos, which is not a kares prohibition. (This is referred to as
the prohibition of mechamer, leading an animal with a load on it on Shabbos. This prohibition does
not involve a death punishment, even though all other Shabbos prohibitions do involve the death
penalty.)
The Gemora objects to this interpretation: If the verse is referring to a standard prohibition and
nevertheless, the positive commandment of honoring one’s parents does not override the
prohibition of mechamer, let us derive from here that positive commandments cannot override a
prohibition? Perhaps you would answer that the prohibitions pertaining to Shabbos are stricter than
a standard prohibition and therefore we would not be able to compare this situation with other
prohibitions (a positive commandment cannot override a Shabbos prohibition, but it can override
a regular prohibition).
The Gemora proves from a braisa that the prohibitions pertaining to Shabbos are similar to other
prohibitions. It was taught in a braisa: If a kohen’s father tells his son to become tamei or not to
return a lost object, he should not obey him because it is written [Vayikra 19:3]: Every man: Your
mother and father shall you revere, and My Shabbos’ shall you observe, I am HaShem your G-d.
We infer from here: Everyone is obligated to honor HaShem, including the father and the mother.
Although the verse is referring to the prohibition of Shabbos, nevertheless, we derive from there
regarding all prohibitions. It is evident that the Tanna does not consider a Shabbos prohibition
stricter than a regular prohibition.
The Gemora concedes that it is evident that the Torah is referring to a case where the parent
instructed the son to slaughter or cook for him, which involves a kares prohibition. The fact that
we needed a verse to teach us that he should not obey his parent’s command indicates that a
positive commandment can override a prohibition that involves kares. Yet, this still will not
explain why the verse aleha is required to teach us that a man cannot perform yibum on his wife’s
sister. In the case where the parent instructed the son to slaughter or cook for him, the prohibited
act of slaughtering or cooking is essential for the fulfillment of the commandment (and that is why
one might think that it would be permitted to do); however in the case of yibum, it is not essential
to violate the prohibition of living with one’s wife’s sister in order to fulfill the mitzvah since the
mitzvah can be observed by performing chalitzah. Accordingly, it should never enter our mind that
the mitzvah shall override the kares prohibition of his wife’s sister since the mitzvah can be
fulfilled through performing a chalitzah; why is the verse aleha required?
The Gemora presents another source: Perhaps it can be derived from the mitzvah of building the
Beis Hamikdosh. It was taught in a braisa: One might have thought that the mitzvah of building
the Beis Hamikdosh should override Shabbos; the Torah writes [Vayikra 19:3]: My Shabbos’ shall
you observe, and My Sanctuary shall you revere; I am HaShem. We infer from here: Everyone is
obligated to honor HaShem, including the Sanctuary.
The Gemora assumes that the Torah is referring to a case of building and destroying, which is a
kares prohibition. The reason one should not violate the Shabbos is because of the specific verse
(mentioned above), but otherwise, the positive commandment of building the Beis Hamikdosh
would override a prohibition, even one that consists of kares. The Gemora objects to this proof:
12
The Torah are referring to the prohibition of leading a loaded animal on Shabbos, which is not a
kares prohibition.
The Gemora objects to this interpretation: If the verse is referring to a standard prohibition and
nevertheless, the positive commandment of building the Beis Hamikdosh does not override the
prohibition of mechamer, let us derive from here that positive commandments cannot override a
prohibition? Perhaps you would answer that the prohibitions pertaining to Shabbos are stricter than
a standard prohibition and therefore we would not be able to compare this situation with other
prohibitions (a positive commandment cannot override a Shabbos prohibition, but it can override
a regular prohibition).
The Gemora proves from a braisa that the prohibitions pertaining to Shabbos are similar to other
prohibitions. It was taught in a braisa: If a kohen’s father tells his son to become tamei or not to
return a lost object, he should not obey him because it is written [Vayikra 19:3]: Every man: Your
mother and father shall you revere, and My Shabbos’ shall you observe, I am HaShem your G-d.
We infer from here: Everyone is obligated to honor HaShem, including the father and the mother.
Although the verse is referring to the prohibition of Shabbos, nevertheless, we derive from there
regarding all prohibitions. It is evident that the Tanna does not consider a Shabbos prohibition
stricter than a regular prohibition.
The Gemora concedes that it is evident that the Torah is referring to a case of building and
destroying on Shabbos, which is a kares prohibition. The fact that we needed a verse to teach us
that one should not build or destroy on Shabbos indicates that a positive commandment can
override a prohibition that involves kares. Yet, this still will not explain why the verse aleha is
required to teach us that a man cannot perform yibum on his wife’s sister. In the case of building
and destroying for the Beis Hamikdosh, the prohibited act of building and destroying is essential
for the fulfillment of the commandment (and that is why one might think that it would be permitted
to do); however in the case of yibum, it is not essential to violate the prohibition of living with
one’s wife’s sister in order to fulfill the mitzvah since the mitzvah can be observed by performing
chalitzah.
Accordingly, it should never enter our mind that the mitzvah shall override the kares prohibition
of his wife’s sister since the mitzvah can be fulfilled through performing a chalitzah; why is the
verse aleha required? The Gemora asks: We do not need a verse to teach us that the positive
commandment does not override a prohibition of kares even when the prohibition is essential for
the fulfillment of the commandment since we have previously derived this from the verse
concerning the mitzvah of honoring one’s parents.
The Gemora states: The verse juxtaposing the observance of Shabbos with the revering of the Beis
Hamikdosh is actually teaching us something entirely different (and we cannot derive from there
that a positive commandment will override a kares prohibition). It was taught in a braisa: Just like
one does not revere the Shabbos but reveres the One who instructed us to observe the Shabbos, so
too one is not required to revere the Beis Hamikdosh. Rather, one is required to revere the One
who instructed us regarding the building of the Beis Hamikdosh. How does one display reverence
of the Beis Hamikdosh? One should not enter the Temple Mount with his stick, shoe, and money
13
belt or with the dust upon his feet. One should not use it as a shortcut and spitting is forbidden
based on a kal vachomer.
This halacha is applicable even when the Beis Hamikdosh is not in existence. This is derived from
the fact that the Torah juxtaposed the observance of Shabbos to the reverence of the Beis
Hamikdosh. Just as the obligation to observe Shabbos is forever, so too, the reverence of the Beis
Hamikdosh is forever.
The Gemora posits another source (as to why we would think that the mitzvah of yibum overrides
the prohibition of living with his wife’s sister even though it involves kares): It can be derived
from the prohibition regarding kindling on Shabbos. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a
braisa: It is written [Shmos 35:3]: You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the
Shabbos day. What do we learn from here?
The Gemora asks: How can you ask what is learned from this verse? There is a braisa that presents
a dispute between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Nosson regarding this verse. It was taught in a braisa:
Rabbi Yosi said that this verse teaches us that kindling on Shabbos is merely a prohibition (and
incurs lashes for violating it and not kares or stoning). Rabbi Nosson said: It is to teach us that one
is liable for punishment for violating one melocha (labor) on Shabbos. (Otherwise, we would have
thought that one incurs a punishment only if he violates all thirty-nine melochos.)
Rava answers: The Tanna was questioning the word “dwellings.” Why was it necessary for the
Torah to write that one cannot kindle in any of your dwellings, indicating that it is forbidden
outside of Eretz Yisroel, as well; Shabbos is a personal obligation, and personal obligations apply
even outside Eretz Yisroel (unlike a mitzvah which is dependent on land, where the obligation will
only be in Eretz Yisroel)?
A student answered in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The word “dwellings” in this verse is used
for a gezeirah shavah (one of the thirteen principles of Biblical hermeneutics - it links two similar
words from dissimilar verses in the Torah) to teach us that this verse is referring to a Beis Din, and
even a Beis Din cannot perform an execution (for example, burning) on one who committed a
capital offense on Shabbos.
The Gemora assumes that this braisa is following Rabbi Nosson’s opinion, who maintains that one
who kindles on Shabbos incurs the penalty of kares, and yet, we required a verse to teach us that
Beis Din cannot perform an execution on one who committed a capital offense on Shabbos.
Otherwise, we would have thought that the positive commandment of executing a capital offender
would override the prohibition of kindling on Shabbos. We can derive from here that in other
instances, a positive commandment will override a prohibition that involves kares. This is why we
would have thought that one can perform yibum on his wife’s sister, if not for the verse of aleha.
The Gemora objects to this proof and states that perhaps the braisa is following Rabbi Yosi’s
opinion, who holds that kindling is merely a prohibition that incurs lashes if violated, but not the
penalty of kares. The Gemora concludes: Even if the Tanna is following Rabbi Yosi’s opinion,
there would still be a proof that a positive commandment overrides a kares prohibition. Rabbi Yosi
only said that kindling was merely a prohibition (and not subject to kares) in regard to a regular
14
case of kindling. Beis Din’s kindling (when it is preparing an execution by burning) involves the
cooking of a lead wick (a wick of lead is heated and then the molten lead is poured down the
offender’s throat). Rav Ashi had said that there is no difference between cooking this (lead) wick
and cooking herbs.
Cooking is obviously a melocha which is subject to kares. It emerges that even if the Tanna follows
Rabbi Yosi’s viewpoint, we can see that a positive commandment overrides a kares prohibition
and that is why we needed aleha to teach us that a man may not perform a yibum on his wife’s
sister.
A TELEPHONE IS THE ANSWER
One might have thought that the mitzvah of honoring one’s father and mother overrides Shabbos
(if a parent would instruct their son to violate the Shabbos, he would be obligated to listen); the
Torah writes [Vayikra 19:3]: Every man: Your mother and father shall you revere, and My
Shabbos’ shall you observe, I am HaShem your G-d. We infer from here: Everyone is obligated to
honor HaShem, including the father and the mother. The Gemora assumes that the Torah is
referring to a case where the parent said to his son,
“Slaughter for me,” or Cook for me,” which is a kares prohibition. The reason he shouldn’t obey
the father is because of the specific verse (mentioned above), but otherwise, the positive
commandment of obeying one’s parent would override a prohibition, even one that consists of
kares. Tha Maharatz Chyus asks: Why should we think that the son is obligated to obey the father;
the Gemora in Bava Metzia (62) teaches us that one is only obligated to honor his father if he is
an “oseh ma’aseh amcha,” not if he is one that is not observing the mitzvos of HaShem? The
Ostroftzer Rebbe was once in Warsaw by one of his chasidim. The chasid proudly showed the
Rebbe the new invention that was just installed in his house, a telephone.
The Rebbe took the telephone in his hands and 'sanctified' it with words of Torah. He said: The
Meiri in Yevamos asks: Why is a verse required to teach us that a son may not listen to his father
when he instructs him to perform an aveira; the father is a rosha and the son is thus excluded from
honoring him based on the Gemora in Bava Metzia that a father who is not "oseh ma'aseh amcha,"
one is not required to obey?
The Rebbe answered: It is referring to a case where the father calls the son on the telephone. The
father is in one time zone, and it is already Motzei Shabbos, and the son is in a different time zone,
where it is still Shabbos. One might think that the son is required to 'listen' to his father and answer
the phone, the verse teaches us that everyone is obligated to honor HaShem and therefore the son
should not obey the father.
DOES A "HECHSHER MITZVAH" OVERRIDE A "LO TA'ASEH"
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4
4
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yevamos/insites/ye-dt-006.htm
15
The Gemara seeks a source for the principle that "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kares,"
a Mitzvas Aseh overrides even a Lo Ta'aseh which is punishable with Kares. The Gemara suggests
that this principle is derived from the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em. The Torah teaches that the
Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em does not override the Lo Ta'aseh not to perform Melachah on Shabbos
(for example, in a case in which one's parent tells him to desecrate Shabbos), which is a Lo Ta'aseh
which is punishable with Kares. The fact that the Torah specifically states that Kibud Av va'Em
does not override the Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos implies that in all other cases an Aseh does override
a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares.
The Gemara rejoins that no proof may be deduced from Kibud Av va'Em, because perhaps when
the Torah says that Kibud Av va'Em does not override the Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos, it refers only to
a Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos which is not punishable with Kares, such as the prohibition of Mechamer
(leading an animal). Accordingly, no inference can be made from that case to the case of a Lo
Ta'aseh that has Kares.
The Gemara asks that if the verse refers only to a Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos which is not punishable
with Kares, then the opposite law should be derived from there -- that an Aseh does not override
even an ordinary Lo Ta'aseh. The Gemara proposes that the Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos differs from
other prohibitions and is more stringent, but the Gemara refutes that answer.
The Gemara concludes that since Kibud Av va'Em is a "Hechsher Mitzvah," it differs from other
Mitzvos Aseh and does not override a Lo Ta'aseh.
What does the Gemara's answer mean? What is a "Hechsher Mitzvah," and why is the Mitzvah of
Kibud Av va'Em considered one? Why does such a Mitzvah not override a Lo Ta'aseh?
(a) RASHI understands that "Hechsher Mitzvah" in this context refers to a Mitzvah which is
fulfilled only by transgressing a Lo Ta'aseh. There is no way to fulfill the Aseh without
transgressing the Lo Ta'aseh.
Rashi understands that the Gemara returns to its original assumption that the verse refers to a Lo
Ta'aseh of Shabbos which is punishable with Kares. The verse teaches that the Mitzvah of Kibud
Av va'Em does not override a Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos that has Kares even though it is a "Hechsher
Mitzvah" (and in all other cases of a "Hechsher Mitzvah" the Mitzvah does override a Lo Ta'aseh
that has Kares). Without the verse, one would have thought that Kibud Av va'Em also overrides
Shabbos since the fulfillment of the parent's request (to cook for him on Shabbos, for example) is
not possible without also transgressing the Lo Ta'aseh. In contrast, in the case of Yibum with a
woman who is an Ervah to her brother-in-law, it is possible to avoid the Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares
and fulfill the Mitzvah by doing Chalitzah instead.
In short, according to Rashi, the Gemara means that an Aseh can override a Lo Ta'aseh that has
Kares when there is no other way to fulfill the Aseh (in this particular situation) other than by
transgressing the Lo Ta'aseh.
The Gemara's answer, however, is still difficult to understand. In practice, there is never a case in
which an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh which is punishable with Kares.
16
Moreover, the Gemara in Bava Metzia (32a) points out that aside from the fact that an Aseh does
not override a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares, there is another reason for why the Mitzvah of Kibud Av
v'Em (or Binyan Beis ha'Mikdash) obviously does not override Shabbos. The observance of
Shabbos involves both an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh, and a Mitzvas Aseh cannot override an
Aseh and Lo Ta'aseh together (see TOSFOS DH Nigmar). The Gemara in Bava Metzia answers
that the Aseh of Kibud Av va'Em is stronger than any other Aseh, since the honor of one's parents
is compared to the honor of Hash-m, and thus one might have thought that it overrides even an
Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh together. (The same can be said of the Mitzvah of Binyan Beis ha'Mikdash,
as the awe for the Beis ha'Mikdash is compared to the awe of the Almighty.)
Why, though, does the Gemara assert that we cannot learn from Kibud Av va'Em that every
Mitzvah overrides a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares because it is a "Hechsher Mitzvah"? The Gemara
should say that we cannot compare any other Mitzvas Aseh to Kibud Av va'Em because Kibud Av
va'Em is stronger than any other Mitzvah! The MAHARSHA suggests that the Gemara indeed
could have given that answer. Kibud Av va'Em is not only a "Hechsher Mitzvah" but an especially
strong Mitzvah in its own right. Hence, even according to the Gemara's conclusion we cannot learn
from Kibud Av va'Em that an ordinary Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh that has Kares when there is
no way to avoid the Lo Ta'aseh.
(b) TOSFOS explains that "Hechsher Mitzvah" here means the opposite of what Rashi says: an
Aseh which is only a "Hechsher Mitzvah" does not override a Lo Ta'aseh even if the Lo Ta'aseh is
not punishable with Kares (such as Mechamer on Shabbos). A "Hechsher Mitzvah" refers to an
act which is merely preparatory to the Mitzvah and not the actual fulfillment of the Mitzvah itself.
When a person leads an animal on Shabbos in order to bring food to his father, the act of Mechamer
is only a preparatory act for the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. The actual Mitzvah is fulfilled when
one gives the food to his father.
According to Tosfos, the Gemara does not return to its original assumption. Rather, the Gemara
upholds its explanation that the verse refers to a Lo Ta'aseh of Shabbos that does not have Kares
(such as Mechamer), and it teaches that since the act of transgressing Mechamer is only preparatory
to the main Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em, one may not transgress a Lo Ta'aseh (even one that does
not have Kares) in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Kivud Av va'Em.
Rashi apparently rejects this explanation because Mechamer is not always a mere act of preparation
for the Mitzvah of Kibud Av. When one's father specifically instructs his son to guide the animal
for him on Shabbos, the act of Mechamer is the actual fulfillment of the Mitzvah and is not just a
preparatory act.
Tosfos addresses this question. He explains that although in some situations the act of Mechamer
may be the actual fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em, nevertheless in most situations
Mechamer is merely a preparatory act. For this reason, even when the father instructs his son to
guide the animal on Shabbos, the Mitzvah of Kibud Av does not override the Lo Ta'aseh of
Mechamer. According to Tosfos, the Gemara means that an act which is usually an act of
preparation for a Mitzvah, "Hechsher Mitzvah," does not override a Lo Ta'aseh.
A CASE OF AN "ASEH" WHICH DOES NOT OVERRIDE A "LO TA'ASEH"
17
The Gemara derives from a verse that Beis Din is not allowed to kindle a fire on Shabbos
(Hav'arah) in order to kill a person who is liable for Sereifah. One might have thought that Hav'arah
in such a situation is permitted because of the principle of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh she'Yesh Bo
Kares." The Gemara concludes that Hav'arah on Shabbos is a Lo Ta'aseh that does not have Kares.
Since the Torah already teaches that an Aseh overrides an ordinary Lo Ta'aseh (one that does not
have Kares), a verse is needed to teach that in the case of Hav'arah on Shabbos, the Mitzvas Aseh
of Misas Beis Din does not override the Lo Ta'aseh of Hav'arah.
If Hav'arah is only a Lo Ta'aseh, then the Gemara should learn from this case that an Aseh
does not override an ordinary Lo Ta'aseh (as the Gemara asks earlier (6a) with regard to
Mechamer). Why does the Gemara here not make such an inference?
Why is a verse needed to teach that the Aseh does not override the Lo Ta'aseh in this case? The
principle of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" obviously does not apply in this case because the Aseh is
not performed at the same time as the Lo Ta'aseh. The Lo Ta'aseh occurs when the fire is kindled
and the lead is melted, while the Aseh is fulfilled only when the person is killed.
Why does the Gemara say that kindling a flame on Shabbos in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of
Sereifah constitutes only a Lo Ta'aseh that does not have Kares? The act also involves the
Melachah of "Netilas Neshamah" -- killing a living creature on Shabbos, which is a Lo Ta'aseh
that has Kares.
(a) The Rishonim suggest two approaches to the first question.
1. The RASHBA explains that kindling the fire in this case is only a "Hechsher Mitzvah" for the
actual Aseh of killing the person, and that is why it does not override a Lo Ta'aseh (as the Gemara
teaches on 6a). (The Rashba understands "Hechsher Mitzvah" as Tosfos explains it; see previous
insight.) The Gemara could have asked that no verse is needed to teach this since it is derived from
another verse (6a), but the Gemara had a better question to ask.
2. TOSFOS and other Rishonim explain that on Shabbos, in addition to the Lo Ta'aseh against
desecrating Shabbos there is also an Aseh to guard and observe the laws of Shabbos. That Aseh
applies to all of the prohibitions of Shabbos, and thus any act of Shabbos desecration involves the
violation of both an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh. Accordingly, one who performs the act of Hav'arah
transgresses both an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh (according to Rebbi Yosi). This explains why the Aseh
does not override the Lo Ta'aseh in this case; an Aseh cannot override both another Aseh and a Lo
Ta'aseh. Hence, this case does not prove that an Aseh does not override a lone Lo Ta'aseh. (Why,
though, does the law in this case not imply that in all other cases of an Aseh together with a Lo
Ta'aseh, an Aseh does override both? Tosfos writes that the Gemara could have asked this
question, but it had a better question to ask.)
(b) Three approaches are suggested to answer the second question.
18
1. The RASHBA writes that the Gemara indeed could have asked why a verse is needed to teach
that the Aseh does not override the Lo Ta'aseh in this case, when, in this case, the Aseh is not
performed at the same time as the Lo Ta'aseh.
2. The ARUCH LA'NER explains that perhaps since the Aseh of killing the perpetrator is a
"Mitzvah d'Rabim," a public Mitzvah incumbent upon all of the Jewish people, it is a "stronger"
Mitzvah than others (see TOSFOS 6a, DH Nigmar) and thus it can override a Lo Ta'aseh even
when they are not done at the exact same time.
3. The RAMBAN writes that it is possible to perform the Aseh and the Lo Ta'aseh at the same
time by holding the lead above the perpetrator's mouth and burning it there so that it falls directly
into her mouth and kills her. This is considered "at the same time."
The RASHBA rejects this answer because the two events still occur at two separate times. The
lead does not go into the mouth at the same time it is kindled; one event follows the other
sequentially.
Perhaps the Ramban follows the view expressed by the NIMUKEI YOSEF (Bava Metzia 32a)
who explains that when the beginning of an act which fulfills a Mitzvas Aseh is done at the same
time as the Lo Ta'aseh, the two are considered to occur "at the same time." If the lead is held above
the open mouth of the Bas Kohen, one begins the act which kills her when he lights the fire which
melts the lead which drips into her mouth. The Rashba, on the other hand, maintains that the Aseh
must be completely fulfilled at the time the Lo Ta'aseh is transgressed in order to override it, but
in this case the Aseh is fulfilled only at the moment the Bas Kohen dies (and not when the lead is
poured into her mouth).
(c) Why does the Gemara not ask that the kindling of a flame on Shabbos in order to fulfill the
Mitzvah of Sereifah constitutes the Lo Ta'aseh of "Netilas Neshamah," which is a Lo Ta'aseh that
has Kares? The RASHBA (TESHUVOS 1:357) writes that this essentially is what the Gemara
asks when it says that there still is a Meleches Shabbos involved with the act. The Gemara mentions
the Melachah of Bishul, but it could have mentioned Netilas Neshamah as well.
The Rashba adds, however, that the wording of the Beraisa (and the verse) implies that the
prohibition being discussed is that of making a fire and burning the lead, not the prohibition against
killing on Shabbos.
Perhaps the intention of the verse is different, and it does not intend to teach that the Aseh of
Sereifah does not override the Lo Ta'aseh of Hav'arah. One would not have thought that a Jew may
execute a guilty Bas Kohen on Shabbos, such that a verse is needed to teach that he may not
perform the execution. Rather, one would have thought that a Jew is permitted to heat the lead
with which a Nochri will execute the Bas Kohen on Shabbos. The verse teaches that even the
burning of the lead is prohibited and may not be done by a Jew on Shabbos. Accordingly, the
Gemara's question is logical. The Gemara asks why one would have thought that burning the
lead is permitted on Shabbos, when that act constitutes not only a transgression of Hav'arah but
also a transgression of Bishul, which is punishable with Kares.
19
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5
The previous dapim in Masechet Yevamot discuss the classic rule of aseh dokheh lo ta’aseh – that
performance of a positive commandment can push aside a negative commandment – of which
the mitzvah of yibum (levirate marriage) is an example. Our Gemara discusses cases that appear to
be exceptions to that rule.
The commandment of honoring one’s mother and father is one of the most basic mitzvot in
the Torah, one that appears in the Ten Commandments (see Shmot 20:11). What if a father or
mother commands their child to perform an act forbidden by the Torah? Would the child be
