Jewish audio on chabad.org. This שיעור is going to be in מסכת קידושין דף ל"ב. We will start דף ל"א עמוד ב', three lines from the bottom of the עמוד. And we're still here in the middle of the סוגיא of כיבוד אב ואם. הגמרא starts, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, איזהו מורא ואיזהו כיבוד, what is considered מורא, fear of your parents and what is considered כיבוד, honoring your parents? Because as we learned before, there are two פסוקים that deal with the מצוה of כיבוד אב ואם. One is the פסוק, כבד את אביך ואת אמך, which means you should honor your father and your mother. And the other פסוק is, איש אמו ואביו תיראו, a man, his mother and his father you shall fear. So we see that there are two מצות. There is the מצוה of being מכבד, of honoring your father and your mother. And then there is a מצוה of having יראה, fear of your father and your mother. So the גמרא asks here, what is considered כיבוד and what is considered מורא? What do you have to do to be מקיים the מצוה of כיבוד אב ואם, of honoring your father and your mother? And what do you do to show that you have fear, מורא, of your father and your mother? So the גמרא says, מורא, what is fear? לא עומד במקומו, you don't stand in his place. If he has a set place, do not stand in his place. ולא יושב במקומו, do not sit in his place. ולא סותר את דבריו, you do not contradict his words. If he says something, don't contradict it. ולא מכריעו, do not be מכריע. מכריע means when two people argue and you come and you say like one of the two, you are מכריע between them. You decide between them. So if your father argues with somebody else, you shall not say that I think that the other person is right. That is מורא. כיבוד, what is כיבוד, what is called honoring your father and your mother? מאכיל, you feed them, ומשקה, you give them to drink, מלביש, you dress them, ומכסה, you cover them, מכניס, you take them in, ומוציא, you take them out. הגמרא continues, איבעיא להו, they ask a question. The

ישיבה, they ask an איבעיא. משל מי, when we say that you have to feed and give to drink and be מכבד your father and your mother, whose money do you spend? רבי יהודה אומר משל בן, רבי יהודה says it is the money of the son. The son himself has to spend his own money to be מכבד his parents. רב נתן בר אושעיא אומר, but רב נתן בר אושעיא says, משל אב, that you spend the money of the father. אורו ליה רבנן לרבי ירמיה, and the רבנן פסקנ'ד to רבי ירמיה, ואמרי לה, others say it wasn't to רבי ירמיה, but it was לברה דרבי ירמיה, to the son of רבי ירמיה, כמאן דאמר משל אב, like the one that says that you spend your father's money. So the הלכה that the רבנן פסקנ'ד was that you spend your father's money, not your own money. In other words, the מצוה is only that you have to give him the food, you have to give him the drink, but you do not have to spend your own money. מיתיבי, so the גמרא asks a קשיא, נאמר, the פסוק says, כבד את אביך ואת אמך, you should honor your father and your mother, ונאמר, there is another פסוק that says, כבד את ה' מהונך, you should מכבד, honor ה' from your possession, from your money. מה להלן, just like by the דין of being מכבד ה', it is בחסרון כיס, it is with the loss of money, it says you should be מכבד ה' from your money, you should spend money to be מכבד ה', אף כאן, so here too, בחסרון כיס, so in the case of כבד את אביך ואת אמך, it should also be with a loss of money. ואי אמרת, and if you're going to say משל אב, that the דין of כיבוד אב is that you only have to give them, but you do not spend your own money, you spend your father's money, מאי נפקא ליה מיניה, what comes out to him? In other words, what loss does the son have? And since we compare כבד את אביך ואת אמך to כבד את ה' מהונך, so just like by כבד את ה' מהונך you have to spend money, so here too the דין should be you should have to spend money. But if you give him from his own, then you do not spend any money. But the גמרא answers, לביטול מלאכה, to the wasting of the time of work. In other words, even though he spends his father's money, but still it takes him time to give it to him, and the meantime he could have worked, so he's wasting time from his work, so that is a loss for the son, and that loss the son has to give. But the money itself that he has to use should be משל אב. הגמרא continues, תא שמע, come hear. We

learned, שני אחים, if there were two brothers, או שני שותפין, two partners או האב ובנו, a father and a son, או הרב ותלמידו, a רבי, a teacher and his student, פודין זה לזה מעשר שני. One could redeem for the other the מעשר שני. מעשר שני, as we know, is a tenth of the person's crop that you have to take up to ירושלים. Every year you have to take off מעשר ראשון after you gather your crop. You have to take off a tenth, and that goes to the לוי, and that is called מעשר ראשון. Then you're supposed to take off another tenth, and that is called מעשר שני. That you don't give to anybody, you keep it yourself, but it has a קדושה, it is holy, and you only could eat it in ירושלים. This is the סדר in the first year of שמיטה, and the second year of שמיטה, and the fourth year of שמיטה, and the fifth year of שמיטה. The third and the sixth, instead of מעשר שני, you give מעשר עני. You take off a tenth and you give it to the poor people. But the דין by מעשר שני is that it is holy and you only could take it to ירושלים and eat it in ירושלים. But if a person cannot take off all his מעשר שני to ירושלים, the דין is that you're allowed to be פודה מעשר שני, which means you could redeem the food for money and the food becomes חולין, doesn't have the קדושה anymore, but the money on the other hand becomes holy, and you must take that money up to ירושלים, and in ירושלים you will buy with that money food and you will eat it with the קדושה of מעשר שני. But there is a דין that if the person himself, the owner himself of the food, of the crop, is the one that will redeem it, then he must add a חומש, he must add a fifth, that he pays for it as much as it's worth plus a fifth, while if a stranger redeems it, then he only gives for it the amount of money it's worth, but he doesn't have to give a fifth. So this is what it says here, that if you have two brothers, even though they're very friendly, or you have two partners that are friends, or a father and a son, or a רבי and a תלמיד, so we might think that if one of them will redeem the other's מעשר שני, he still would have to give a fifth, because they should be considered like one, since it's his brother or his father or his friend, so when he redeems it for the other one, it's as if the other one himself is redeeming it, so you should have to give a fifth. So that's why they say here that they are allowed to be פודה one to another the מעשר שני, and you do not have to give a fifth. They are considered like strangers לגבי the דין of מעשר שני. And also, ומאכילין זה לזה מעשר עני, and they could feed one to another מעשר עני. If both of them are poor, the father and the son, or the two brothers, or the two partners, or the רבי and the תלמיד, so the דין is that one could give to the other מעשר עני.

