Unit:

Kibud Av v’Em Honoring Parents

1. Topic overview

The opening unit in the Tarbut HaMachloket curriculum focused on general issues

involved in creating, a pluralistic, transdenominational culture of respect. This unit

will be looking at another case study relevant to the lives of our students, that of

Kibud Av v’Em (honoring parents). It will focus on how to talk to, disagree with,

argue with, relate to, and interact with parents in a respectful yet honest way.

It is instructive that the Rambam writes his laws of honoring parents not in the

context of women’s laws (Seder Nashim), which might have been expected.

Instead, he writes about the family in the context of Hilchot Mamrim, which deals

with questions of the authority of the courts. His laws of Kibud Av v’Em are

surrounded contextually by issues such as the Zaken Mamreh (a Sage who rebels

against prevailing legal rulings). This is probably not coincidental. Parent-child

relations (especially in the teenage years) very often deal with issues of authority

and dissent, defining acceptable and unacceptable behaviors and boundaries,

procedures for dealing with objectionable behaviors, and so on. Judaism has

traditionally tackled head-on the thorny issue of parent-child relations, and is done

in this unit.

2. Opening the unit

Consider doing one or more pre-thinking exercises to open up this unit on Kibud Av

v’Em. One route is to give students made-up situations to respond to. These

theoretical situations might make it easier for them to open up.

For example: You want to go out with your friends on Saturday night. Your parents

say that you can’t go because they don’t like the friends you’re going out with. You

say you’re old enough to make your own decisions about who you’re going to be

friends with. Your parents tell you that it’s not your decision—as long as you’re in

their house, they decide what’s best for you. What do you do next?

Or, you could ask the students to write down one real-life example of a time when

they argued with their parents. What was the argument about? How did they

speak to their parents? How did their parents speak to them? How was it

resolved? You will likely have no problem eliciting material from your students for

open discussions about parent-child relationships.

Or, you could bring in a clip from a movie or TV show to use as a trigger for a

discussion. Whatever your method, guide the students to think about the extent

of the authority of their parents and how they feel about that; how much

dependence they think they should have from their parents; how their parents

should treat them as blossoming adults struggling for independence and self-

identity; how they should treat their parents; how they deal with differences of

opinions and values with their parents; and so on.

You could also give them the trigger “How do you honor your parents?” and have

them write down their responses in journals. You could use their responses as the

basis for discussions.

3. Initial presentation of the command to honor parents

One way to open up the text study on this unit is to ask them to guess (or find in

their Chumashim) the command to honor one’s parents. What do they think the

wording is? Students may some something like, “Duh! It’s ‘Honor your mother and

father!’ It’s one of the Ten Commandments!” Then you can direct them to Text 1,

the first appearance of the command to honor our parents. But…there’s another

command to revere our parents, in Text 2! And there’s yet another command in

Text 3, worded slightly differently, to honor our parents. Why the repetition? Is

there a reason for one command to be repeated several times? What do your

students think?

Text 1, Shmot 20:1-14

אנכי ידוד אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ ) ב: (וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר) א(

:מבית עבדים לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פנימצרים לא תעשה לך פסל וכל תמונה אשר בשמים ממעל ואשר בארץ מתחת ואשר במים ) ג(

לא תשתחוה להם ולא תעבדם כי אנכי ידוד אלהיך אל קנא פקד עון ) ד( :מתחת לארץועשה חסד לאלפים לאהבי ולשמרי ) ה( :אבת על בנים על שלשים ועל רבעים לשנאי

לא תשא את שם ידוד אלהיך לשוא כי לא ינקה ידוד את אשר ישא את שמו ) ו: (צותימויום ) ט( :ששת ימים תעבד ועשית כל מלאכתך) ח( :זכור את יום השבת לקדשו) ז: (לשוא

השביעי שבת לידוד אלהיך לא תעשה כל מלאכה אתה ובנך ובתך עבדך ואמתך ובהמתך עשה ידוד את השמים ואת הארץ את הים ואת כל כי ששת ימים ) י( :וגרך אשר בשעריך

כבד את אביך ) יא(: אשר בם וינח ביום השביעי על כן ברך ידוד את יום השבת ויקדשהולא תרצח ס לא ) יב (:ואת אמך למען יארכון ימיך על האדמה אשר ידוד אלהיך נתן לך

תחמד אשת לא תחמד בית רעך ס לא) יג: (תנאף ס לא תגנב ס לא תענה ברעך עד שקרוכל העם ראים את הקולת ואת ) יד: (רעך ועבדו ואמתו ושורו וחמרו וכל אשר לרעך

:הלפידם ואת קול השפר ואת ההר עשן וירא העם וינעו ויעמדו מרחק

God spoke all of these statements (“commandments”), saying:

1) I am the Lord, your God, who delivered you from the land of Egypt, from the

house of slavery…

2) Do not recognize the gods of others before My presence…

3) You shall not take the Name of the Lord, your God, in vain…

4) Remember the Shabbat to sanctify it…

5) Honor your father and mother so that your days may be long in the land

which the Lord your God gives you.