obligated to perform the forbidden act because of aseh dokheh lo ta’aseh – that the positive
commandment obligating a child to listen to his or her parent overrides the negative
commandment?
To this question the Gemara responds that the child cannot listen to his father or mother. The
source for this is the passage in Vayikra (19:3), where we find that the commandment to be in awe
of one’s parents – ish imo ve-aviv tira’u – is followed immediately by the commandment to keep
the Shabbat – ve-et Shabtotai tishmoru. The juxtaposition of these two ideals is understood by the
Gemara to teach kulkhem hayyavim bi-khevodi – that in a situation where the parent is obligated
to show his awe of God by keeping a mitzvah, he cannot order his child to transgress that mitzvah.
The Gemara’s explanation appears to be logical and straightforward. Since the parent is not
allowed to make this demand, it cannot possibly obligate the child. The Me’iri argues that the case
must be one where the request that is made is something that the parent needs, because if the parent
demands that his child transgress a commandment for no reason, he falls into the category of
a rasha – an evil person – for whom there is no mitzvah of kibbud (honor).
The Hagahot Maimoniyot, one of the commentaries on the Rambam, reaches the opposite
conclusion: that the case is one where the parent demands that the child transgress for no reason.
Nevertheless, a simple oral statement does not make a person a rasha. Therefore the child remains
obligated to listen to his father and mother in this case, were it not for the Gemara’s argument
that kulkhem chayavim bi-khevodi.
We have the general principle of ‫ש לא דוחה עשה‬ ‫עתה‬even regarding a negative command which is
deserving of‫רכת‬.The source brought was the mitzvah of honoring one’s parents, whose fulfillment
cannot undermine Shabbos.6
5
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yevamot_27/
6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yevamos%20006.pdf
20
This means, therefore, that in general a positive commandment can override a negative command
which entails‫כרת‬.
Nevertheless, the proof fails, because the nature of the violation of Shabbos discussed might not
be an outright ‫ אכה‬such as slaughter of an animal or cooking, but simply ‫מרח‬ ,which is not liable
for‫ כרת‬. At this point, the Gemara notes that if we are dealing with
‫מרח‬ ,we can at least use the
case of honoring one’s parents as the exception which indicates that a simple positive
commandment can usually obviate a negative command (even if not necessarily one which
involves‫רכת‬.(Why, then, is this lesson learned from shaatnez and its proximity to tzitzis?
The Gemara answers that the reason we cannot learn from honoring one’s parents is that this is a
case of ‫ וה הכשר‬.Rashi and Tosafos offer differing explanations of this answer. Rashi explains
that, in fact, we revert back to dealing with a case where the parent asks that Shabbos be violated
by a full melacha, such as cooking.
Yet we cannot learn from here that a positive command can cancel a ‫רכתבו שיש לאו‬,because
listening to one’s parent as one violates the Shabbos is a certain and complete fulfillment of
honoring the parent, and perhaps only here would one think that the mitzvah may be done. That is
why the verse had to teach that the Shabbos should still not be desecrated. But in the case of yibum,
the positive command is not essential.
This is only a ‫ש וה‬ ‫כהר‬ ,because the mitzvah can be done with chalitzah, and the ‫ וה‬woman
does not have to be married. There is no ‫ ינא הוה‬to allow marrying an ‫ וה‬. Tosafos learns that
the Gemara is still dealing with violating Shabbos with‫מרח‬ .Yet we cannot learn that a regular
positive command can defer a regular negative command. This is because obeying the wishes of a
parent to lead an animal, or even to cook, the mitzvah to honor the parent is only preliminary (the
actual honor is when the parent later eats).
Yet we might have thought that honor due a parent is so important, with its being associated with
the honor of Hashem, that even its preliminary fulfillment should defer Shabbos. This is why we
need the verse to instruct us not to violate the Shabbos to obey a parent. There is no lesson to learn,
however, regarding the general rule of ‫ש לא דוחה עשה‬ ‫עתה‬ when a ‫ וה הכשר‬is all that is being
accomplished.
As it was taught in a Baraisa: One might think that if one’s father told him to become tamei or
his father told him not to return a lost object, it might be thought that he should listen etc.
Poskim debate whether a child is obligated to demonstrate obedience to a parent when the request
does not provide any physical benefit to the parent.
21
Rabbeinu Yom Tov ben Avrohom Ishbili (1), the Ritva, in his comments to our Gemara writes that
a child is not obligated to comply with a parental request that does not provide physical pleasure
to the parent and the cases of the Baraisa refer to where the father will benefit from his request.
Similarly, Rabbeinu Yosef of Cologne (2), the Maharik, ruled concerning a father who protested
against his son marrying a particular girl that any matter that does not relate to the physical
wellbeing of the parent is outside the scope of the mitzvah to honor. Therefore, a child does not
transgress the obligation to revere his parent when he does not obey a request that does not relate
to the physical benefit of his parent.
Rav Yerucham Fishel Perlow (3), in his commentary to the Sefer Hamitzvos of Rabbeinu Saadyah
Gaon, cites many authorities who maintain that there is a mitzvah to comply with the wishes of a
parent even when it does not provide physical benefit to the parent.
For example, Rabeinu Asher ben Yechiel (4), the Rosh, rules that if a parent instructs a child not
to speak to someone, the parent should be ignored. One reason is that it is beyond the scope of the
parent to instruct the child to transgress a prohibition, i.e. not speaking to one out of hatred, and
secondly, since the parent demonstrating hatred he or she is not behaving properly and thereby
forfeits the privilege of receiving honor.
It is evident, notes Rav Perlow, that if the parent instructed the child to do something that did not
involve a sin, there would be an obligation to comply even though the request does not provide
any physical pleasure to the parent. Later authorities (5) advise following the wishes of the parents
even when the mitzvah of honoring one’s parents is not fulfilled especially when it does not involve
a loss to the child. The reason is that it is likely that the mitzvah to revere (‫ ) רא‬one’s parents will
be fulfilled even if the mitzvah of honor (‫ ) וד‬is not.
Our Gemara states that it is prohibited to enter Har Habayis even nowadays. The first High
Commissioner of Palestine was appointed by the British Mandatory authorities between the two
World Wars.
A semi-observant Jew, Sir Herbert Samuels was known to be careful not to violate Shabbos
publicly. Every Shabbos, he would walk the long distance from his home on Augusta Victoria on
Mount Scopus all the way to the great Churvah of Rav Yehuda HaChassid in the Old City. To the
surprise of many, when Sir Herbert first met the Rav of Yerushalayim, Rav Yosef Chaim
Sonnenfeld, zt”l, the venerable gadol made a request of the Jewish official. “Please have warning
signs affixed near all of the entrances to Har Habayis so that ignorant Jews will know not to enter
the area and risk transgressing the many prohibitions involved.
They could even be liable to kares unless we take steps to prevent such violations!” In those years,
the Jewish community was very careful with this prohibition and did not enter Har Habayis at all.
Although there is documentary evidence that some Rishonim did enter certain permitted areas of
22
the Har Habayis, later generations would not rely on this since there are conflicting opinions and
there is too much of a possibility of error. Sir Herbert requested in turn that Rav Sonnenfeld put
his request in writing.
The Rav wrote, “I have taken the liberty to request permission of Your Honor to place signs in
Hebrew, Yiddish, and Spanish to inform the Jewish people that we lack the ability to purify
ourselves properly to enter this most holy place nowadays. It is therefore prohibited from the Torah
for any Jew to enter the Har Habayis.” When they left, the Rav’s escort asked him why he made
this request, since no Jews of the yishuv ever considered doing such a thing.
Rav Sonnenfeld responded, “It is true that no one goes there now. However, what about Sir Herbert
himself? As High Commissioner, isn’t it likely that he will be required at some time to go there?
Once the signs are posted, they will provide him with an excuse to refuse to enter the area without
offending the British authorities!”
Rabbi Elliot Goldberg writes:1
The Hebrew writer and philosopher Ahad Ha’am is known for coining the phrase, “More than
Jews have kept Shabbat; Shabbat has kept the Jews.” The line points to the way Shabbat is not
only a central Jewish ritual, but an institution that has been key to preserving Jewish identity and
culture. On today’s daf, we learn about a different way Shabbat supports us by reminding us to
keep our spiritual selves focused in the right direction.
A beraita on today’s daf enumerates the ways we show reverence for the Temple in Jerusalem
and, by extension, for other sacred spaces:
In deference to the Temple, a person may not enter the Temple Mount with his staff, his shoes,
his money belt or even the dust on his feet. One may not make the Temple a shortcut to pass
through it, and all the more so one may not spit.
This source, and others like it, tell us how the rabbis defined respectful behavior and the
expectations they had for those who entered sacred space. In our day, this might mean that we
ought to refrain from bringing wallets and cell phones into a synagogue, or that we should hang
our coats in the coatroom rather than on the back of our chairs.
Setting such clear guidelines not only supported a particular kind of decorum, it also protected
the sanctity of the space, which was important to the rabbis. But so was limiting overzealousness
that might divert people’s spiritual attention from where it was meant to be directed. Being too
respectful of the Temple is also a problem.
One might have thought that a person should be in reverence of the Temple (and turn the
Temple itself into an object of worship). Therefore, the verse states: “You shall keep My
Shabbatot, and revere My Sanctuary.” (Leviticus 19:30)
The term “keep” is stated with regard to Shabbat, and the term “revere” is stated with regard
to the Temple. Just as in the case of keeping with regard to Shabbat, you do not revere
1
Myjewishlearning.com
23
Shabbat itself, as reverence is not mentioned in this context, but rather, one reveres God who
warned about the observance of Shabbat, so too, the same applies to the reverence stated with
regard to the Temple: You do not revere the Temple itself but He Who warned about the
Temple.
The rabbis infer from a verse in Leviticus that seems to establish a parallel between keeping
Shabbat and revering the Temple. The conclusion is that just as keeping Shabbat is really about
respect for the God who commanded the keeping of Shabbat, reverence for the Temple is really
reverence for God — not for the physical structure in which God’s presence is found.
Shabbat and the Temple are examples of Judaism’s way of finding holiness in both time and
space. Today’s daf enjoins us to show proper respect for these times and spaces but not make
them into objects of worship in of themselves, reminding us that they are but spiritual tools that
point us toward the divine.
Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:2
As part of the Gemara’s pursuit in finding proof for how various mitzvot override others, our daf
(Yevamot 6a) cites a Beraita which teaches that though, based on the principle that a positive
mitzvah can override a negative mitzvah (‫)עשה דוחה לא תעשה‬, we may have thought that the
building of the Temple overrides the laws of Shabbat, we learn from Vayikra 16:30: ‫ֶאת ַשְׁבֹּתַתי‬
‫ 'ִתְּשֹׁמרוּ וִּמְקָדִּשׁי ִתּיָראוּ ֲא ִני ה‬- ‘Keep My Sabbaths and revere My Sanctuary; I am the Lord’ that this
is not the case, and therefore the observance of Shabbat overrides the building of the Temple.
But then the Gemara (Yevamot 7a-b) adds what I believe to be a very powerful and often
overlooked point, which is that ‘just as the observance of Shabbat stems not from the awe we
have of Shabbat, but rather, [from our awe] for the Being (i.e. God) who commanded us about
the Shabbat, so too, the awe that we have of the Sanctuary stems not from the awe we have of the
Sanctuary, but rather, [from our awe] for the Being (i.e. God) who commanded us about the
Sanctuary.’
And why is this such a powerful point? Because all too often we equate the holy times, or holy
places, with the ultimate source of holy - to the extent that we forget to focus on God and only
focus on the time and place. And as a result, our lack of ‘G-d-consciousness’ – especially in
times and places where our sensitivity to the holy has the potential of reaching even greater
heights - can lead us to confuse ritual with faith, and religion with spirituality.
Yes we must revere the Shabbat, and yes we must revere the sanctuary. But even more important
is that we remember why - because failure to do so can make Shabbat (holy time) and the
synagogue (holy place) become reasons why people feel disconnected from God, while doing so
make Shabbat and the synagogue agents that can help us enrich and strengthen our relationship
with God.
2
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com
24
25
Rav Binyamin Tabory writes:7
The Ramban (Vayikra 19:30) explained that the Torah mentioned the obligation to observe
Shabbat many times due to the fact that Shabbat is equal to all other mitzvot. In Parashat
Kedoshim, the phrase "et Shabbetotai tishmoru" ("You shall observe My Shabbatot) is mentioned
twice, once in connection with "mora av va-eim" (Vayikra 19:3), and once in connection with
"mora mikdash" (19:30). Chazal derived from these juxtapositions that one must observe Shabbat
even if his parents ask him to desecrate it, and that it is forbidden to build the Mikdash on Shabbat.
There are thus two obligations of "mora" (displaying reverence) in this parasha: mora of
parents, and mora of mikdash. Mora of parents forbids standing or sitting in their designated place,
contradicting them, and taking any position when they have an argument with someone else
(Kedushin 31b). The laws of mora mikdash include the prohibitions against going to the Temple
Mount carrying a cane or wearing shoes, taking a short cut through it, and other laws (Berakhot
54a). In his discussion of mora mikdash, the Rambam, as usual, culled many halakhot found in
various sources and codified them in a single chapter (Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira, 7). He includes a
prohibition against sitting anywhere in the azara (halakha 6) and a prohibition against producing
an exact replica of the heikhal or its appurtenances (halakha 10). The Radvaz (ad loc.) pointed out
that this final halakha likewise stems from the law of mora mikdash, as it is based on the fact that
"we should not use the King's scepter." This point appears to be obvious, given that the Rambam
placed this halakha in the chapter devoted to mora mikdash. The Sefer Ha-chinukh (mitzva 254)
also cites these laws in his discussion of mora mikdash and explicitly writes, "and all this is due to
the awe of the place."
Besides these two mitzvot of mora, we find an astonishing mitzva enumerated in Sefer Ha-
yereim: "mora Shabbat" (mitzva 410). He explained that inasmuch as the Torah connected
shemirat Shabbat to mora mikdash, these two laws are intertwined. Just as there are two separate
laws relating to mikdash - shemirat mikdash (Sefer Ha-mitzvot, mitzvat aseh 22; Chinukh, mitzva
388) and mora mikdash (ibid.) – so are there two laws relating to Shabbat: shemirat Shabbat and
mora Shabbat. The Yereim defines this mitzva to mean that "a person should reflect (on how) to
honor and observe, and to be afraid of it."
The Yereim, who generally follows the enumeration of mitzvot of the Bahag, appears to be
the only Rishon who counted or even recognized a mitzva of mora Shabbat. In fact, the gemara
seems to explicitly negate such a notion. The gemara (Yevamot 6a) points out that two different
verbs are employed in connection with Shabbat and mikdash: "It says shemira regarding Shabbat
and mora regarding mikdash. [Rashi: It does not say mora in the context of Shabbat.]" This
remark appears to clearly deny any obligation of mora in connection with Shabbat. Shabbat
requires only shemira, which does not mean that one must be in awe of Shabbat.
7
https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/studies-halakha/philosophy-halakha/kedoshim-awe-parents-awe-temple-and-awe-shabbat
26
The commentary on the Sefer Yereim "To'afot Re'em" cites a variant text of this gemara
which he found in the Sefer Mitzvot Katan. (Our prevalent editions have the standard text as
quoted above.) That text reads, "It says shemira and mora regarding Shabbat and it says shemira
and mora regarding mikdash." Of course, if indeed this was the text of the gemara that the Yereim
used, we readily understand why he counted mora Shabbat as a separate mitzva.
If we do not accept the opinion of the Yereim, that this pasuk introduces the concept of mora
Shabbat, why did the Torah indeed associate Shabbat with mikdash? We have already noted that
this juxtaposition teaches that building the mikdash does not override Shabbat. In truth, however,
this law had already been taught earlier in the Torah, when it prefaced the laws of building the
mishkan with a discussion of Shabbat (Shemot 35:1-3). Rashi (ad loc.) pointed out that through
this preface, the Torah alludes to the prohibition against building the mishkan on Shabbat. The Or
Ha-chayim and others offer explanations for this seeming redundancy, but in any event the gemara
deduces another halakha from this juxtaposition in Parashat Kedoshim. The gemara (Yevamot 6b)
comments that just as Shabbat is eternally binding, so does the obligation of mora mikdash apply
for all time.
The Rambam quotes this gemara but adds one important point: "Even though the Temple
is desolate today due to our sins, we are still obligated in its mora… Just as shemirat Shabbat is
eternal, so is mora mikdash eternal, since its kedusha is still intact despite its desolation" (Hilkhot
Beit Ha-bechira 7:7). The Rambam clearly refers here to his own opinion (ibid. 6,15) that while
the kedusha of the Land of Israel can dissipate, the kedusha of Yerushalayim and mikdash is
everlasting. One can only speculate what the Ra'avad, who disagrees with the Rambam's view of
the eternal kedusha of the mikdash, would say about the law of mora mikdash today. The Sefer
Mafte'ach in the Frankel edition of the Rambam presents an impressive list of writers who debated
this issue.
Let us return to the opinion of the Yereim. What exactly would be included in mora
Shabbat? Could the awe or fear of Shabbat warrant adopting very stringent standards of
observance, beyond the regular, obligatory laws, attempting to avoid desecrating Shabbat in any
case? Many have noted in this context the Yerushalmi's comment (Demai, Chapter 4) that on
Shabbat we assume everyone tells the truth, including those whom we generally would not trust,
since they feel the awe of Shabbat.
Rav Perla, in his commentary to the Sefer Ha-mitzvot of Rabbeinu Sa'adya Gaon (Volume
1, p. 234) suggested that we infer from various aspects of mora mikdash what may be included in
mora Shabbat. Just as mora mikdash forbids making an exact replica of the mikdash, perhaps there
is a law (besides "bal tosif" – not adding to the Torah) forbidding one from observing Shabbat on
a different day of the week. He further speculated that this might be the reason for standing while
we recite the kiddush. The obligation of mora mikdash forbids sitting in the mikdash, and thus
standing should, perhaps, be forbidden on Shabbat. Obviously, Halakha could not possibly require
us to stand throughout Shabbat, especially given the concept of oneg Shabbat. On the other hand,
there is a need to show that mora Shabbat should imply that we stand out of mora. Quite possibly,
therefore, we stand during kiddush to reflect the idea of mora. Of course, there are various customs
relating to kiddush, and some people sit for the entire kiddush.
27
We have seen that there are two mitzvot involving mora, one relating to mikdash and another
relating to parents. There is one opinion that acknowledges a mitzva of mora shabbat, as well, and
this view may yield several fascinating ramifications.
Kibud Av V'Em8
being in awe (Moreh Av V'Em) of one's parents are positive mitzvot.[1] One should be very
careful in honoring one's parents as the Torah compares honoring one's parents to honoring
Hashem and in some respects it is greater.[2]
General guidelines to the Mitzvah
1. When fulfilling this mitzvah, one should realize that one is doing so in order to
fulfill a mitzvah and not simply because it is logical and moral.[3]
2. There is no bracha for the mitzvah of Kibud Av V'Em. Some explain that the
reason is because the actions done by a Jew to fulfill the mitzvah are the same ones
a non-Jew would do to honor his parents as a moral obligation. Since the primary
difference between a Jew and non-Jew who take such actions is the intent, for such
an action one may not say "Asher Kideshanu" - we were commanded in this
specific action.[4]
8
https://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Kibud_Av_V%27Em
28
3. In principle, the mitzvah of honoring and having awe applies equally to one's father
as it does to one's mother.[5] However, if one's parents are married, honoring one's
father takes precedence since one's mother also has to honor one's father.[6]
4. If one's parents ask him to violate some from the Torah or even something that is
only rabbinically forbidden, one should not listen to them.[7]
5. In principle, a man and woman are equally obligated in honoring or being in awe
of one's parents. If a woman is married, however, she is exempt from honoring her
parents. Yet, if her husband isn't meticulous, she is obligated to honor her parents
as much as possible.[8]
6. The mitzvah of kibbud av va'em is fundamentally a mitzvah bein adam lachavero.
Therefore, even one who repents on Yom Kippur and confesses this sin before
Hashem, must ask them for forgiveness.[9]
Honoring One's Parents
1. Included in honoring one's parents is feeding, dressing, and helping them walk.
When one is doing such an activity, one should do it with a smile.[10]
2. If one sees one's parent do a sin, one shouldn't say "you sinned" but rather "father,
doesn't it say in Torah such and such?" in a question form and the parent will
understand and not be embarrassed.[11]
3. Although one should not generally take care of his own need such as shopping
before praying in the morning, one is permitted to go out and buy groceries for his
parents even before prayers.[12]
4. If one's parents tell them to violate a biblical or even a rabbinic prohibition, one
shouldn't listen.[13]
5. If one's parents objects to one doing a specific chumra, technically one doesn't have
to listen to one's parents since that isn't included in Kibbud Av Vem.[14] However,
if doing the chumra will cause his parents pain then it isn't advised to disobey their
wishes and doing so is spiritually worse than keeping that pious practice.[15]
Standing for One's Parents
1. One must stand before one's mother and father[16] unless they forgo this honor.[17]
2. One should stand for one's parent once he enters one's eyesight.[18]
3. According to Ashkenazim one only needs to stand once a day and once a
night.[19] According to Sephardim, one should stand every time a parent enters the
room even if it is a hundred times a day.[20]
Honoring in Thought
1. One must honor his parents in thought as well. One should imagine that his parents
are the most important people in the world even if other people do not see it that
way.[21]
Spending Money on One's Parents
29
1. Even though the cost of fulfilling the mitzva of kibbud av va'em is supposed to
come from the parents' money, if the child chooses to pay, it is considered a
mitzva.[22]
2. If one's parents need financial support, it is proper for him to limit his spending
somewhat so that he can give to his parents.[23]
Calling Your Parents by Name
1. It is forbidden to call your parents by their name.[24] This applies when they're alive
as well as after they pass away.[25] It is forbidden even not in their presence.[26]
2. It is permitted to call one's parents by their name if one introduces it with an
honorific title like "My father my master". When one speaks to one's parent directly
one should call them "father" and "mother" or the like.[27]
3. If someone is being called up to the Torah and the Gabbay asks for his father's
name he should say your name then "‫( "ןברבי‬English "ben rebbe"; trans. "the son
of my teacher...") and then your father's name. This is permitted since one
introduced one's father with an honorific. Unfortunately this isn't a well-known
halacha and as such the Gabbay should prompt the one getting the Aliyah to give
him his name and say Rebbe before his father's name.[28]
4. One may not call one's friends by the name of one's father but rather should call
them by a nickname. If one's parent's name is common one may call one's friend
by that name not in front of one's parent.[29]
5. If one's parent foregoes this honor, one may address them by their name, yet there
is still a mitzvah not to call them by their name. If one uses a term of honor such
as Mom or Dad one may call them by their name.[30]
Honoring Grandparents
1. There's a mitzvah to honor one's grandparents, but to a lesser extent than the
mitzvah to honor one's parents.[31] Others, however, hold that there's no special
mitzvah for grandparents more than the general mitzvah to respect elders.[32]
Honoring One's Step-Parents
1. One is obligated to honor one's father's wife (step-mother) as long as one's father
is alive. It is proper to honor her even after one's father's death.[33]
2. One is obligated to honor one's mother's husband (step-father) as long as one's
mother is alive. It is proper to honor him even after one's mother's death.[34]
3. A convert should honor his non-Jewish parents and he may not curse his non-
Jewish parents or disgrace them.[35]
Honoring In-Laws
1. One must respect his parents-in-law.[36]
30
2. Though one must show respect to his in-laws as much as possible such as standing
up, one does not need to respect his in-laws in the same way that he must his own
parents.[37]
Having Awe for One's Parents (Moreh Av V'Em)
1. One shouldn't stand in the place where one's father usually stands to daven or sit in
the place he usually sits at home.[38]
2. One may not contradict his words or even say that one agrees with his words in
front of him.[39]
3. Some are of the opinion that due to the obligation of Moreh Av Va'Em, one must
listen to the directive of one's parents, even if it does not directly benefit the
parent.[40] The exception to this position is the directive of a parent for a child to
not to marry his desired spouse, which a child is permitted to disregard.[41]
Injuring One's Parents
1. One shouldn't let blood or perform an amputation for one's parent unless there is