When a person has a field, as we said before, on the third and the sixth year you must take off a tenth and give it to the poor people, even if the person himself is an עני, is poor, cannot keep it for himself, he has to give it to other poor people. So in this case, we might think that if the father will give to the son or the son will give to the father or the brother will give to the brother, or the teacher to the student, etc., we might think that it's considered as if he is keeping the מעשר עני for himself, because since they are so friendly one to another, so when he takes off the מעשר עני, he shouldn't be able to give it to the other one which is very friendly with him. So that's what it says here, that they are allowed to give each other מעשר עני, even though they are friends, still, they are considered like two separate people, and therefore, the father could give מעשר עני to the son if the son is poor, and the son could also give to the father מעשר עני if he is poor. But the גמרא's שאלה is, ואי אמרת משל בן, if you're going to say that the דין is that the son, when he is supposed to feed his father and his mother, is supposed to spend his own money, נמצא, it'll come out, זה פורע חובו משל עניים, that this person, the son, is paying his debt from the money that belongs to poor people. How can he give his father מעשר עני when if he would not give it to him, he would have to feed him with his own money? By giving him מעשר עני, it'll save him from giving him other money for food. So it comes out that the son is paying a debt that he owes through the money that belongs to עניים, because if he wouldn't give it to him, the מעשר עני he has would go to other poor people. And now he's giving it to his father, and through that, he's saving the money he would have to spend otherwise. So it comes out that he is paying his debt with money that should go to עניים. And since the דין is that he is allowed to give the מעשר עני to his father, that proves, it seems, that the דין is that you don't have to spend your own money to feed your father. And because of that, you're allowed to give the מעשר עני to your father because you are not saving anything, you are not paying your debt with the money of the עניים, because there is no debt here, because he doesn't have to feed his father anyway from his own money. So לכאורה, this is a ראיה to the מאן דאמר that says that it is משל אב, that you only spend your father's money for the כיבוד אב, but you do not spend your own money. And the גמרא says, לא, no, באמת, it could go according to the מאן דאמר that you have to spend your own money. And the question that we asked, if you have to spend your own money, how could you give him מעשר עני? It's as if you're paying your debt with money that belongs to עניים. So the answer is, צריכא has to tell us להעדפה. This is a case where he's giving him extra. The דין is that you have to spend your own money, but you only have to spend an average. You have to give him enough for an average סעודה, an average meal. And if he wants extra, then there is no obligation on the son to spend his own money for the extra. And that's what we meant when we said that you're allowed to give him מעשר עני, that means for that extra. So this is not considered paying a debt with the money of the עניים, because you're not paying a debt, because you don't owe him the extra, because על פי דין you only have to give him an average amount of money for the סעודה, but not the extra. But the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if we're only talking about extra, הא דקתני עלה, what is the פשט in what we learned? On this we learned that אמר רבי יהודה, רבי יהודה said, תבוא מארה למי שמאכיל את אביו מעשר עני, let a curse come to the one that is feeding his father מעשר עני. And even though we said before that you're allowed to give your father מעשר עני, nevertheless, רבי יהודה said that it's not a proper thing to do, and he even cursed the person that feeds his father מעשר עני. ואי להעדפה, and if you're saying that we're only speaking about העדפה, about the extra, מאי נפקא מינה? What difference does it come, why did he curse the person that will feed his father מעשר עני when we're not really talking about the actual food, we're talking about the extras that his father wants? And the גמרא answers, אפילו הכי, still זילא בי מילתא, it is not nice even for extra, which we really are able to give from מעשר עני, but still it's not a nice thing to do, and therefore, he cursed the person that will give even extra to his father from מעשר עני. Then the גמרא continues, תא שמע, come hear.

שאלו את רבי אלעזר, they asked רבי אלעזר, עד היכן כיבוד אב ואם? How far does כיבוד אב ואם go? אמר להם, he said to them, כדי שיטול ארנקי, father should take a wallet of money, ויזרקנו לים בפניו, and he will throw it into the water in front of him, ואינו מכלימו, and he won't embarrass him. That's as far as you could have to go concerning the מצוה of כיבוד אב. Now the גמרא שאלה is, ואי אמרת, if you're going to say משל אב, that a person does not have to spend his own money for כיבוד אב, you spend your father's money, מאי נפקא ליה מיניה? What difference does it make to him? Because according to the מאן דאמר that you only spend your father's money, we must say that this is talking about a wallet that belonged to his father and the money in the wallet belonged to his father. Couldn't be a case where the wallet belonged to the son, because the דין wouldn't be that you have to let him do it. Since there is no דין that a person is supposed to spend money for כיבוד אב, so the דין wouldn't be that you have to allow your father to throw your wallet of money into the water. And since it says here that you do allow him to do it, obviously it's talking about a wallet of money that belongs to the father. Now if it belongs to the father, what's the big deal that he will not embarrass him if he throws in his own money? And since we do say that this is a מידה of כיבוד אב, the fact that you do not embarrass him, that's a ראיה that it must be talking about a case where it's your own money. Now if it's talking about a case that's your own money, and nevertheless you have to let him do it, that's a ראיה that כיבוד אב משל בן. That's a ראיה the person has to spend money on כיבוד אב. And the גמרא answers, no, the case is בראוי ליורשו. Really it could be משל אב, that the son does not have to spend money, and the reason why we say that this is a מדרגה in כיבוד אב, the fact that you allow your father to do it, even though it's your father's wallet, because it's talking בראוי ליורשו, that you're able to ירש'ן, you're able to inherit him. So really, when he throws in his own wallet, since you are the one that will inherit, naturally a person would feel bad and he would embarrass the one that did it, and therefore it says here that מצד כיבוד אב, you should let him do it and not embarrass him. The

