Kiddushin

At whose expense?1 Rab Judah said: The son's. R. Nahman b. Oshaia said: The father's. The Rabbis gave a ruling to R. Jeremiah — others state, to R. Jeremiah's son — in accordance with the view that it must be at the father's expense. An objection is raised: It is said: Honour thy father and thy mother;2 and it is also said: Honour the Lord with thy substance:3 just as the latter means at personal cost,4 so the former too. But if you say: At the father's [expense], how does it affect him?5 — Through loss of time.6 Come and hear: Two brothers, two partners, a father and son, a master and disciple, may redeem second tithe for each other,7 and may feed each other with the poor tithe.8 But if you say, at the son's expense, he is thus found to fulfil his obligations with what belongs to the poor? — This refers only to an extra quantity.9 If so, could it be taught thereon, R. Judah said: A curse may alight upon him who feeds his father with poor tithe! But if the reference is to an extra quantity, what does it matter?10 — Even so, the matter is humiliating [to the father]. Come and hear: R. Eliezer was asked: How far does the honour of parents [extend]? — Said he: That he should take a purse, throw it in his presence into the sea, and not shame him.11 But if you say, at the father's expense,12 what does it matter to him? — It refers to a potential heir. As in the case of Rabbah son of R. Huna: R. Huna tore up silk in the presence of his son Rabbah, saying: ‘I will go and see whether he flies into a temper or not. But perhaps he would get angry,13 and then he [R. Huna] would violate, Thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind?14 — He renounced his honour for him.15 But he [R. Huna] violated, Thou shalt not destroy [the trees thereof. . .]?16 — He did it in the seam.17 Then perhaps that was why he displayed no temper? — He did it when he was [already] in a temper.18 R. Ezekiel taught his son Rami: If criminals condemned to be burnt [become mixed up] with others sentenced to be stoned, R. Simeon said: They are executed19 by stoning, because burning is severer. Thereupon Rab Judah his son said to him: Father, teach it not thus. For, why state the reason because burning is severer? This follows from the fact that the majority are for stoning.20 But teach it thus: If [criminals condemned] to be stoned are mixed up with [others sentenced] to burning. Said he to him, If so, consider the second clause: But the Sages say: They are executed by burning, because stoning is severer. But why particularly because stoning is severer: deduce it from the fact that the majority are to be burnt? — There, he answered him, the Rabbis oppose21 R. Simeon: As to what you say that burning is severer, that is not so, stoning being severer. Said Samuel to Rab Judah: Keen scholar!22 speak not thus to your father. For it was taught: If one's father is [unwittingly] transgressing a precept of the Torah, he must not say to him, ‘Father, thou transgressest a Biblical precept’, but, ‘Father, it is thus written in the Torah.’ ‘It is thus written in the Torah’ — but he surely grieves him?23 But he must say to him, ‘Father, such and such a verse Is written in the Torah.’ 24 Eleazar b. Mathia said: If my father orders me, ‘Give me a drink of water’, while I have a precept to perform, I disregard25 my father's honour and perform the precept, since both my father and I are bound to fulfil the precepts. Issi b. Judah maintained: If the precept can be performed by others, it should be performed by others, while he should bestir himself for his father's honour. Said R. Mattena: The halachah agrees with Issi b. Judah. R. Isaac b. Shila said in R. Mattena's name in the name of R. Hisda: If a father renounces the honour due to him, it is renounced; but if a Rabbi renounces his honour, it is not renounced. R. Joseph ruled: Even if a Rabbi renounces his honour, it is renounced, for it is said: And the Lord went before them by day.26 Said Raba: How compare! There, with respect to the Holy One, blessed be He, the world is His and the Torah is His; [hence] He can forego His honour. XXVII, 31). Now, though these are closely attached, they are nevertheless separate persons, and so e.g., when the master redeems for his disciple, he is not regarded as redeeming his own. interpreted as meaning that one must not lead another into sin. latter are in the majority, as the smaller number is lost (i.e., mixed up) in the larger.