no other doctor available and one's parent is in pain in which case it is permitted to
do whatever one's parent gives him permission to do.[42] Similarly, if he's the best
doctor available and one's parent wants him, then he may perform on his parent
according to whatever one's parent gives him permission.[43]
Swearing in Parent's Name
1. Children must be careful not to swear on their parent's lives.[44]
If One's Parents Passed Away
1. If one lost his parents, he can still perform some acts of kibbud after their death,
He should also respect older people, rabbis, and older siblings in the manner that
he would have respected his parents.[45]
2. The Gemara in Kiddushin asks "?‫" —" ותו כיצד‬How can one honor his father in
his death?"—and answers that if the son heard something that his father had said,
he should not claim, "‫"— "כךאמר אבא‬So said father."—but rather, the son should
proclaim, "‫"—"כךאמר אבא מרי הריני כפרת משכבו‬So said father, my teacher. May I be
an atonement for his soul." The Gamara there explains that this applies within one
year after his death. After that time, the son may say "‫—"זכורנו לברכה לחיי העולם הבא‬
"Blessed is his memory for the Life of the World to Come." [16]
Sources
1. The Rambam counts both Kibud Av VeEm (Aseh #210) and Moreh Av VeEm (Aseh #211) as
positive mitzvot. The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah #33 and #212) agrees. Aruch HaShulchan YD
240:1 codifies this as halacha.
31
2. Gemara Kiddushin 30b and Bava Metsia 32a. This gemara is quoted by the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:1
and Aruch HaShulchan YD 240:1. Yerushalmi (Kiddushin 1:7) quotes Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai who says
that Kibbud Av is greater than honoring Hashem! The Yerushalmi is referenced by the Ritva Bava Metsia
32a s.v. salka, Ran Kiddushin 13b, and Aruch HaShulchan YD 240:1.
3. Aruch HaShulchan YD 240:2-3. see the machloket in the poskim quoted in Yalkut Yosef Kibbud Av Va'em
pg. 100
4. Aruch HaShulchan YD 240:4, Yalkut Yosef Kibbud Av Va'em pg. 75
5. Yalkut Yosef Hilchot Kibbud Va'em Pg. 66
6. Gemara Kiddushin 31a, Tur 240, Shulchan Aruch YD 240:14, Aruch HaShulchan YD 240:7
7. Gemara Bava Metsia 32a, Yevamot 5b, Rambam (Mamrim 6:12). Shulchan Aruch YD 240:15
8. Kiddushin 30b, Shulchan Aruch YD 240:16, Shach YD 240:19, Aruch HaShulchan YD 240:38
9. Yalkut Yosef Kibbud Av Va'em pg. 100
10. Shulchan Aruch YD 240:4; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:3
11. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:10
14. Yalkut Yosef (Kibbud Av Vem p. 423). He cites the Agudat Ezov YD 16 who writes about a case where a
parent asks a child not to keep yashan because he is afraid that doing so will cause him to be unhealthy and
malnourished. He writes that it isn't necessary to listen since it doesn't directly affect the parents.
Nonetheless, it is proper to be strict regarding Kibbud Av Vem and listen to them. He also cites the
Meishivat Nefesh 16 who writes that if the father is commanding him because he wants him not to be strict
then one doesn't have to listen. But if he has another reason such as he is pained by the fact that the child is
in pain then he has to listen. Lastly, he cites Beer Moshe 1:61:2 that if the chumra has a basis in gemara then
he doesn't have to listen to his parents, but it doesn't then he must listen to them.
15. Yalkut Yosef (Kibbud Av Vem p. 423), Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:526. As a precedent the Teshuvot
Vehanhagot records that the Arizal's practice was to go to mikveh each day but when his mother asked him
not to go in the winter for his health he listened. Another precedent of this can be seen in the Sefer Chasidim
340 who writes that a person shouldn't fast a non-obligatory fast if it causes pain to one's parents. This is
cited by the Ben Ish Chai Shoftim 25 and Yalkut Yosef Kibud Av Vem p. 425. See also Igrot Moshe YD
4:24:1 who writes that if someone is strict about something and his parents aren't but really the halacha is to
permit it, then he can be lenient when he is with his parents such as to eat with them something that
otherwise he wouldn't eat.
Jump up to:16.0 16.1
16. Gemara Kiddushin 31b records Rav Yosef's practice to stand for his mother. Rambam
Mamrim 6:3 writes that there is an obligation to stand for one's parents. This is codified one Shulchan
Aruch YD 240:7 and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:7
17. Rav Mordechai Eliyahu's comment on Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:7
18. Chaye Adam 67:7, Chiddushei Rav Chaim HaLevi (Talmud Torah 5:1)
19. Chaye Adam 67:7
20. Yalkut Yosef (YD ch. 4 n. 8)
21. Yalkut Yosef Kibbud Av pg. 110
24. Mar Bar Rav Ashi wouldn't call his father by his name and instead would say my father my master. Rambam
(Hilchot Mamrim 6:3) rules that it is forbidden to call one's father by his personal name. Shulchan Aruch
Y.D. 240:2 codifies this as halacha.
25. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 240:2
26. Yalkut Yosef (YD 240, Morah Av Vem 5:59)
27. Yalkut Yosef (YD 240, Morah Av Vem 5:59)
28. Pitchei Teshuva YD 240:2, Kibud Av V'em Vmoram (R' Efraim Oved, 6:7 p. 41). R' Oved explains that the
Eretz Tzvi 97 allows introducing one's father's name with "my father" based on the Gra and Pri Chadash.
However, the Ben Ish Chai Shoftim n. 4 implies that it is forbidden to say but permitted to write. Ura Kevodi
p. 145 cites Chut Shani p. 279 and Igrot Moshe YD 1:133 who also hold that before telling the Gabbay the
name of one's father one should say Rebbe as an honor. Rav Elyashiv (Mevakshei Torah 5:24:194) held that
since it is in public he should say a significant honorific such as "my father my master rebbe" before the
name. He also cites Yabia Omer YD 15:5 and Yafeh Lelev YD 3:10 who allow saying one's father's name if
one says his name "the son of" which in it of itself is like an introduction of honor.
29. Rambam Mamrim 6:3, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 240:2
30. Igrot Moshe YD 1:133
31. Rama (responsa 118) and Rama YD 240:24.
32
32. Maharik 30. See, however, Biur Hagra who draws a compromise that there's no mitzvah to honor maternal
grandparents.
33. Shulchan Aruch YD 240:21; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:20
34. Ibid.
36. Shulchan Aruch YD 240:24
37. Yechave Daat 6:51
40. Sefer HaMakneh, Kiddushin 31b s.v. "Tanu Rabanan Eizehu". An exception to this position is if doing so
causes a substantial loss for the child. These losses can be financial or in other ways that would cause much
disruption in the child's life (e.g. completely changing from Ashkenazic to Sephardic minhagim, according
to Rav Elyashiv)). This is in contrast to the Rabman, Rashba and Ritva (Yevamot 6a), which state that the
mitzvah of Kibud Av Va'Em is servicing the parents. This definition does not include obeying one's parents
when the directive does not directly benefit them. The Vilna Gaon (Biur HaGra on Yoreh Deah 240:36)
asserts that this is the position of the Mechaber and the Rama in Shulchan Aruch. This is also the common
practice as well.
41. The Rama (ibid) codifies this as the halacha, quoting Shu"t Maharik (Siman 167). According to the position
of the Ramban, Rashba and Ritva, where a child must obey a parent's directive only if it directly benefits the
parents, a son choosing who to marry does not directly benefit the parents. Therefore, it would be permitted
for a child to disregard such a directive. According to the position of the Sefer HaMakneh, where a child
must obey a directive even if it does not directly benefit his parents, it would still be permitted to disregard
this specific directive as obeying one's parents would cause a child to refrain from marrying and having a
children, something from which he is halachikally obligated to do. Even though it is permissible to not obey
parents' wishes for who their children marry, naturally, the parents should not be expected to support the
child and his spouse afterwards.
42. Sanhedrin 85b, Shulchan Aruch and Rama YD 241:3
43. Aruch HaShulchan 241:6
44. Yalkut Yosef Kibbud Va'em pg. 150
45. Yalkut Yosef Kibbud Va'em pg. 65
Parameters of Kibbud Av Va'em
33
Rav Mordechai Willig writes:9
The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (31b) relates the following story about Rav Asi:
The GR"A writes that Rav Asi left his mother because she had become crazy. [Her expectation to
find a husband as handsome as Rav Asi, who was in the prime of his health, for an elderly widow,
was totally unrealistic!] This is based on the Rambam (Hil. Mamrim 6:10), who derives from this
story that it is possible to leave a senile parent in capable hands.
One may ask on this Gemara, why did Rav Yochanan, who was the gadol hador, not know the
halacha at first? In addition, what did Rav Asi mean, "Had I known, I would not have left?"
The simple reading is, "Had I known [that my mother already passed away], I would not have left
[Israel just to greet the funeral procession]." However, this seems to contradict the very next line
in the Gemara, "He honors him in his lifetime, and he honors him after his death," which teaches
that the obligation of kav"a continues even after death!
The Maharsha writes that perhaps to go towards the funeral procession is not called honor for the
deceased. Similarly, the Tos. Ri Hazaken writes, "This is not included in honor after death." Why
not? What, then, is kavod after death? Furthermore, we know that there is a mitzvah to go to the
funeral of a great person, etc.
9
https://www.kby.org/english/torat-yavneh/view.asp?id=4019
34
The Gemara continues:
What is kav"a while parents are alive? The Gemara writes that honoring includes giving food and
drink, dressing, and covering, and escorting in and out. Apparently, the Ri Hazaken and Maharsha
interpret that kavod does not mean "honor" in the classical sense, but rather service. Although
attending a funeral gives honor to the deceased, certainly if he is a talmid chacham, it does not
entail service, and is not included in kav"a. The only example of service after death is saying
"hareini kaparat mishkavo." Nowadays many people don't say hk"m, which is against this explicit
Gemara! The Gilyonei Hashas (Rav Yosef Engel) explains that reciting Mourner's Kaddish is a
substitute for hk"m. However, if leaving Eretz Yisrael to attend the funeral is not defined as kavod,
since it does not entail service, then why is saying hk"m considered as such?
Rashi writes, "a son provides merit for his father," and alleviates his suffering from the fire of
Gehenom. This is comparable to a father who is sitting in a hot room and asks his son to turn on
the air conditioner, which is a form of kavod. (Presumably this would be included under the
category of dressing and covering.) Thus, certainly if the father is in the fire of Gehenom, and by
saying hk"m the son reduces the heat -- this is kavod of service! This is also the idea of reciting
Kaddish, as we find in the story of R. Akiva, who saw in his dreams a man all dressed in black. R.
Akiva taught the man's son to say Kaddish, and the man returned to thank R. Akiva for alleviating
his suffering. (See Beit Yosef Y.D. 376) [Accordingly, while it is a great kavod hamet to dedicate
a Yeshiva wing in memory of the deceased, it does not technically qualify as kav"a, which has to
be service.]
Thus, we can understand the statement of the Ri Hazaken and the Maharsha that greeting the
funeral procession is not technically kav"a. The simple understanding, though, is that attending a
35
parent's funeral is also a form of honoring them. Why, then, did Rav Asi say, "Had I had known, I
would not have gone?"
The Ran makes a very important point, which has halachic ramifications. He first cites the
Rambam, that if one cannot remain with his parents because they have gone totally crazy, he should
leave them and entrust others to deal with them properly (e.g., place them in a senior center, get
an aide, etc.). He then cites the Ra'avad, who argues on the Rambam, and writes that this is not a
proper ruling, "If he leaves them, who will he tell to look after them?" The Ran questions this from
story of Rav Asi, which supports the position of the Rambam. He suggests that according to the
Ra'avad that this is only permissible in order to go to Eretz Yisrael but concludes that this does not
seem so.
The Rashash offers an alternate interpretation of the Gemara. Rav Asi meant, "Had I known [that
she would come after me and die along the way], I would not have left [Bavel]." He was afraid
that the difficulty of the travel or the anguish of his leaving caused her death. The Rashash suggests
that perhaps this how the Ra'avad understood the conclusion of the Gemara, that in the last line
Rav Asi retracted from having left her.
Thus, we have two interpretations of Rav Asi's comment. One, that simple honor is not included
in kav"a, but only service. Two, that in the end Rav Asi conceded that he was wrong in leaving.
However, the Shulchan Aruch, who quotes the Rambam, and the simple reading of the Gemara --
that there was no need to leave Israel to provide honor after death -- is like neither interpretation.
Thus, our original question from, "He honors him ... after his death," returns.
We would like to provide a third interpretation of Rav Asi's comment, based on the following
introduction. What is the halacha if a parent is not observant -- is there an obligation of kav"a? The
Shiltei Giborim cites a dispute regarding this issue. The Rambam writes that a mamzer is also
obligated to honor and revere his parents, even though he is not punished for hitting or cursing
them unless they do Teshuva. The Tur, however, maintains that the son is not obligated if the father
is wicked. He brings a proof from the Gemara in B. Kama (94b), that if the father stole something,
the children are only required to uphold their father's honor and pay for it if he did teshuva. Thus,
36
the Rambam seems to be against an explicit Gemara that kav"a applies only if the father is not
wicked!
Perhaps we can answer this question, as well as our original one in the case of Rav Asi, based on
the following chakirah: Is kav"a is mitzvah between man and G-d or between man and his friend?
One practical ramification of this issue is whether one has to ask pardon from his parents on Erev
Yom Kippur for neglect of kav"or does teshuva alone suffice. If it is a mitzvah between man and
G-d -- one would not have to ask pardon; if it is between man and his friend -- he does.
One the one hand, the fact that kav"a is included on right side of Tablets indicates that it is between
man and G-d, as the Ramban writes. Similarly, we find in Kiddushin 30b, "There are three partners
in man: G-d, his father and his mother. When a person honors his father and his mother, G-d says,
'I consider it as if I dwelt amongst them and they honored Me.'" Yet, it is almost undeniable that
there is also a component between man and his friend. The Sefer Hachinuch writes that the basis
of kav"a is gratitude: Since they brought the child into this world, he owes them the courtesy and
honor to take care of them and to provide them what they need. Thus, there seem to be two
components to this mitzvah.
Each aspect of kav"a has a limitation. The basis of the component between man and G-d is the
metaphor of three partners. When a person enters a partnership, he is usually meticulous as to
whom his partner is; otherwise, he may lose everything. Presumably, G-d is also meticulous in his
partnership. Thus, the metaphor of three partners implies the potential to be a partner with them,
but only if they are people worthy of G-d's partnership, i.e., they observe the mitzvot, but not if
they are wicked. Thus, the dimension between man and G-d exists only if the parents are righteous
people.
As far as the aspect between man and his friend, there is a strong possibility that these interpersonal
mitzvot are limited to individuals who are living. Although we read "chesed ve'emet," and to be
involved in the chevra kadisha is still called "chesed shel emet" -- this is a separate category, which
stands apart from the general grouping of interpersonal mitzvot which form the cornerstone of our
society. This is commonly referred to as a "social contract," and Torah thinkers have commented
37
on the element of reciprocity in "Ki biglal hadaver hazeh -- galgal chozer ba'olam (poverty is
something cyclical)."
If these two parameters are correct, we can explain the Rambam's opinion. The Rambam, who
mandates that even a mamzer honor his parents, refers to a parent who is wicked, but alive.
However, the Gemara, which discusses returning a stolen item that was inherited, refers to a parent
that is dead. If one's parents are alive and righteous, the child is obligated in kav"a on two accounts.
However, if the parents passed away, only the aspect of between man and G-d remains. On the
other hand, even if one's parents are wicked, there remains an interpersonal responsibility of
gratitude for bringing the child into this world -- they are his biological parents. But if the parents
are both wicked and dead -- as in the Gemara's case of one who stole a cow -- neither obligation
exists.. This answers our second question above.
Is one allowed to leave Israel for kav"a? Rav Ovadiah Yosef shlita writes that one may not, since
we find that one may leave Israel only for three reasons -- to learn Torah, earn a livelihood, and
find a wife -- whereas kav"a is not listed. (Although the Pitchei Teshuva in Even Ha'ezer 75:6
questions this point based on the Tashbetz, Rav Ovadiah Yosef explains that even the Tashbetz
only permits to leave for a short time to greet them and return.)
Yet, we must ask, what would the halacha be in the following scenario? A person borrows a large
sum of money as a long-term loan in order to open a business. Shortly afterwards, he decides to
move to Israel. The lender wants to restrain him from going, until he can repay the loan, since it is
not likely that he will be able to on an Israeli salary. What is the ruling? It seems that the lender is
correct. Even though there is a mitzvah to live in Israel, and repaying a loan is not listed as one of
the three reasons to leave, to be a "tzaddik" at the expense of someone else seems illogical. The
three reasons mentioned relate to obligations between man and G-d, but interpersonal reasons are
obvious. Now, a person owes a tremendous debt to his parents for bringing him into this world.
Thus, if parents need you, such as if they are older, and need you to take them here and there --
you cannot leave them!
38
Perhaps this is the explanation of the Gemara in Kiddushin that we began with. R. Yochanan
allowed Rav Asi to go greet his mother because expressing kav"a to a parent to whom one owes
a debt of gratitude is more important than yishuv Eretz Yisrael. When Rav Asi found out that
mother had passed away, only the ritualistic aspect between man and G-d remained, in which case
there are only three reasons to leave. Thus, Rav Asi said that if had known that his mother already
passed away, he would not have left Israel to greet her, since the interpersonal aspect no longer
exists, and the ritualistic aspect is not sufficient cause to leave Israel.
Perhaps this also explains R. Yochanan, who said, at first, that he didn't know whether one may
leave, and later allowed Rav Asi to go. Perhaps he knew the halacha all along, but not the facts.
He did not know why Rav Asi wanted to leave. Was it because of the ritualistic obligation to honor
parents or because of the interpersonal need? Therefore, he said, "I don't know." When Rav Asi
came back again with his question, R. Yochanan understood that the motivation was a personal
need, and therefore he permitted him to go.
Thus, in conclusion, if parents want their child to leave Israel, there are three factors to consider:
If the son is needed to tend to his parents, they may be right in principle.
If the son is not needed, but the parents love their children and want them to be close or worry
about them -- sometimes their request is reasonable and legitimate, and returning to them is
considered paying back, while other times their desire is not reasonable. It is hard to generalize
here.
(Kavod is an obligation to help, mora is the obligation to obey: "He does not contradict his
words..." This obligation of mora is only binding if the parent's request is reasonable. There is a
well-known Rama about a parent's objecting to his son's shidduch. It seems from that Rama that
a child has no obligation to listen to his parents in regard to his own matters. However, the Chazon
Ish writes that this is not so -- as proven by R. Tarfon (31b) -- but only if the request is
"reasonable." For example, if the parent objects because the prospective young lady is not blond
39
-- this is not reasonable, but if it is because she is ill or not able to bear children -- this is
reasonable.)
Talmud Torah is greater that kav"a, as we derive from Yaakov in the Gemara Megillah. However,
it the child can learn equally well in America, it is not so simple that he cannot leave Israel.
Thus, these are case-specific questions that we cannot generalize with a blanket ruling. In a
particular situation, one should consult a Rav who has knowledge of the situation, in addition to
halachic expertise.10
Honoring Parents
.
In Judaism, every day is Mother's Day and Father's Day.
10
Written by Rav Meir Orlian based on a shiur given in Tevet 5762
40
Introduction11
It's one of the Ten Commandments1 – right up there with belief in God and "don't murder." The
Talmud regards it as one of the most difficult mitzvot to perform properly.2 What's so special about
the mitzvah to honor parents?
Many people think that honoring parents is some kind of payback for all those years of changing
diapers and paying for college. Actually, this mitzvah was given to the generation who wandered
40 years in the desert, where God automatically provided everyone's needs. The parents didn't feed
their children; they had the manna to eat. The parents didn't provide clothing; the clothes grew
with them and never needed washing.3 Nevertheless, it was precisely this generation who stood at
Mount Sinai and heard God utter, "Honor your father and mother."
We learn from here an amazing thing: The mitzvah of honoring parents does not depend on what
your parents did for you, or even whether they were good parents. Rather, we honor parents simply
because they gave us the gift of life.4
Obligation to Honor Parents
Imagine you were drowning, and a stranger came along and save
The Talmud teaches that there are three partners in the formation of a person: father, mother, and
the Almighty.5 If we have gratitude to our parents for the gift of life, how much more so we'll be
grateful to God for creating and sustaining the entire world – for giving us air to breathe, flowers
to smell, and soil to walk on.
By honoring those who brought us into existence, we learn not to take things for granted and
develop an appreciation for the kindness of others.6
In addition, in the case of caring for our parents, we fulfill two other Torah obligations at the same
time: (a) "Love your fellow as yourself,"7 and (b) Emulating G-d's ways, as G-d cares for the needs
of all mankind.8
With that introduction, let's get to the practical "how to" of honoring parents.
Why Honor Parents?
How to Honor
There are actually two parts to this mitzvah
1. Honor your parents9 (in Hebrew, kibbud av v'eim) – these are the positive "to do" actions
11
https://aish.com/8-honoring-parents/
41
2. Revere your parents10 (in Hebrew, morah) – the "don't do" actions
The basic way to honor parents is to care for their needs. Specifically, this includes:
• bringing them food and drink,11 including helping with meal preparation and grocery
shopping12
• assisting them with paying bills, banking, etc.
• transporting them, e.g. giving a ride to the doctor
An occasional exception to this is the case of a married daughter. Generally speaking, her
obligations towards her husband take precedence over those towards her parents.12a In cases of
conflict, an appropriate rabbinical authority should be consulted.
When possible, it is preferable for a child to live near the parents,13 to better care for their
needs.14 There are really no limits to this; the Talmud tells how the great Rabbi Tarfon would bend
down to serve as a step-stool for his mother to climb in and out of bed.15
Parents should be visited and phoned as frequently as possible, depending on the parent's needs
and child's schedule.16 In general, be sensitive to the fact that parents naturally worry about their
children. Try to send a quick email or phone message every day or two. Especially if you are
traveling, call to let them know that you arrived safely.17
If the parent is old and infirm, the child is responsible to arrange for his care, and must pay for it
if the parent cannot afford to do so.18
Of course, you should never let your parents feel that they are a burden, or that you are assisting
only out of obligation.19
As a reward for honoring parents, the Torah promises long life.20 One possible explanation is that
taking care of parents – especially when they are elderly – can be very time-consuming. So God
"compensates," so to speak, by adding extra years to your own life.21
As an added bonus, when your children will see you honoring your parents, they will learn this
importance of this mitzvah. That's the payback when it comes your turn to be on the receiving
end.22
How to Honor Parents
Admiration
Honoring parents goes beyond just "doing favors." An element of this mitzvah is to admire your
parents and consider them to be eminent people.23 For example, if you hear someone speak
negatively about your parents, you are required to speak up and defend their honor.24
Even more, you should make a specific effort to love your parents, to the point of developing hero
worship!25 How is this achieved? The definition of love is "the pleasure of identifying people with
42
their virtues." You should try to discover the qualities that make your parents extraordinary, among
the greatest people alive.26 The more of your parents' virtues you're aware, the more you'll
appreciate, love, and honor them.27 (However, even if you don't develop this "love," the obligation
remains to honor them.28)
The Talmud suggests other ways to increase admiration:
• If you need a favor – e.g. you want the car mechanic to fix your muffler ASAP – you should
ask him to do it "as a favor to my parents." Even if the mechanic would do it for you,
anyway, phrasing it this way increases your parents' esteem in everyone's eyes.29
• Another way to build admiration is to stand up when your parent enters the room.30 At first
glance this may seem strange in our modern society. But imagine you were sitting at a
board meeting and the chairman walked in; you would rise out of respect to greet him. We
should accustom ourselves to treating our parents the same way – standing up to welcome
them when they arrive and escorting them when they leave.31
In general, a child should be eager to fulfill his parents' wishes. There are some limits, however:
• If a parent instructs a child to do something that violates Jewish law, the child should
respectfully refuse to do so.32
• A child need not comply with a parent's request to do something painful, demeaning, or
that will cause financial loss.33
• Similarly, a child should refuse to assist the parent in doing anything that is dangerous or
unhealthy.34
There are three specific areas that, due to their intense personal nature, a person is not required to
respect his parents' wishes:
• choosing whom to marry35