גמרא brings a story, וכי הא דרבה בר רב הונא, like the story of רבה בר רב הונא, דרב הונא קרע שיראי באנפי רבה בריה, רב הונא tore silk clothes in front of his son רבה, אמר, and he said, איזיל, I will go, אחזי, I will see, אי רתח אי לא רתח, if he'll get angry or will not get angry. He wants to test him to see will he get angry, and if he would see that he doesn't get angry, he would know that he fulfilled the מצוה of כיבוד אב 100%. Then the גמרא asks, how could he do it, how could he test him? ודילמא רתח, maybe he would get angry. וקעבר על לפני עור לא תתן מכשול, and he would the father would be עובר on the עבירה of לפני עור לא תתן מכשול. It means, the פשט in the פסוק, לפני עור לא תתן מכשול means you're not allowed to put a stumbling block in front in front of a blind person. And this refers to the דין that a person is not allowed to cause someone else to do an עבירה. So here, the father, by tearing the silk clothes in front of his son, could have brought his son to an עבירה. He could have brought his son to get angry, and then who knows what he would have said to his father. So then the father would be עובר on לפני עור לא תתן מכשול. So the question is, how could רב הונא have torn the silk clothes in front of רבה his son to test him? Maybe he would have brought him to an עבירה, and then רב הונא himself would have been עובר on the עבירה of לפני עור לא תתן מכשול. And the גמרא answers, דמחליה ליקריה, that the father, רב הונא, was מוחל on his own כבוד. And since he was מוחל on his own כבוד, so whatever his son would have done, his son wouldn't have been עובר on the עבירה of כיבוד אב, because the father was מוחל on his כבוד, and since the son wouldn't have been עובר on עבירה, so then automatically the father would not have been עובר on לפני עור לא תתן מכשול. But then the גמרא asks, והא קא עבר משום בל תשחית? But wasn't he עובר on בל תשחית? The דין is that you're not allowed to destroy anything that is useful. So here, by tearing the silk clothes, he was עובר on בל תשחית. How could he do it? And the גמרא answers, דעבד ליה בפומבייני. He didn't actually tear it, he tore it by the seam, which you could sew back. And therefore, he was not עובר on בל תשחית. And then the גמרא asks, ודילמא משום הכי לא רתח? Maybe that is why he didn't get angry. How could he prove, by tearing this, if his son wouldn't get angry, he would know his son fulfilled the מצוה of כיבוד אב 100%, maybe the reason he didn't get angry is because he didn't really tear it, he just tore it by the seam, but you could sew it back? The גמרא answers, דעבד ליה בשעת ריתחיה. He did it at a time when he was angry anyway. So then, even if it's just by the seam, naturally it should have caused the son to get angry, and this is how he tested him, to see whether he will get angry for this or not. And if he would see that he didn't get angry, he will know that he fulfilled the מצוה of כיבוד אב 100%. Then the גמרא continues,

מתני ליה רב יחזקאל לרמי בריה, that רב יחזקאל taught his son רמי, הנשרפין בנסקלין, if נשרפין got mixed into נסקלין, as we know, there are ארבע מיתות בית דין. There are four different kinds of מיתות, of death penalties, that the בית דין could give: סקילה, שריפה, הרג, and חנק. סקילה means stoning. שריפה means burning - it doesn't actually mean that you burn the person, but it means that you pour down his throat hot burning lead. הרג means when you chop off his head with a knife, and חנק is when you choke the person. Now, not all four are in the same level of מיתה. Some are more חמור than the others, one is stricter than the other. And there's a מחלוקת which of the two, between שריפה and סקילה, which of the two is considered a קל and which one is considered a חמור? Which one is the easier one and which one is the stricter one? But here we learned that רב יחזקאל taught his son רמי, and he said to him that if נשרפין got mixed into נסקלין - and the expression is משמע, it seems, that there were many נסקלין, many people who are חייב סקילה, and one person who is חייב שריפה got mixed into them, and we don't know which of the people is the one that's חייב שריפה and which one are חייב סקילה - so he taught them that רבי שמעון אומר, רבי שמעון says, ידונו בסקילה, that you have to give them all סקילה. Why? שהשריפה חמורה, because רבי שמעון holds that שריפה is stricter than סקילה, and therefore we give them all סקילה, because we can't give them all שריפה, because it'll come out that the one that is חייב סקילה will get שריפה, and we're not allowed to give a person who is חייב a lesser punishment to give him a stricter punishment. So because of that one person that is only חייב סקילה and we cannot give him שריפה, and since we don't know who he is, so because of that, we give them all סקילה, we give them all the lighter type of מיתה. אמר ליה רב יהודה בריה, so רב יהודה his son said to him, לא תתני הכא, do not learn it that way. Because it couldn't be that this is what they said, because if so, מאי איריא שריפה חמורה, why did he have to say that the reason you give them all סקילה is because שריפה is stricter, and therefore we must give them סקילה which is the lighter one? תיפוק ליה דרובא נסקלין נינהו, why don't you learn it out, why shouldn't it be anyway because most of them were נסקלין? The לשון that he said was that נשרפין got mixed into נסקלין, so it's משמע that there were many נסקלין, and one of the נשרפין, one of the one people who is חייב שריפה got mixed into many who are חייב סקילה. So if He got mixed into רוב, into the majority of סקילה, so anyway you would have to give them סקילה, not because שריפה is חמור, even if שריפה would not be חמור, even if שריפה would not be stricter, still you couldn't give them שריפה, because the majority of the people are נסקלין, the ones that get סקילה. And we have a rule that we always follow the majority, we go בתר רובא. So here, even if שריפה would not be stricter, you still would have to give them all סקילה, because the majority is סקילה. So therefore you couldn't learn what you said, he said to his father, אלא הכי איתניא, this is how it really was learned, that the case was just the opposite,

הנסקלין בנשרפין, that one of the נסקלין, a person who is חייב סקילה, got mixed into many people who are חייב שריפה, and the majority are שריפה. So if we would look at the majority, then we would have to give them all שריפה. And that's what he said, that nevertheless you give them all סקילה, because שריפה is חמור, and you couldn't give him שריפה because it'll come out that the one that's חייב סקילה will get שריפה, which is חמור, so therefore you give them all סקילה. But if the case would be that the majority was נסקלין, you would have to give them סקילה anyway because you go בתר רובא. So he told him that the case really has to be the majority were נשרפין, and one of the נסקלין got mixed into the נשרפין. אמר ליה, so his father said to him, אי הכי, if so, as you say, that the נסקלין got mixed into the נשרפין, and the majority were the נשרפין, אימא סיפא, say the סיפא, look into the סיפא of this משנה. In the סיפא it says, after the משנה brings the opinion of רבי שמעון that said that they all get סקילה, because שריפה is stricter, so it says there, וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, ידונו בשריפה, that you give them all שריפה, שהסקילה חמורה, because סקילה is stricter. The רבנן hold that סקילה is stricter, and therefore they say you cannot give them סקילה, because you would be giving them the stricter one, and as we said before, the דין is you must give them the lighter one. So he said to him, if you're going to say that the majority were the ones that get שריפה, so the same קשיא you had before according to the way I learned on רבי שמעון, now the way you learned the קשיא will be on the חכמים. According to the חכמים that say you give them שריפה because סקילה is חמור, מאי איריא דסקילה חמורה? Why did they have to say the reason is because סקילה is stricter, that's why you give שריפה? תיפוק ליה דרובא נשרפין נינהו! Learn it out because the majority are נשרפין! According to you that the case is that the majority were נשרפין, were the ones that get שריפה, so they have to get שריפה anyway! Since we follow the majority, so they would have to get שריפה even if סקילה would not be stricter! So how could the חכמים say the reason why you get שריפה is because סקילה is stricter? Without that reason, they would also get שריפה, because the majority are נשרפין! So that proves that the case is that the majority are not נשרפין, the majority are נסקלין! אמר ליה, so he said to him, his son answered him, התם, over there in the סיפא, רבנן הוא דקאמרי ליה לרבי שמעון, it's the רבנן answering to רבי שמעון. דקאמרי, they said to him, you said שריפה חמורה, that שריפה is stricter, so we're telling you, לא, it's not true, סקילה חמורה, סקילה is stricter. In other words, when the רבנן said that you give them שריפה because סקילה is stricter, they did not mean to give a reason why you give them שריפה. The reason why you give them שריפה is because the majority are נשרפין, and therefore you give them שריפה. The only thing they're saying is that you said that שריפה is stricter, so the דין should be that even though the majority are נשרפין, you still shouldn't give them שריפה because שריפה is stricter, so the רבנן said, we hold that סקילה is stricter. But not that this is the reason why you give them שריפה! This is just the reason why we do not give them סקילה, but the reason we give them שריפה is because the majority were נשרפין. But just to answer the question that שריפה is stricter, so we're saying, no, שריפה is not stricter, סקילה is stricter. But according to the way you say, he said to his father, that if the case were that the נסקלין were the majority, and still רבי שמעון gives the reason why you give them סקילה is because שריפה is חמורה, this is not understood, because since the majority were the נסקלין, you don't have to come onto the reason that שריפה is חמור, you could have said because the majority are נסקלין! אמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה, so רב שמואל said to רב יהודה, שיננא, it's a title that they used to give to a תלמיד חכם. It comes from the word שינון which means smart, sharp. So he said to him, לא תימא ליה לאבוך הכי, do not say that to your father. Do not speak that way to your father! Because as we saw before, his father said a דין, and he said to his father, do not learn it that way, learn it differently. Do not say it that way