• maximizing one's Torah studies36
• wanting to move to Israel37
• Parents vs. Independance
Awe and Reverence
Besides the mitzvah to honor parents, there is a second aspect of awe and reverence. The particulars
of how to fulfill this may depend on the society in which you live. But the basic principle is that
there must be clear lines: "I am the parent, and you are the child. We are not equals."
This is typically achieved by observing the following guidelines:
• Do not sit in a place that is designated for your parent.38 For example, don't sit in your
mother's seat at the dinner table, and don't sit in your father's special easy chair (unless
you've asked permission).
• Do not contradict anything your parent says, even if it's obviously wrong.39 Rather, you
can phrase it as an uncertainty: "If I'm not mistaken, I may have read differently."40 You
43
should not even validate your parent's words in their presence, i.e. do not say, "I believe
what you're saying is correct."41 (However, validating the parents' opinion when not in
their presence accords them honor.)42
• Do not address your parents by their first name.43 In a situation where you need to state
your parent's name, you should add a title, e.g. "My father is Mr. Joshua Goldberg."44
• not wake a parent who is sleeping or make noise that might disturb him.45
• A child should not see his parent naked.46
• Do not raise your voice, speak disrespectfully,47 or in any way demean your
parent.48 Beyond this, hitting or cursing a parent is an extremely serious transgression.49
Sometimes, a parent might feel uncomfortable with the rules of honoring parents, especially when
teaching (and enforcing!) them to younger children. But it's important to keep in mind that more
than for the sake of the parents' honor, all this is to instill good character traits in the child, to give
him a framework for future relationships – with friends and colleagues, with his own children, and
with God.
Posthumous Honor
The obligation to honor and respect parents applies even after they have passed away.50 When
referring to a parent who has passed away, you should add an expression of honor, for example:
• "My father, zichrono li'vracha" – may his memory be for a blessing. (For a mother, the
first word is zichrona).51
• "My father, alav ha'shalom" – peace be upon him. (For a mother, the first word
is aleh'ha).52
Once you are married and have children of your own, naming a child after your deceased relatives
– parents, grandparents, and other relatives – is considered an honor for your parents.53 The
Sefardic custom is to also name after living relatives.54
Other ways to posthumously honor a parent include:
• donating to charity in their memory55