to your father! דתניא, because we learned in a ברייתא, הרי שהיה אביו עובר על דברי תורה, if his father was doing an עבירה, was עובר on words of the תורה, אל יאמר לו, he shouldn't say to him, אבא, father, עברת על דברי תורה, you were עובר on דברי תורה, אלא יאמר לו, you have to say to your father, אבא, father, כך כתוב בתורה, this is what the תורה says. Don't say you were עובר on דברי תורה, just tell him the דין, just tell him what the תורה says, and he'll understand himself that he did an עבירה. So the גמרא asks, כך כתוב בתורה, even if you say the expression כך כתוב בתורה, this is what the תורה says, still צעורה קא מצער ליה, you're still מצער him, you still make him suffer. It's almost as if you're saying, "Look what you did! The תורה says that you're not allowed to do it, and you did do it." אלא, therefore, you say, אומר לו, says to him, אבא, מקרא כתוב בתורה כך, this is the פסוק in the תורה. You don't say this is the דין of the תורה says, you just quote him the פסוק, and then he will understand himself that he did an עבירה. And the גמרא continues, אלעזר בן מתיה אומר, אלעזר בן מתיה said, אבא אומר השקני מים, if my father says, "Give me water to drink", ומצוה לעשות, and at the same time I have a מצוה to do, and רש״י gives the example for instance he has to go to a לויה or he has to bury a dead person, etc., so the דין is מניח אני כבוד אבא, I would leave the כבוד of my father, ועושה את המצוה, I will do the מצוה. Because שאני ואבא חייבין במצוה, because me and my father, we are both חייב במצות, and therefore the קיום המצוה comes before the כיבוד אב. איסי בן יהודה אומר, איסי בן יהודה says, אם אפשר למצוה ליעשות על ידי אחרים, if the מצוה could be done through others, תיעשה על ידי אחרים, let it be done through others, וילך הוא בכבוד אביו, and let him go in the כבוד of his father. In other words, if the מצוה could be done through others, then this person should do the כיבוד אב, give his father the water to drink or anything like it, and let the other person

do the מצוה. אמר רב מתנה, רב מתנה said, הלכה כאיסי בן יהודה, the הלכה is like איסי בן יהודה, that if it's a מצוה that can be done through others, then let others do the מצוה and you do כיבוד אב. אמר רב יצחק בר שילא אמר רב מתנה אמר רב חסדא, רב יצחק בר שילא has said in the name of רב מתנה, in the name of רב חסדא, האב שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול. If a father gave up, is מוחל, forgave his כבוד, he says to his son, "I don't mind if you don't give me any כבוד", כבודו מחול, his כבוד is מוחל, and then you are not obligated to give him כבוד. אבל הרב שמחל על כבודו, but if a רבי, a teacher, is מוחל on his כבוד, אין כבודו מחול, his כבוד is not מוחל, and you are still obligated to give him כבוד. רב יוסף אמר, but רב יוסף says, אפילו הרב שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול, that even if a רבי is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is מוחל, and you are not obligated to give him כבוד. שנאמר, as the פסוק says, וה׳ הולך לפניהם יומם, "And ה׳ was going in front of them during the day", etc. This refers to the יידן, when the יידן left מצרים and they were in the desert, it says ה׳ went in front of them with the עמוד ענן and the עמוד אש. Even though it is not כבוד that ה׳ should be the one to lead the way, nevertheless he did it and the יידן followed, because he was מוחל on his כבוד. So we see that even ה׳, when he was מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד was מחול, so too, when a רבי is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is מחול, and you are not obligated to give him כבוד. אמר רבא, רבא said, הכי השתא, what kind of comparison is it? התם, over there in the case of ה׳, הקדוש ברוך הוא, עלמא דיליה הוא, by ה׳, the world is his, ותורה דיליה הוא, the תורה is his. Therefore, מחל ליה ליקריה, he could be מוחל on his כבוד. הכא, but here by the case of a רבי, תורה דיליה הוא, is the תורה his? The reason you have to give כבוד to your רבי is because of the תורה that he learned, the תורה that he taught you. So how can he be מוחל on his כבוד, when really it is the כבוד of the תורה, and the תורה is not his? The תורה is ה׳'s תורה. So ה׳, if he wants to be מוחל on his כבוד, since everything is his and the תורה is his, he has a right to be מוחל. But by a person who learns תורה, since the תורה is not his, so how can he be מוחל on his כבוד, which is really the כבוד of the תורה? And the גמרא says, הדר אמר רבא, but then רבא answered, רבא changed, and he said, אין, yes, תורה דיליה היא, the תורה is his, that a person who learns תורה, the תורה becomes his. דכתיב, as it says, ובתורתו יהגה יומם ולילה, and in his תורה he learns... brings that the פסוק starts off by saying כי אם בתורת ה׳ חפצו, and continues, ובתורתו יהגה יומם ולילה, which means that to the תורה of ה׳ is his will, in other words, he learns תורה of ה׳, and the פסוק continues, and in his תורה תורה, he will learn day and night. It starts off with the term תורת השם, and finishes off with the term תורתו, which means that in the beginning when you start learning תורה, it's still the תורה of השם, but after you learn it and you know it, then it becomes your תורה. So since the תורה becomes yours, a person who learned the תורה is able to be מוחל even on the כבוד of the תורה. And therefore, the דין is that a רב that's מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is מחול. Then the גמרא asks, איני, is that not so? והא רבא משקי בהילולא דבריה, רבא was giving drinks at the חתונה of his son, ודלי כסא לרב פפא ולרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע, and he picked up the cup for רב פפא and רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע, וקמו מקמיה, so when he did that, they stood up for him. לרב מרי ולרב פנחס בריה דרב חסדא, when he did that to רב מרי and to רב פנחס the son of רב חסדא, ולא קמו מקמיה, and they didn't get up in front of him. איקפד, so he got angry. ואמר, and he said, האנו רבנן רבנן והאנו רבנן לאו רבנן? These רבנן are רבנן, and the other רבנן are not רבנן? In other words, he was saying to them, "You consider yourself like רבנן, and therefore you didn't get up for me, because you are great people, so you didn't feel that you have to get up for me. And the other ones who did get up, you think they're not רבנן?" So we see here that even though he went to give them the drink, so he was מוחל on his כבוד, and nevertheless he felt that they should get up for him. So how can we say before that רבא said that a רב that's מוחל on his כבוד could be מוחל, because the תורה is his? Here we see that רבא himself was angry when they didn't give him כבוד even though he was מוחל on his כבוד. ותו, another קשיא, you know a story, רב פפא הוה משקי בהילולא דאבא מר בריה, רב פפא was serving drinks at the חתונה of אבא מר, his son, ודלי כסא לרב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה, and he gave the cup to רב יצחק, the son of רב יהודה, ולא קם מקמיה, he didn't stand up in front of him, ואיקפד, and he got angry. And here too we see that even though he was מוחל on his כבוד, nevertheless, he expected he should get up for him. So how can we say that a רב that's מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is מחול? And the גמרא answers, אפילו הכי, still, הידור מיעבד ליה בעו. They should have done some הידור. Even though they didn't have to give him the proper כבוד, but some kind of הידור, some kind of niceness, they should have showed that they're trying to get up. And since they didn't do that either, they didn't do anything, that's why רבא got upset, and also in the second case, why רב פפא got upset. And