• reciting Kaddish56 for the first 11 months after death, and on each yahrtzeit (anniversary of
death)
• saying the Yizkor memorial prayer on Jewish holidays57
• lighting a memorial candle on the yahrtzeit58
• learning Torah on the yahrtzeit59
In general, raising your level of Jewish commitment (i.e. Torah study and mitzvot) is a great source
of merit for your parents, even after they pass away.60
Other Relatives
There are a number of "secondary" relatives who a child is also obligated to honor:
44
• grandparents61
• in-laws62
• step-parents63
• older siblings64
• aunts and uncles65
In a case of conflicting demands, honoring an actual parent takes precedence.66
Also, the obligation to honor these other relatives does not include the aspects of "awe and
reverence" (e.g. calling by first name, sitting in their chair, etc.).67
Finally, every parent has a deep desire to see their family at peace with one another. Therefore
children must be very sensitive to the pain it can cause parents if they are quarrelling with siblings
and other relatives.68
The Difficult Parent
The reality is, of course, that parents are not perfect. And some parents are objectively problematic.
Yet no matter how difficult a parent's behavior, a child is still obligated to show honor and
respect.69 This applies even if a biological parent has abandoned his child. And it applies even if
the parent is rude, unpleasant, and an embarrassment.70 The Talmud71 tells the story of a mother
who spit in her son's face – while the son kept his composure and continued to accord her honor.
At the same time, while honoring your parents is a tremendous mitzvah, you also need to be
responsible for your own welfare. One is not required to endanger his emotional or physical health
for a parent. Therefore, if a child cannot cope with the parent's behavior, he is permitted to keep
his distance.72
The obligation of the mitzvah, however, still applies. For instance it would still be forbidden to
use the parent's first name or to contradict him publicly. And it is always appropriate for a child to
feel a deep appreciation to a parent for giving him the gift of life.
Of course, all this does not in any way absolve an abusive parent. On the contrary, a parent should
not be overly strict with his own honor and may choose to forgo that honor when appropriate.73
Children are precious gems that are deposited with parents for polishing and finishing. Parents
who fail to build a warm and loving relationship with their children will pay a heavy price for this
negligence.
Divine Paradigm
As we mentioned earlier, honoring parents serves as a springboard for the gratitude we should feel
toward God. But this issue goes much deeper. The commentators74 point out that the first five of
the Ten Commandments (i.e. the first tablet) contains mitzvot between man and God: don't serve
45
idols, don't take God's name in vain, etc., whereas the second tablet contains mitzvot between man
and man: don't murder, don't steal, etc.
Where is the mitzvah to honor one's parents? In the first set of five. Because from the moment of
infancy and beyond, the way a parent acts toward a child forms in the child's consciousness a
paradigm for how God relates to us.75 The primary role of a parent, therefore, is to communicate
to the child: You are loved and cherished. You are unique and special, creative, and talented. You
are cared for and protected.
The most important message a parent can communicate is: "You are not alone in this world." This
idea is the foundation of our relationship with God. A person may find themselves in a terrible
situation – illness, poverty, war – but they can still know that God is with them.76
If a parent is untrustworthy and uncaring, unusually harsh, or permissive, it subconsciously sets

into the child's mind that God must somehow be the same. This is an emotional handicap that can
be difficult to overcome later in life.
One final thought: As society progresses, there may be a tendency for children to feel "ahead" of
their parents. Sure, kids today are more technologically savvy, and are up on the latest music and
fashions. But in Jewish consciousness, parents are to be respected because they are the source of
our tradition. In other words, parents not only gave us life in this world, but are the link that
connects us to our eternal Jewish heritage.77
Further Reading
• The Fifth Commandment – Rabbi Moshe Lieber (ArtScroll)
• Honoring Parents in Halacha – Rabbi Tzuriel Taaseh (Targum Press)
1. Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16

2. Jerusalem Talmud (Peah 1:1)
3. Midrash Rabba – Shir HaShirim 4:2;Yalkut Shimoni – Psalms 691
4. Meshech Chachma and K’tav Sofer (V’etchanan)
5. Kiddushin 30b
6. Sefer HaChinuch 33
7. Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16
8. Leviticus 19:3
9. Yoreh De’ah 240:4. If the parent has no money for food, the child is responsible to pay (Yoreh De’ah 240:5).
10. Biur HaGra (YD 240:36)
11. Aruch HaShulchan (YD 240:36)
12. Maimonides (Mamrim 6:3); Chayei Adam 67:4
13. Kiddushin 31b
14. The Fifth Commandment by Rabbi Moshe Lieber, pg. 90
15. Sefer HaChassidim 575
16. Rabbi Y.S. Eliyashiv, cited in Morah Horim V’Kibbudam. In general, the cost of caring for parents is divided between
the children, according to the ability to pay (Rema – Yoreh De’ah 240:5).
17. Talmud – Kiddushin 31a
18. Exodus 20:12
19. The Fifth Commandment, pg. 28, citing Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld
20. Ohr HaChaim (Leviticus 19:3)
21. Chayei Adam 67:3
46
22. Sefer HaYirah – s.v. U’Me’od Yesh
24. Rabbi Chaim Shmuelevitz (Sichot Mussar 5731:22)
25. Rabbi Noah Weinberg, 48 Ways to Wisdom (#32)
26. Ha’emek Davar (Deut. 5:16)
27. Yoreh De’ah 240:6
28. Yoreh De’ah 240:7. The Ashkenazi practice is to stand for a parent once in the morning and once in the evening (Rema
– Yoreh De’ah 242:16). Sefardim stand every time a parent enters the room (Birkei Yosef – YD 242:21).
30. Yoreh De’ah 240:15, based on Leviticus 19:3 with Rashi. This includes posthumous requests, such as to cremate the
parent’s body (Achiezer 3:72, based on Maimonides – Avel 12:1), or not to say Kaddish (Yabia Omer, vol. 6 – YD
31:4).
31. The Fifth Commandment, pg. 127
32. Aruch HaShulchan (YD 240:41); Beit Lechem Yehuda (YD 240:15). Birkei Yosef (YD 240:10) limits this to things
that are life-threatening.
33. Rema – Yoreh De’ah 240:25
34. Yoreh De’ah 240:13, 25
35. Mabit 1:139. However, Binat Adam (based on Tashbatz 3:288) contends that with regard to moving to Israel, parents’
wishes must be respected.
36. Yoreh De'ah 240:2
38. Yoreh De’ah 240:11; Aruch HaShulchan (YD 240:33)
42. Shu”t Igros Moshe (YD 1:133)
43. Rema – Yoreh De'ah 240:8, with Taz 10
44. Rema – Yoreh De'ah 242:16, Even Ha’ezer 23:6
46. Yoreh De'ah 241:6, based on Deut. 27:16
47. Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9; Yoreh De'ah 241:1 with Rema. All things being equal, a child should avoid
administering assistance to a parent that would result in bleeding – e.g. removing a splinter, performing surgery or
dental treatment (Yoreh De'ah 241:3).
50. Ben Ish Chai (vol. 2, Parshat Shoftim 14)
51. Sdei Chemed (Ma’arechet Kaf 104)
52. Talmud – Shabbat 134a; Yalkut Yosef (Kibud Av V'Em 8:5); Yabia Omer (vol. 5 – YD 21, EH 7:7)
53. Beit Yosef (OC 284); Rema – Yoreh De’ah 249:16
55. Gesher HaChaim 1:31:1
56. K’tav Sofer (OC 65)
57. Talmud – Yevamot 122a, with Rashi; Aruch HaShulchan (YD 376:13)
58. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:21; Ma’alot HaMidot (Ma’alot Kibud Av V’Em); Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 143:21
59. Rema – Yoreh De’ah 240:24; Aruch HaShulchan (YD 240:44)
60. Yoreh De’ah 240:24, with Taz 19. This is learned from Moses honoring his father-in-law, Yitro (Exodus 18:7, Mechilta
18:6).
62. Birkei Yosef (YD 240:17); Gilyon Maharsha (YD 240:22); Pitchei Teshuva (YD 240:19); see Nachmanides to Genesis
32:5, Exodus 15:20
63. Birkei Yosef (YD 240:18)
64. Rema – Yoreh De’ah 240:24
65. Shach (YD 240:22); Yalkut Yosef 14:13
66. Sefer HaChassidim 574. This can cause parents anguish even after they have passed away.
67. Yoreh De’ah 240:18, 241:4 (If the parent is an extremely wicked person, a rabbi should be consulted.)
69. Kiddushin 31a
70. Aruch HaShulchan (YD 240:16, 33); Sefer HaChassidim 343
72. Abarbenel (Parshat Yitro 20:12); Torat HaMincha (Drasha 24)
73. Maimonides (Mamrim 6:1); Sefer HaChinuch 33
74. heard from Rabbi Noach Orlowek
47
75. Abarbanel (Parshat Yitro 20:12)
Honoring One’s Parents: How Far Should We Go?
Mark Greenspan writes:12
12
https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-ideas/source-sheets/tol-parashot/yitro.pdf based on an
article on a chapter entitled “Between Parents and Children” by Rabbi Daniel Nevins (pp.673-692) in the book, The Observant Life
48
49
50
51
52
53
Elizabeth Topper writes:13
The commandment of honoring parents was paradoxically given to the generation who wandered
40 years in the desert, where God provided everyone’s needs. The parents did not need to supply
food for their offspring, because God supplied manna. Tradition relays that God also took care of
clothing (Midrash Rabba – Shir HaShirim 4:2).
Nevertheless, this was the generation that stood at Mount Sinai and heard God say, “Honor your
father and mother.” So the Meshech Chochma and the K’tav Sofer teach that we are mandated to
honor parents simply because they gave us the gift of life, and not as some form of “repayment”
for the years parents spend nurturing their offspring.
However, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai teaches that this is the most difficult of all commandments to
follow (Tanchuma Eikev, 2).
In the (above) article entitled Honoring One’s Parents: How Far Should We Go?
Rabbi Mark Greenspan reflects on the challenge of the fifth of the Ten Commandments..14
Rabbi Greenspan asks, “What could be more basic to human decency than honoring one’s
parents? [Rabbi] Daniel Nevins points out that the commandment to honor one’s parents is not
only one of the fundamental teachings of Judaism, but it is also on a par with the reverence for
God. The fifth commandment of the Decalogue is a kind of bridge connecting the
commandments that define our relationship with God with those instructions which define our
relationships with our fellow human being. “Honor your father and your mother” connects
heaven and earth.”
However, he adds, “And yet what could be more complex than the commandment to honor our
parents and for parents to raise their children to be decent human beings? The Bible bears
witness to the complexity of family ties. Genesis prefaces the Ten Commandments by bearing
witness to the sometimes-dysfunctional relations that connect us to our most ancient ancestors.
Abraham nearly sacrifices one son and sends the other off to die in the wilderness. Isaac and
Jacob each favored one child over the others leading to familial turmoil. Moses appears to have
little or no relationship with his own sons other than naming them. It is no wonder the Bible
has to remind us to honor our parents even when honor and reverence don’t appear to be
emotionally honest.”
Rabbi Greenspan notes that this commandment of honoring parents was not composed for
children. He says that from the discussions in the Talmud and the codes, it is apparent that the
sages were addressing the relationship between adult children and their parents. Young children
are likely to love their parents in a less judgmental way and they are initially very dependent on
their parents. It is the adult children who are normally more challenged in their relationship with
their parents and with whom, it seems, the sages are concerned. He cites Rabbi Nevins,
13
https://parashapoems.wordpress.com/tag/the-fifth-commandment/
14
He bases his article on a chapter entitled “Between Parents and Children” by Rabbi Daniel Nevins (pp.673-692) in the book,
The Observant Life
54
“[Halakhah]…establishes norms of conduct to ensure that parents attend to the needs of their
children, and that children reciprocate when they reach the proper age. Ideally parents and
children should love one another, but halakhah knows better than to legislate love.”
In a sermon delivered on Kol Nidrei 2008, entitled Aging and Caring for Elderly Parents, Rabbi
Laurie Zimmerman retells a Jewish folktale:15
“A mother bird was carrying her three babies across a river. As she carried the first baby in her
beak high above the river, she asked it, “When I am old, will you do the same for me?” “Of
course, Mother,” replied the baby, “It will be my honor.” The mother bird dropped the baby into
the river, saying simply, “You’re a liar.”
As she carried the second baby, the mother again asked, “When I am old, will you do the same
for me?” The second baby bird replied as the first, and the mother bird dropped it, too, into the
river.
When she carried the third baby across the river, the mother bird asked it, “When I am old, will
you carry me across the river as I am carrying you now?” The baby bird answered dolefully,
“Oh no, Mother, when you are old, I will have children of my own, and I shall have to carry
them across the river. I won’t be able to carry you as well.”
The mother bird replied, “You are my darling child, for you have told the truth.” She carried
this baby to the other side of the river and gently put [it] down.” 16
Rabbi Zimmerman notes that this is a harsh story, underlining the challenges of caring for aging
parents. She says leaving aside the obvious immorality of a mother bird killing her two babies
because she rejects their replies to her question, the folktale touches on challenging issues. She
observes “The first two babies perhaps misjudge their ability to care for their mother when she
grows old, and they assume that their love for her will be enough to sustain them through the
challenges of caring for an elderly parent.
They are just babies, so how could they possibly imagine how complicated it will be to care for
their parents, care for their own children, hold jobs, and tend to their many other needs? Or perhaps
they did know how challenging it would be, but they were uncomfortable by the prospect that their
mother will grow old, so they blindly reassure her – as well as themselves – that everything will
be just fine. They are unable to accept that their beloved mother will become dependent, frail, and
ill and that she will eventually die.
The third baby, the darling child who tells the truth and makes it to the other side, is certainly
aware of the burden of aging parents. However, this baby takes no responsibility in the matter. It
is true that we can never directly repay our parents for raising us. It may also be true that this bird
cannot carry both its own children as well as its mother across the river. But this does not absolve
it of the responsibility of caring for its mother when she grows old, for other solutions do exist.”
15
http://www.shamayim.org/index.php?page=kn-5769,
16
Jewish Visions of Aging, Rabbi Dayle Friedman, p. 85; taken from Yiddish Folktales, ed. Beatrice Silverman Weinreich, p. 24)
55
Rabbi Zimmerman points out that if this tale offers an ambivalent view of the responsibility of the
younger generation to care for its parents, the Torah is very clear, as we read in Vayikra
19:32 “You shall rise before the gray headed and show deference to the elderly; you shall fear
your God: I am the Lord.”
The Talmud, in Berachot 8b, describes three instructions that R’ Yehoshua ben Levi imparts to his
sons, the last of which is, “Be careful with the honor of an elderly scholar who has involuntarily
forgotten his Torah learning, for we say that the second set of Tablets and the broken pieces of
the first Tablets both rest in the Ark.”
The Gemara in Bava Batra 14b cites a baraita which derives this from the verse in next week’s
Parashat Eikev, “I will inscribe on the tablets the commandments that were on the first tablets that
you smashed, and you shall deposit them in the Ark.” (Devarim 10:2) in which the phrase “you
smashed” seems superfluous. The Rabbis learn from this that the broken pieces of the first Tablets
were put in the Ark with the second set.17
The Rif (R’ Isaac ben Jacob Alfasi ha-Cohen) teaches that the writing on the first Tablets flew off
when they were broken (Pesachim 87b) but were nonetheless accorded the honor of being laid
alongside the second set in the Ark. A scholar who has forgotten his learning is analogous to those
blank fragments and he too should be honored as previously.
17
The Observant Life – The Wisdom of Conservative Judaism for Contemporary Jews eds Martin S. Cohen and Michael Katz.
56
18
18
https://hartman.org.il/Fck_Uploads/file/Kibud.Av.V'Em.Grade.10.pdf
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Do Not Cast Me Out in My Old Age ~ Yom Kippur 5781
Rabbi Steve Wernick writes:19
"It’s our national shame.” That’s how Dr. Nathan Stahl, a geriatrician at Mount Sinai Hospital,
who grew up at Beth Tzedec, described the impact of COVID-19 on older adults in Canada,
especially those in nursing homes. And he’s right, it is a national shame.
The numbers speak for themselves: 81 percent of all COVID deaths in Canada occurred in nursing
homes. That’s 7,400 out of 9,200 deaths were residents or staff in nursing homes.
Let that sink in for a moment.
It’s not just Canada’s shame. "Early data collected by the London School of Economics suggest
that between 42 and 57 percent of deaths in France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Ireland are occurring
in long-term care homes and other residences for senior citizens.” (Globe and Mail, April 15,
2020). Recent reports in the US show that more than 40 percent of the now more than 200,000
COVID-related deaths are connected to people living in or working in long-term care homes. No
wonder The New York Times lamented, “As Covid Hit, The World Let Its Elderly Die.”
It’s no mystery how this happened. The virus flourishes in crowed spaces. According to a recent
report in The Globe and Mail, “In Ontario, almost 40 percent of nursing homes do not meet current
provincial government design standards banning wards.” (August 12, 2020) Experts knew that
physical distancing measures would keep the Coronavirus in check, “But Ontario’s emergency
19
https://www.beth-tzedec.org/page/sermons/a/display/s/1/item/do-not-case-me-out-in-my-old-age-yom-kippur-5781
82
plan did not include measures to reduce crowding in nursing homes.” (Ibid) “They would have
known beforehand,” said Dr. Stahl, “that four-bed rooms are a bad idea.” (Ibid)
Nursing homes are also filled with people who are already at risk because of underlying health
problems making them a “gift to any infectious disease”. (The Globe and Mail, August 15, 2020)
Moreover, even before the coronavirus, experts have been warning for more than a decade that
nursing homes have chronic staffing shortages and difficult working conditions that leave them
“unsanitary, undignified and unhealthy”. (The Globe and Mail, August 11, 2020). As a result,
“[t]ens of thousands of people died—casualties not only of the virus, but of” (NYTimes, August 9,
2020) years of neglect. Neglect that continued as “[p]ublic health officials around the world
excluded nursing homes from their pandemic preparedness plans and omitted residents from the
mathematical models used to guide their responses.” (Ibid)
Dr. Stahl said, “It’s almost as if the house was lit on fire, we locked the door and told them to fend
for themselves.” (Ibid)
As reported in The Globe and Mail, “The Covid-19 pandemic is a reckoning for Canada and its
treatment of its aging population.” (April 15, 2020) Yom Kippur, too, is a reckoning for us—
individually and communally—and our living up to the highest ideals and values of our tradition.
This Yom Kippur, I hear ringing in my ears the verse from Psalms 71:9, part of Shma Koleynu—
“al tashliẖaynu l’et ziknah, do not cast us away in our old age; do not abandon me as my strength
fails.”
When thinking about our relationships with older adults, Jewish tradition naturally begins with our
relationship with our parents. The mitzvah “Kabed et avikha v’et amekha, Honour your father and
mother,” (Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16) is considered, not surprisingly therefore, one of
the most important and fundamental principles of Jewish ethics. Its placement as number five of
the Ten Commandments gives rise to the rabbinic notion that it functions as a bridge between two
categories of mitzvah: mitzvot ben adam l’makom—between people and God; and mitzvot ben
adam l’havero—between human relations. There is, therefore, a profound relationship and
reciprocity between honouring parents and honouring God and honouring all humanity.
The Talmud makes this connection explicit when it teaches that “[t]here are three partners in the
creation of a human being: the Holy Blessed One, the father and the mother. When a person
honours their father and their mother, the Holy Blessed One says, “I ascribe merit to them as
though I had dwelt among them, and they had honoured Me.” (Kiddushin 30b)
The use of the word Kibbud, from the Hebrew kaved, meaning “weighty” is
noteworthy. The mitzvah is not to love your parents. There is no v’avata et hahorim, like v’ahavta
l’reiekha kamokha—Love your neighbour as yourself. (Leviticus 19)
Parental relationships can be complicated. Honouring one’s parents in our tradition has a sense of
heavy responsibility; it’s weighty. The rabbis saw the fulfilment of honour, therefore, to be related
to ensuring our parent’s physical well-being. We are obligated to ensure housing, the activities of
daily living—like eating, bathing, and toileting—doctors’ appointments and managing finances.
These are, of course, huge responsibilities. Tradition understood that a person may not be able to
fulfill them on their own. Connecting the word honour in “Honouring your father and mother,”
and "Honour the Lord from your wealth” in Proverbs, the rabbis taught that "wealth, here, too,”
means food, drink, and a new garment”. (Mekhilta D’Rabi Yishmael 20:12) In other words, if you
83
cannot personally fulfill the mitzvah of kibbud av’ v’em, then you could pay someone else to do
so. For Judaism, our responsibility is simply to ensure it is done. It is because of these values that
in 17th century England and France the Jewish community established the first long-term care
facilities for the elderly.
Al tashlichaynu l’et ziknah—As a Jewish community we should make sure that our residences for
the elderly protect them and not just house them. There are, of course, examples of excellence in
Canada in this regard. Baycrest is one of them that has managed to contain the virus by employing
basic measures such as using personal protective equipment, routinely testing employees and
residents, bringing on extra workers and limiting visitors.
The restriction of visitors, especially family members and private-care givers, has had an
unfortunate side effect on the emotional, mental, and spiritual well-being of older adults. “Changes
to routine, such as being confined to their rooms because of an outbreak, often causes confusion
and worsen symptoms.” (The Globe and Mail, June 4, 2020) Furthermore, so much of care, 75
percent according to Dr. Stahl, is unpaid, meaning family members and volunteers. The pandemic
restricted the access of these “plus” care-givers increasing the loneliness and isolation of older
adults in nursing homes. The “lack of social interaction has cause emotional suffering and deprived
them of physical and mental stimulation …accelerating cognitive decline”. (The Globe and Mail,
September 14, 2020)
Our tradition recognizes the importance our parent’s spiritual well-being when the Torah tells us:
““Ish imo v’aviv tira’u—You shall revere your mother and father.” (Leviticus 19:3) The rabbis
ask what is the difference between kavod (honour) and yira (reverence)? If honour referred to
ensuring our parent’s physical needs, then reverence, meant attending to our parent’s social,
psychological, and spiritual well-being.
The Globe and Mail shared the experience of Susan Mills who before the lockdown “used to spend
several hours a day with her mother who has vascular dementia. She would accompany her mother
to the dining room for dinner and they’d watch the news together and catch up on what was
happening with her mother’s five other children. When visitors were banned in March, her mother
was still able to hold a phone to her ear and chat from the other side of the window. But by early
September, the 84-year-old barely had the strength to lift her hands. Her side of the conversation
had dwindled to one-word responses. … The deterioration is very real,” Susan said, “noting that
her mother will never regain much of her strength and cognitive function she has lost over the last
six months.” (September 14, 2020). We have heard from so many of you—family members and
professionals—how difficult and heartbreaking this reality is.
Al tashlikhaynu l’et ziknah means that we also have an obligation to see to the emotional well-
being of older adults.
Studies have shown that “chronic loneliness and social isolation are serious health hazards. Lonely
people are not only more likely to develop a range of illnesses from cardiovascular disease and
cancer to depression and dementia—they tend to feel worse when they fall ill than those who are
not lonely.” (Ibid) Our Centre for Spiritual Well-Being, before the pandemic, was gearing up to
address these issues, because our Advisory Committee had identified loneliness and isolation
among older adults as one of our core priorities. The pandemic has only exacerbated trends that
were in motion long before.
84
The cry of the Maẖzor Al tashlichaynu l’et ziknah this Yom Kippur keeps me up at night. We are
failing. Too many of our parents and grandparents, of our older adults are suffering.
In addressing these issues, Dr. Stahl distinguishes between long-term care facilities and
community. To do better with our long-term care facilities we have to ensure they have the staffing
they need and access to COVID-19 expertise, PPEs, diagnostic testing, prevention, and control.
As a community we need a more nuanced balanced approach to further regular physical contact
while minimizing the risks of collateral pandemic damage to our older adults and to us.
As a synagogue community, we surely should be able to address the communal needs better than
we are. But we need help. I’m asking for help. We need volunteers to call and simply chat with
our older adult members on a regular basis. We need volunteers with patience galore to help our
older adult members navigate technology to speak and see family members and to participate in
synagogue and communal activities and games. We need volunteers to help us imagine and design
opportunities for our Torah and prayer services, along with music, conversation, and laughter, to
seamlessly enter into senior housing in the GTA. And while the weather is still decent, are there
ways we can safely bring older adults together?
This is what Hannah Sandler did with Hallah for Hesed, a program she and friends ran last spring
and summer. She writes about it in our Olam Hesed Yibaneh reader. Each week she
delivered hallot to elderly members of Beth Tzedec. “I’ve always taken for granted having
a hallah on my table every Friday night, even though the COVID-19 pandemic. Being able to give
others the opportunity to have a sentimental Shabbat experience, coupled with meeting a handful
of amazing and kind men and woman, brought a smile to my face with every delivery that was
made.” (High Holy Day Reader, page 36)
There are so many talented people listening and watching right now, what can you offer to engage
our older adult members intellectually, artistically, with entertainment and Yiddishkeit? We make
so many resolutions as the New Year begins. It’s an attainable resolution for many of us to make
this year to give some time to volunteer in creative programming for our older adults. This week
we will put a registration form up on our website making it easy for you to let us know that you
will volunteer so that we can say collectively that we heard the cry of older adults in the Maẖzor: Al
tashlichaynu l’et ziknah—do not cast me out in my old age and that we responded.
There are countless ways to honour older adults. We can all find more ways to help directly and
advocate for their needs. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov wrote that one can, “Gauge a country’s
prosperity by its treatment of its elders;” let us ensure our country’s greatness by fulfilling our
mitzvah to honour our older adults.
85
COVID-19 Had a Devastating Impact on Medicare Beneficiaries in
Nursing Homes During 2020
WHY WE DID THIS STUDY