the גמרא continues: אמר רב אשי, רב אשי says, אפילו למאן דאמר, even according to the one that holds, שהרב שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול, that a רבי who is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is מחול, and you are not obligated to give him כבוד, but נשיא שמחל על כבודו, if the נשיא is מוחל on his כבוד, אין כבודו מחול, his כבוד is not מחול. נשיא was the one was the head of סנהדרין, and if he is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is not מחול, and you are still obligated to give him כבוד. Then the גמרא asks a קשיא: מיתיבי, I'll ask you a קשיא, מעשה ברבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ורבי צדוק, there's a story with רבי אליעזר and רבי יהושע and רבי צדוק, שהיו מסובין בבית המשתה בנו של רבן גמליאל, they were at a party by the son of רבן גמליאל, and רבן גמליאל was the נשיא, והיה רבן גמליאל עומד ומשקה עליהם, רבן גמליאל stood and he served the drinks, נתן הכוס לרבי אליעזר, he gave the cup to רבי אליעזר, ולא נטלו, he didn't take it from him, נתנו לרבי יהושע, he gave it to רבי יהושע, וקיבלו, he did accept it. אמר לו רבי אלעזר, so רבי אלעזר, who didn't accept, said to רבי יהושע, who did accept it, מה זה יהושע? What is this, יהושע? אנו יושבים ורבן גמליאל ברבי עומד ומשקה עלינו, we are sitting and רבן גמליאל ברבי, the great person, he is standing and serving us? In other words, he said, "How could you accept the cup from him? How can you sit here and have רבן גמליאל serve you?" אמר לו, so he answered to him, מצינו גדול ממנו ששימש, "We find someone even greater than רבן גמליאל and he also served." Who was that? So he says, אברהם גדול הדור היה, אברהם was the greatest in his generation, וכתיב ביה, and nevertheless it says by אברהם, והוא עומד עליהם, he stood upon them. This refers to the מלאכים. When the three מלאכים came to אברהם אבינו, he served them, he stood over them and served them. So here we see that this great person, אברהם, served his guests. ושמא תאמרו, you might say, כמלאכי השרת נדמו לו, that they looked to him like מלאכים and that's why he served them, because he saw them as מלאכים, that is not true, because לא נדמו לו אלא לערביים, they looked to him like ערביים, as רש''י says, we see in the תורה that he told them to wash their feet, because he felt that they are people who have the dust of their feet as עבודה זרה, and therefore he told them to wash their feet. So he thought they were ערביים, and nevertheless, he served them. So ואנו, are we, לא יהא רבן גמליאל ברבי עומד ומשקה עלינו? So we shouldn't allow רבן גמליאל, the great person, to serve us? If אברהם could serve his guests, so רבן גמליאל could certainly serve his guests. אמר להם רב צדוק, רב צדוק said to them, עד מתי אתם מניחים כבודו של מקום ואתם עוסקים בכבוד הבריות? How long will you leave, will you forget about the כבוד of השם, and involve yourself only in the כבוד of people? Because we have a ראיה from השם Himself that we have to allow רבן גמליאל to serve, because הקדוש ברוך הוא משיב רוחות, we see השם makes wind, ומעלה נשיאים, he brings up the clouds, ומוריד מטר, and he lets rain come down, ומצמיח אדמה, he has the, makes the ground grow, ועורך שולחן לפני כל אחד ואחד, and he prepares the table in front of everybody. In other words, he feeds everybody. So if השם is able to look away from his כבוד and do all this, ואנו, so we, לא יהא רבן גמליאל ברבי עומד ומשקה עלינו? We shouldn't allow רבן גמליאל to serve us, to give us drinks? If השם could do it, רבן גמליאל could certainly do it. But from all this we see that a נשיא that is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is מחול, because we're talking here about רבן גמליאל who was the נשיא, and nevertheless, these תנאים felt that they should allow him to serve them, because his כבוד is מחול. So how could we say before that a נשיא that is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is not מחול? אלא אי איתמר, הכי איתמר, the גמרא answers, if it was learned, this is what was learned. Not that he said that אפילו למאן דאמר holds that a רב that's מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is מחול, a נשיא that's מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is not מחול, that couldn't be. What he really said was this: אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, אפילו למאן דאמר, even according to the one that holds that נשיא שמחל על כבודו, כבודו מחול, that a נשיא, even, that's מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is מחול, מלך שמחל על כבודו, אין כבודו מחול. If a king is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is not מחול. שנאמר, as it says, שום תשים עליך מלך, you should put upon yourself the king. So the גמרא דרשנ'ס from the words תשים, you should put, שתהא אימתו עליך, that תשים עליך, put him upon you, means that his fear should be upon you, you should always be afraid of him, you should always give him כבוד. And therefore, if a מלך, a king, is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is not מחול. And