Nursing home residents have been particularly affected by COVID-19, as they are predominately
elderly, tend to have underlying conditions, and live in close quarters. However, data on the
number of nursing home residents who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or likely COVID-19 have
not been readily available, particularly for early in the pandemic. Nursing homes are not required
to report cases and deaths that occurred before May 8, 2020.
This data snapshot provides objective, standardized data based on Medicare claims for all
Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes throughout the country. This data snapshot is the first in
a three-part series. Subsequent work will address the characteristics of the hardest hit nursing
homes and strategies used by nursing homes to confront the challenges of the COVID-19
pandemic.
WHAT WE FOUND
• Two in five Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes were diagnosed with either COVID-
19 or likely COVID-19 in 2020.
• Almost 1,000 more beneficiaries died per day in April 2020 than in April 2019.
• Overall mortality in nursing homes increased to 22 percent in 2020 from 17 percent in
2019.
• About half of Black, Hispanic, and Asian beneficiaries in nursing homes had or likely had
COVID-19, and 41 percent of White beneficiaries did.
• Understanding the pandemic's effects on nursing home residents is necessary if tragedies
like this are to be averted.
WHAT WE CONCLUDE
The toll that the COVID-19 pandemic has taken on Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes
demonstrates the need for increased action to mitigate the effects of the ongoing pandemic and to
avert such tragedies from occurring in the future. OIG is committed to understanding and helping
to protect nursing home residents from the impacts of COVID-19. We recognize that CMS is also
committed to protecting nursing home residents. Additional data analysis, particularly on Medicare
claims data, may help CMS in its efforts. Medicare claims data include demographic information
about each beneficiary as well as information about the beneficiary's conditions and care needs.
These data are important to understanding the effects of the pandemic and, moving forward, could
play an integral part in understanding health disparities within the nursing home population and
preparing for and dealing with future public health crises.
86
Ethical Implications of COVID-19: Palliative Care, Public Health,
and Long-Term Care Facilities
Amisha Parekh de Campos, Susan Daniels write:20
Outbreaks of COVID-19 among nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and other long-term care
facilities in the United States have had devastating effects on residents. Restrictions such as
banning visitors, sequestering residents, and testing health care staff have been implemented to
mitigate the spread of the virus. However, consequences include a decline in mental and physical
health, decompensation, and a sense of hopelessness among residents.
We present and explore a case study at an assisted living facility addressing the ethical issues in
balancing the management of the community versus the resident's right to autonomy and self-
determination. A team of palliative care experts was brought into assisted living facilities to
manage patients, care for well residents, and provide input in advance care planning and symptom
management.
The principles of self-determination and autonomy, stewardship, and distributive justice were
explored. The use of nursing skills in triage and assessment, principles in public health, and the 8
domains of palliative care provided a comprehensive framework for structuring emergency
operations. Palliative interventions and the role of palliative care nurses played an integral part in
addressing ethical challenges in the containment of the virus and the deleterious effects of social
isolation among the elderly.
20
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33633091/
87
Separation anxiety – families heartbroken over policies to keep
nursing homes safe
Jan Larson McLaughlin writes:21
Jennie Harriman and her mom, Barb Dunn, talk through plexiglass with
Dunn's mom, Carol Ryland.
21
https://bgindependentmedia.org/separation-anxiety-families-heartbroken-over-policies-to-keep-nursing-homes-safe/
88
For six months now, many in the most vulnerable generation have been sequestered away for their
own protection from COVID-19. But some worry that separation is taking a toll – and to some
may be a death sentence.
“I really believe we’re killing our people with loneliness,” said Stephanie Rine, of Bowling Green.
Rine, whose mother lives in a Bowling Green long-term care facility, has watched her mom’s
health decline during the months with no visits allowed from those on the outside.
“These are their last years, and we’re making them suffer in isolation,” Rine said.
Abundance of caution
Across the country, long-term care facilities are desperately trying to keep COVID from entering
homes. Earlier this spring, when COVID first became a household term, some local nursing homes
saw outbreaks among residents and staff. Some local facilities are still trying to get the virus under
control.
“We know what happens when COVID gets in a nursing home,” said Jeff Orlowski, director at
Wood Haven Health Care.
The precautions have worked for Wood Haven.
“As of today, we have not had any COVID cases,” Orlowski said, stressing that he wants to keep
it that way. And one of the best ways to do that is to keep outsiders from entering.
“Nine-five percent of our families are 100% for us doing what we are doing to keep their loved
ones safe,” he said.
At the same time, Orlowski understands the health value of family visits for nursing home
residents. Families were initially allowed only visits through windows – which was far from an
ideal system.
In the summer, when the state started allowing outdoor visits, many long-term facilities scrambled
to set up a process that would work for families and be as safe as possible.
“We don’t want to take any chances,” Orlowski said.
But now, as cold weather approaches, families are wondering how these visits can continue.
“They are talking at the state level to figure out what we will do when the cold months come,”
Orlowski said.
Wood Haven does make some exceptions, allowing “compassionate visits” for families.
89
“Most of the compassionate visits we do are for end-of-life cases,” he said. However, exceptions
are also made if a resident is showing serious symptoms of depression or decline.
“Any change of condition, we notice,” Orlowski said. “And if we get any word from family about
declining, then we go to compassionate visits.”
Separation anxiety
For senior citizens who thrive on socializing, the pandemic has been crippling – especially those
in long term care facilities who have been shut off from family.
Dr. Nancy Orel, executive director of research at the Optimal Aging Institute at BGSU, expects
that future studies of this pandemic period will show drastic cognitive and social declines for
seniors.
“For those individuals who love to socialize and love to have visits from their family, this can be
devastating,” Orel said.
The extent of the impact can be seen in the language some seniors are using to describe the long-
term facilities where they reside. “They are now using terms like, ‘this is a prison,’” she said.
But the precautions are intended to save lives.
“The reality for older adults is that this is a killer,” Orel said. The proof of that was apparent early
on when outbreaks hit long-term care facilities hard, resulting in a chain of deaths.
The limits on visitations are focused on keeping the virus out. If a family member were to bring
COVID-19 into a facility, the effects could be far reaching.
90
“As much as you may miss someone,”that’s the worst thing you could do,” Orel said.
Orel knows first-hand the heartbreak about having loved ones in a long-term facility during a
pandemic. Her parents, both 93, live in an assisted living facility. In their case, window visits were
difficult since they live on the second floor. Orel would hold signs outside but talking was
impossible since her parents wear hearing aids and are dependent on reading lips – which masks
render useless.
Orel shares concerns about the further isolation cold weather may bring.
“I’m worried about the winter when individuals can’t go outside,” she said.
Seniors at long term facilities face other hardships, such as quarantining in their rooms after being
outside for hospital visits.
“They are stuck in their rooms all by themselves,” she said.
Orel suggested families could stay in touch by sending care packages and letters. This older
generation grew up writing letters, so they would likely be thrilled to receive hand-written notes
and cookies from loved ones, she said.
Deb Russell and Sue Lawrence talk with their mom, Lynn Phillips through
plexiglass.
Outdoor visits – better than nothing
Deb Russell and Sue Lawrence hadn’t seen their mom for months. When they finally did a couple
weeks ago, there were masks and plexiglass separating them.
91
“I live in Bowling Green and haven’t seen my mom since March,” Russell said.
While any visits are good, the sisters struggled to communicate with their mom, Lynn Phillips, 79,
who has dementia and is basically non-verbal.
There are limitations to the outdoor visits. For example, at Wood Haven, just two visitors are
allowed at once, and they must schedule their visits – so no one can just drop by. Communication
can be difficult, with plexiglass separating residents from family, and all of them required to wear
masks. Nearby traffic noise at times drowns out conversation.
No touching is allowed – so no hugs, no holding hands.
That is particularly hard for families who have been separated by COVID.
“She wants to hold hands,” Russell said as she tried to communicate with her mom on the other
side of the plexiglass.
“You probably thought I forgot about you,” Russell said to her mom.
The sisters tried to make some connection with their mom and gushed over how nice she looked.
“Your hair looks wonderful,” Russell said.
“You look so pretty,” Lawrence said. “You’ve got your pearls on.”
On the other side of the patio, the same strained visit was going on between Carol Ryland, 89, her
daughter Barb Dunn, and her granddaughter Jennie Harriman.
“To me this seems so impersonal, not being able to hug her,” said Harriman, who drove from Fort
Wayne, Indiana, to visit her grandma.
They asked Ryland if she slept well and tried to update her on family members.
But inevitably, the conversation returned to the same issue as Ryland reached out and tried to touch
her daughter and granddaughter through the plexiglass.
“I wish I could hug you,” Dunn said.
“It’s awful not being able to hug you,” Harriman said.
92
Stephanie Rine with her mom, Sandra Johnson
Heartbreaking for families
When COVID hit in the spring, long-term care facilities were among the first places to shut down
to outsiders. So when Stephanie Rine showed up at Heritage Corner Health Care in Bowling Green
to care for her mom, she was met with a locked door.
“There was no communication. I was locked out,” Rine said. “I was just shocked.”
Her mom, Sandra Johnson, 87, was an independent living resident because Rine was her daily
caretaker. It was an arrangement that allowed her mom to live in an independent setting and
allowed Rine to be involved in her care.
“I loved that my mom could have her own life there,” Rine said.
Rine hoped to continue that role.
“I had been working from home, sequestering,” she said. “I was really taking it seriously, so I
could take care of my mom.”
But that wasn’t permitted. Rine pleaded her case to a state ombudsman, her mom’s physician, Gov.
Mike DeWine, and then Ohio Department of Health Director Dr. Amy Acton.
Johnson was deeply distressed, Rine said.
93
“She would ask me, ‘Why am I being treated like a prisoner? I didn’t do anything wrong,’” Rine
said of her mom.
One day, while Rine was in a virtual meeting for work, her mom left five messages on her phone
– asking when Rine would be there to visit.
“Every day, it was like I had to break her heart again,” since her mom would forget that Rine
wasn’t allowed. “It still is heartbreaking.”
Her mom would often sit by the back door of the facility – waiting for her daughter to arrive, Rine
said.
“That’s all she wants is to be with me. I’m all my mom has,” Rine said. “I feel like I fail my mom
every day.”
One day when visiting with her mom through her window, Rine noticed her mom was not feeling
well. She alerted Heritage, which called an ambulance. Johnson, whose lungs were filling up with
fluid, spent two and a half weeks in the hospital.
“I believe her physical decline was lack of care and connection,” Rine said. She has noticed other
changes in her mom in the last few months.
“Her dementia has definitely progressed during this,” Rine said.
While Johnson was in the hospital, Rine searched for a home that her family could rent for her
mom, or a home that her family could move into that didn’t have so many steps. Her search
continues.
Meanwhile, Johnson is back in the facility, but now Rine is allowed to take her mom out for visits
in her own home, which she does nearly every day.
Rine continues to advocate for family and senior rights.
“My whole goal was to help everybody in facilities who needs their families,” she said. “People
need to see what’s going on with their loved ones.”
94