the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, מפני שיבה תקום. The גמרא is now going to discuss the כבוד that you're supposed to have for a תלמיד חכם or for an old person, etc. This is all based on the פסוק in קדושים י״ט, פסוק ל״ב. The פסוק says: מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן ויראת מאלקיך אני ה׳. This is the פסוק. מפני שיבה תקום, in front of an old man, you should get up, והדרת, you should give honor, פני זקן, the face of a זקן, which simply would mean an old man, but the גמרא will explain what it means, ויראת מאלקיך אני ה׳, you should be afraid of your God, I am השם. The גמרא דרשנ'ס: מפני שיבה תקום, says that you should stand up for an old person. יכול, I would think, אפילו מפני זקן אשמאי, even for an old person who is a רשע, or as תוספות says, an old person who is just plain בור, an עם הארץ. So I would think since the תורה says מפני שיבה תקום, for an old person to stand up, any old person, even if the old person is a רשע, תלמוד לומר, therefore the תורה continues and says זקן. The second half of the פסוק says והדרת פני זקן, and זקן, ואין זקן אלא חכם. זקן is a חכם. A תלמיד חכם. שנאמר, how do we know זקן is a תלמיד חכם? Because the תורה says in a different place, אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל, when השם said to משה he should gather 70 people from the זקנים, so he didn't mean the זקנים the old people, he meant the חכמים, the people who are great scholars. As רש״י brings the פסוק, אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם ושוטריו, that those people that you know that they are the זקנים of the people and they are the שוטרים, obviously it means they are the leaders of the אידן. So we see that זקן, it doesn't mean old, but זקן means a person who is a חכם. So therefore when the תורה says והדרת פני זקן, that teaches us that you only have to stand up for somebody who is a תלמיד חכם, but not just for somebody who is old. רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר, רבי יוסי הגלילי says, אין זקן אלא מי שקנה חכמה. A זקן only means somebody who is קונה חכמה, he acquires חכמה. And as רש״י says, he learns a ראשי תיבות here, that the word זקן itself is made up of two words: זה קנה, the one that is קונה, that acquires חכמה. How do we know that זקן is the one that acquires חכמה? שנאמר, as it says, השם קנני ראשית דרכו. This is the תורה speaking. It's a פסוק in משלי, and the תורה is saying that השם acquired me in the beginning of His way, which means in the beginning of the creation of בריאת העולם, השם acquired me, השם created me, which is the תורה. So we see that the first קנין is the קנין of תורה. So therefore, when we say that זקן is an abbreviation of the words זה קנה, he was קונה, and it doesn't say what he was קונה, what he acquired, so we assume it means he acquired חכמה, he acquired תורה, because the פסוק says, השם קנני ראשית דרכו. Then it continues: יכול, I would think, יעמוד מפניו ממקום רחוק, that you have to stand up for him from a faraway place? תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says, תקום והדרת. We דרש'ן both words together. תקום והדרת, even though it says מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן, but we put the two words together, and we say תקום והדרת, that תקום and והדרת go together. So we learn out from here, לא אמרתי קימה אלא במקום שיש הידור. I only said you have to stand up in a place where there is הידור, where there is honor. And if you stand up from far, he doesn't see you, so there is no honor. So that teaches us you only have to stand up when he is close to you, and as רש״י says, when he is within your four אמות. יכול, I would think, יהדרנו בממון, that when you have to honor him it means through money, you have to give him money? תלמוד לומר, so we also learn out from תקום והדרת, we compare the two, מה קימה שאין בה חסרון כיס, just like standing up has no loss of money, you don't spend any money to stand up, אף הידור, so too when the תורה says והדרת, you have to give him כבוד, it means שאין בה חסרון כיס, in a way that has no loss of money, you do not have to spend any money for it. יכול,

I would think, יעמוד מפניו מבית הכסא ומבית המרחץ, that when you're in the בית הכסא, in the bathroom, or in the בית המרחץ, in the bathhouse, you also have to stand up for him? תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says, תקום והדרת, you have to stand up in a way of הידור. לא אמרתי קימה אלא במקום שיש הידור. I said you have to stand up only in a place where this gives him כבוד. And if you're in the בית הכסא, in the בית המרחץ, it is no כבוד to stand up. Then he continues: יכול, I would think, יעצים עיניו כמי שלא יראהו, that a person could close his eyes as if he didn't see him? That when you see the חכם, the זקן, the שיבה coming, you close your eyes and make yourself as if you didn't see him, and then no one will feel that you did an עבירה by not standing up for him. תלמוד לומר, that's what the פסוק says, תקום ויראת. It says that מפני שיבה תקום, and then the פסוק finishes off, ויראת מאלקיך אני השם, you should be afraid of your God, I am השם. And the כלל is that דבר המסור ללב, anything that is given over to the heart, נאמר בו ויראת מאלקיך, the תורה says you should be afraid of השם. Those things that a person could do and other people will not know that he is doing something wrong, those places the תורה adds the words, be afraid of השם. That even though other people might not know that you did an עבירה, they might think that you really didn't see him and that's why you didn't stand up, but השם says, I know what's in your heart, and therefore, be afraid of Me, and you're not allowed to close your eyes and not stand up and make yourself as if you didn't see. And

then it says, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said, מניין לזקן שלא יטריח, how do we know that the זקן himself is not allowed to be מטריח the people to stand up for him? As רש״י says, that if he has another way to go, a way that will not cause the people to stand up, he should go through the other way. תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says, זקן ויראת, that the זקן himself should also fear השם. The פשט, פשט in the פסוק is that השם is saying to the people who have to give the כבוד to the זקן that they should be afraid of השם, but he דרש'נס זקן ויראת that the זקן also has to have יראה of השם, he has to know that השם knows what he's doing, and therefore, if he is able to avoid the טירחא from the people standing up for him, he should try to avoid it. איסי בן יהודה אומר, איסי בן יהודה said: מפני שיבה תקום, that when the תורה says you have to stand up for a שיבה, for an old person, אפילו כל שיבה במשמע, this means any old person. In other words, he argues on what we said before, that you only have to stand up for a שיבה that is also a זקן, that is also a תלמיד חכם. He says no, for every old person you have to stand

up. Now the גמרא is going to explain: רבי יוסי, היינו תנא קמא, doesn't it seem that רבי יוסי is saying the same thing as the first תנא, as the תנא קמא? Because when you look at the ברייתא, the תנא קמא said that when it says מפני שיבה תקום, I would think even for a זקן אשמאי. So he brings the פסוק זקן, that a זקן is a חכם. And then רבי יוסי הגלילי also says the same thing: אין זקן אלא מי שקנה חכמה, that a זקן is a is קונה חכמה. So it seems like רבי יוסי הגלילי is saying the same thing as תנא קמא. But from the לשון is משמע that he's arguing, but from what he says, it seems like he's saying the same thing. And the גמרא answers, איכא בינייהו, there is a difference between them: יניק וחכים, if he is young and he is a חכם. תנא קמא סבר, the תנא קמא holds, יניק וחכים לא, that if he is young and he is a חכם you do not have to stand up for him. In other words, the תנא קמא does not change the פשט in the word זקן. The תנא קמא still learns that the word זקן means old. It just says that what kind of old person? An old person who is a חכם. He learns it out from the זקנים of משה רבינו, and there they were both, they were older and they were also חכמים. So too here, he doesn't change the פשט in the word זקן, he just says that a זקן is only if he is also a חכם. But רבי יוסי הגלילי סבר, רבי יוסי הגלילי holds, אפילו יניק וחכים, even if he's young and he's a חכם, because רבי יוסי הגלילי changes the whole פשט of the

word זקן. רבי יוסי הגלילי says that the word זקן does not mean old, but the word זקן means זה שקנה חכמה, the one that has חכמה. So according to him, even if he is young, as long as he is a חכם, you must stand up in front of him. Then the גמרא continues, מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי הגלילי? What is the reason of רבי יוסי הגלילי? Why does רבי יוסי הגלילי change the word of זקן from its simple פשט, and he says it does not mean old, it means a חכם? Why doesn't he learn like the תנא קמא, that זקן means both, it means old and a חכם? אמר לך, רבי יוסי הגלילי will answer: אי סלקא דעתך כדקאמר תנא קמא, if you would think the פשט is like the תנא קמא said, that you have to stand up only if he is old, in other words, you only have to stand up for a person who has both מעלות, a person who is old and he's a חכם, אם כן, if so, נכתוב רחמנא, let the תורה write, מפני שיבה זקן תקום והדרת. For a שיבה, an old man, a זקן, a תלמיד חכם, תקום, you should stand up, והדרת, you should give כבוד. In other words, let the תורה put the words שיבה and זקן together. Since according to the תנא קמא, there's only one case, one type of person that you have to give כבוד, and that is a person who is old and a תלמיד חכם, so the תורה should put the words שיבה, which means old, and זקן together. מאי שנא דפלגינהו רחמנא? Why did the תורה divide them, separate them? ממילא, so that comes to tell us, רבי יוסי הגלילי says, דהאי לאו האי והאי לאו האי, that this is not this, and this is not this. In other words, the תורה wants to tell us that there are two categories here. There's a category of שיבה, which means an old person, and then there's a separate category of a זקן, of a תלמיד חכם, that the תלמיד חכם, even though he is not old, nevertheless you have to stand up in front of him. On the other hand, one might ask, if so, the תורה divided them into two, and שיבה and זקן are two separate things, maybe שיבה would mean a זקן אשמאי too? Since זקן means a תלמיד חכם, and that's a separate thing, שיבה means an old person, so maybe an old person who is a זקן אשמאי, a רשע, you also have to stand up in front of him? And we couldn't say that this is what רבי יוסי הגלילי holds, because if so, he would be saying the same thing as איסי בן יהודה, because איסי בן יהודה said that שיבה means אפילו כל שיבה במשמע, any שיבה. And רבי יוסי הגלילי is arguing with איסי בן יהודה. So obviously, according to רבי יוסי הגלילי, you do not have to stand up before a זקן אשמאי. But on the other hand, since it is two ענינים, שיבה is separate and זקן is separate, and we know that זקן means a תלמיד חכם, so then why shouldn't שיבה mean an old man and even a זקן אשמאי? So רש״י explains that now that the תורה told us that you have to stand up in front of a זקן, which means a חכם, so we see that the תורה is מקפיד on חכמה, the תורה cares about חכמה. So ממילא, if the תורה cares about חכמה, we cannot say already, according to רבי יוסי הגלילי, that שיבה means any type of שיבה, any type of old person. And therefore we learn that according to רבי יוסי הגלילי, you do not have to stand up in front of a זקן אשמאי. And as we said before, the reason the תורה separates it is to tell us that דהאי לאו האי והאי לאו האי, that שיבה and זקן are two separate things, and the זקן, the תלמיד חכם, does not have to be old. שמע מינה, from here we know, אפילו יניק וחכים, even if he's young, but if he is a חכם, you have to stand up in front of him. Then the גמרא asks, ותנא קמא, what about the תנא קמא? According to the תנא קמא that holds that you have to have both מעלות, you have to be old and a תלמיד חכם, so isn't רבי יוסי הגלילי's קושיא a good קושיא? Why does the תורה say מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן? Why didn't the תורה put it together? Why didn't the תורה say מפני שיבה זקן תקום והדרת? The גמרא answers, משום דבעי למיסמך זקן ויראת, because the תורה wants to have the word זקן Right next to the word ויראת. As we said before, that the word ויראת מאלקיך, you should have fear of השם, also refers to the זקן himself. It is a פסוק to tell the זקן himself that he should not be מטריח the people. So if the תורה would say מפני שיבה זקן תקום והדרת, and then the תורה would continue ויראת מאלקיך, so the word ויראת would not come right after the word זקן. Therefore, the תורה said מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן, in order that right after the word זקן it should say ויראת מאלקיך, and we'll be able to דרשן that the זקן too has to have יראת השם, has to be afraid of השם, and not to be מטריח the people to stand up in front of him. But then the גמרא asks, תנא קמא מאי טעמא? What is the reason of תנא קמא? Why doesn't the תנא קמא hold like רבי יוסי הגלילי? The גמרא says, אי סלקא דעתך כדקאמר רבי יוסי הגלילי, if you would think like רבי יוסי הגלילי said, אם כן if so, נכתוב רחמנא מפני שיבה תקום והדרת, תקום והדרת פני זקן, the תורה should write you should stand up in front of a זקן and והדרת, and also תקום והדרת פני זקן. ומידי דלא כתיב הכא, since the תורה didn't write it that way, שמע מינה that teaches us חדא that it is one. Because if they would be two separate דינים: there's a דין of מפני שיבה תקום that for a person who is old, if he's a תלמיד חכם you have to stand up, and then there's another דין that for a person who is a תלמיד חכם even if he's young you have to stand up, so then the תורה should have said both דינים of תקום and והדרת in both cases: מפני שיבה תקום והדרת and also תקום והדרת פני זקן. And since the תורה said מפני שיבה תקום and then והדרת פני זקן, each one has another expression, that's a ראיה that really they are both one, and both words תקום והדרת go for both, and therefore the דין will come out that if he is a תלמיד חכם but he is young, you do not have to stand up in