Yevamot 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yevamot 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yevamot 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daf Ditty Yevamot 6: Kibbud Av, limits

I won’t fluster you by quizzing

I’ll rub you lightly on your back –

I’ll draw the shawl up closer

I’ll tenderly receive your litany of misery

I will not interrupt as you sift

I’ll bring you potted jasmine,

I’ll play you gentle symphonies, as once

.‫ יה ָוה‬,‫ינא‬ :‫ִתּי ָראוּ‬ sanctuary: I am the LORD.

A TELEPHONE IS THE ANSWER

DOES A "HECHSHER MITZVAH" OVERRIDE A "LO TA'ASEH"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

A CASE OF AN "ASEH" WHICH DOES NOT OVERRIDE A "LO TA'ASEH"

(a) The Rishonim suggest two approaches to the first question.

(b) Three approaches are suggested to answer the second question.

Rabbi Elliot Goldberg writes:1

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:2

General guidelines to the Mitzvah

Honoring One's Parents

Standing for One's Parents

Calling Your Parents by Name

Honoring One's Step-Parents

1. One must respect his parents-in-law.[36]

Having Awe for One's Parents (Moreh Av V'Em)

Injuring One's Parents

Swearing in Parent's Name

1. Children must be careful not to swear on their parent's lives.[44]

If One's Parents Passed Away

Parameters of Kibbud Av Va'em

In Judaism, every day is Mother's Day and Father's Day.

Obligation to Honor Parents

Why Honor Parents?

There are actually two parts to this mitzvah

How to Honor Parents

The Talmud suggests other ways to increase admiration:

• choosing whom to marry35

Awe and Reverence

This is typically achieved by observing the following guidelines:

Other ways to posthumously honor a parent include:

• donating to charity in their memory55

In a case of conflicting demands, honoring an actual parent takes precedence.66

The Difficult Parent

If a parent is untrustworthy and uncaring, unusually harsh, or permissive, it subconsciously sets

1. Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16

Honoring One’s Parents: How Far Should We Go?

Mark Greenspan writes:12

Rabbi Steve Wernick writes:19

WHY WE DID THIS STUDY

The precautions have worked for Wood Haven.

“We don’t want to take any chances,” Orlowski said.

But the precautions are intended to save lives.

“They are stuck in their rooms all by themselves,” she said.

Outdoor visits – better than nothing

No touching is allowed – so no hugs, no holding hands.

“Your hair looks wonderful,” Russell said.

“I wish I could hug you,” Dunn said.

“It’s awful not being able to hug you,” Harriman said.

Heartbreaking for families

Rine hoped to continue that role.