front of him. Concerning the מחלוקת, as we learned before, whether כיבוד אב is משל אב or משל בן, whether the son has to spend money on כיבוד אב or not, so תוספות has a very interesting חקירה, a very interesting question. According to the מאן דאמר that holds משל בן, that the son does have to spend money for the כיבוד אב, so תוספות asks a question: what would be the דין if there are three things that come up at the same time? He has to do כיבוד אב, at the same time there is an אבידה that someone lost, there is an object that his friend lost and he is able to return it, and also there is an object that he himself lost and he is looking for that for himself. Which of the three come first? And he explains what the question is. On one hand, if we'll say, let him get involved in כיבוד אב, then we know there's a דין that אבידת חבירו comes before כיבוד אב. If you are able to return a lost object to your friend, that comes before the מצוה of כיבוד אב, because the גמרא says in בבא מציעא that if you want to do a מצוה and your father doesn't let you do the מצוה, you're not supposed to listen to him. In other words, כיבוד אב doesn't come before the מצוה. And it gives an example: for instance, if you are able to fulfill a מצוה of השבת אבידה, you're able to return an object, a lost object to your friend, and your father says do not return it, you don't have to listen to him. You have to return it. In other words, returning an object from a friend comes before כיבוד אב. So therefore, in this case, he cannot do כיבוד אב and forget about the lost object of his friend, because that comes first. Now, if we'll say, let him get involved in finding the lost object for his friend, then automatically what will happen is he'll have to get involved in finding his own object, because the דין is that if you have two possibilities: looking for your friend's object or for your object, so the דין is אבידתו קודמת, his own lost object comes first. So as soon as we're going to פסקן that instead of כיבוד אב he should look for the object of his friend because that comes first, automatically we are going to פסקן right away that he should look for his own object, because as soon as he's going to start looking for the object of his friend, we will say אבידתו קודמת, his object comes first. Now, as soon as we're going to פסקן that he has to look for his own object, automatically we're going to have to פסקן that he should do כיבוד אב. Because if we hold כיבוד אב משל בן, that means that כיבוד אב is even in a case when there's a loss of money. So therefore, if there's a question whether to do כיבוד אב or look for your own object, the דין is כיבוד אב comes first. Because all it is to the person is a loss of money, and since it's משל בן, you have to allow yourself the loss, but fulfill the מצוה of כיבוד אב. So it'll come out we're going to פסקן that he should do כיבוד אב. As soon as we're going to פסקן he should do כיבוד אב, we will say, no, since there is here an אבידת חבירו, his friend's object that is lost, that comes before כיבוד אב, so automatically he will have to do the אבידת חבירו. As soon as we'll say he does that, as we said before, אבדתו will come first, and automatically כיבוד אב will come first, and we'll go in circles. So תוספות asks, what's the פסק דין in a case like this?

And the ר"י answers that he feels that the דין would be that you leave the כיבוד אב, and you leave the אבידה of your friend, and you get involved in your own אבידה. And he explains why, that even though we say that כיבוד אב משל בן, which means that even if it's a loss of money you still have to have כיבוד אב, that is only if the loss of money is for the כיבוד אב itself. For instance, the food that you are going to give him, which is the כיבוד אב itself, has to come out of your pocket. But if the loss of money has nothing to do with the כיבוד itself, then you are not obligated to lose money for the sake of כיבוד אב. And therefore, in the case where you have a question of כיבוד אב or finding your own object, so the דין would be that you have to find your own object and not do כיבוד אב. Because there is no חיוב for the person to lose money which has no connection to the כיבוד אב, and in this case, the loss of the object has nothing to do with the כיבוד אב. Therefore, the דין would be that your אבידה comes first. But תוספות asks, how can we say that? Didn't the גמרא say later that כיבוד אב goes up to that if he will take a wallet and throw it in the water, you shouldn't say anything? And the גמרא feels that if we hold כיבוד משל בן, then this means your wallet, the son's wallet, and nevertheless you shouldn't say anything. But the question is, if we're going to say that the only time there is a loss of money by כיבוד אב if this itself is the כיבוד, but in the case where he throws the wallet into the water, there is no כיבוד involved directly in the loss, so why is the דין there that you have to let him do it? So תוספות says, there we're also talking about a case where he gains by it. He does it because he wants to let out his anger. He wants people to get scared of him. So he does it for his benefit. So that is part of כיבוד אב. But if he would do it for no reason at all, then תוספות says anyway he is a רשע, because he would be עובר on the עבירה of בל תשחית. So obviously we're talking when he does it for some benefit. Since he does it for some benefit, and he feels he wants to do it, so by letting him do it, this is part of כיבוד אב itself. Therefore, over there you have to have the loss of money and do כיבוד אב. But in a case where the loss of money has nothing to do with כיבוד אב at all, for instance in a case where you are looking for your object, so the fact that you're not going to find your object has nothing to do with כיבוד אב, here the דין would be that אבדתו would come before כיבוד אב. Concerning this מחלוקת itself, whether you have to be מכבד אביו משל אב or משל בן, so the גמרא said as we learned before that the חכמים פסקן to רבי ירמיה, or to the son of רבי ירמיה, like the מ"ד משל אב. So תוספות says from here is משמע that that's the הלכה. And תוספות also quotes that the שאילתות says that the הלכה is that it is משל אב. But he says that if the אב, the father, doesn't have his own, then the son is obligated to feed his father from his own money. And that's how the ר"י פסקנ'ס, and that's how the רבינו חננאל פסקנ'ס. And תוספות brings a ראיה that the גמרא says in כתובות דף מ"ט that רב forced a certain person, and he took away from him 400 זוז for צדקה. So if you force a person to give צדקה to strangers, certainly you would force the son to feed his father if the father doesn't have money. And he also quotes in ירושלמי. It says in ירושלמי that רבי יוסי said, הלוואי that all the הלכות should be so clear to me as this הלכה, that you force the son to feed his father. And then there's another ראיה that תוספות brings. It says in ירושלמי that רבי יונתן and רבי יאשיה were going in the street. And a person came and kissed the feet of רבי יונתן. So רבי יאשיה asked him, what is this? So he said, because I told him that he should do anything possible to see that his son should feed him. So he said back to him, but why didn't you force it? So he answered him, is the דין that you force? So he says, yes, didn't you know that the דין is that you force the son to feed his father? In other words, we see here that when the father doesn't have any money, you actually force the son to feed his father. And there's another ראיה that תוספות brings from ירושלמי. ירושלמי says the פסוק says כבד את ה' מהונך and כבד את אביך ואת אמך, it means that you should serve honor השם from your money, but by כיבוד אב ואם it doesn't say from your money. So when it comes to honor השם, it's only if you have money. Comes to honor father and mother, it's even if you don't have money. From here we see that whether you have money or not, you are still obligated to give them. And it's the way תוספות learns that if they don't have money, then you have to give from your own money to your parents.