6) Do not kill

7) Do not commit adultery

8) Do not steal

9) Do not bear false witness against your neighbor…

10) Do not covet your neighbor’s house…

Text 2, Vayikra 19:3

: איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתתי תשמרו אני ידוד אלהיכם

Every man must revere his mother and father and keep my Shabbat: I am the Lord

your God.

Text 3, Devarim 5:16

כבד את אביך ואת אמך כאשר צוך ידוד אלהיך למען יאריכן ימיך ולמען ייטב לך על : אלהיך נתן לךהאדמה אשר ידוד

Honor your father and mother as the Lord your God has commanded you so that

your days may be long and that everything goes well with you in the land which the

Lord your God gives you.

You could send them into chevruta to discuss the similarities and differences

between the commands. Have them try to find at least four major differences,

and come up with reasons why they exist. Or, they can just come up with

characteristics of each command which jumps out at them as being unexpected.

For example, some of the things they may notice for the first time are: there’s a

reward of long life associated with honoring parents; honoring parents is

associated with observing Shabbat; the command to honor parents always mentions

God in the same sentence; there’s some sort of connection between Israel and

honoring parents; the order of appearance of “father” and “mother” flips in Texts 1

and 3; the different terms “honor” and “revere” are used in 1 and 3; and the

command to honor parents is “in the wrong place” in the list of the ten

commandments.

They are sure to come up with good reasons why they think these differences and

unexpected characteristics of the commands exist. You could come together as a

class and put all of their ideas on the board. For example, maybe they’ll come up

with the idea that one command puts fathers first, and one command puts mothers

first, so that both are accorded equal status in honor and reverence. These and

other ideas will be explored once we start learning the sugiyot from Kiddushin

later in this curriculum. You can make a note of the comments they make and say

something like, “Hey! That’s exactly what the Talmud says! We’ll be learning that

later.” It might be empowering for them.

4. The importance of the command

After having your initial discussions on the command to honor parents, in your next

lesson you could attempt to draw the Ten Commandments on the board. Have the

kids guess what it is you are drawing. You should draw the “stereotypical”

depiction of the Ten Commandments as being given on two tablets with Moshe

carrying them down the mountain, with five commandments on one tablet and five

on the other1.

Have them put away their texts, and guess what the Ten Commandments are. You

might want to make mention that they aren’t actually “commandments”; they are

statements (which is why they are called the “Ten Statements”/

1 I once had a colleague tell me that this depiction of Moshe bringing two tablets down the mountain with five

commandments on each tablet is a “Christian” image. But there is basis for this in Jewish literature, such as the

Ramban on Shmot 20:12.

”Aseret HaDibrot” in Hebrew, and not the “Ten Commandments”). You could spend

several classes on debates about how to count the Ten Commandments and

commentary on that section of Torah, but it isn’t recommended. It would take

away from the focus of this curriculum. Using the Ten Commandments listed in

Text 2, ask the students if they notice a common theme running through each

tablet. They should notice that the first five deal with “bein adam lamakom”

(human-God) issues while the second set of five deal with “bein adam l’chaveiro”

(human-human) issues.

But wait a second—if that’s the case, then one of the commandments seems to be

out of place! Which one? The fifth commandment should actually be with the

second set of five…So Moshe should have brought down (using the stereotypical

depiction of how Moshe brought the tablets down) two tablets, one with the first

four on it, and the other with commandments five through ten! But maybe, if they

look again, there’s logic behind the fifth commandment actually being on the tablet

devoted to issues which are “bein adam lamakom”. Can your students think of how

this could be? They are sure to come up with some great possibilities. You should

guide them into thinking that maybe there’s an association being made between

parents and God.

Have your students read Text 4 from Kiddushin 30b. The Rabbis use a

hermeneutical tool called a “hekesh”, which is a juxtaposition of verses or opinions

that imply a connection between two seemingly disparate ideas. They clearly are

equating the honor due to parents with the honor due to God. Isn’t this bizarre,

though? How on earth could human beings, even if they are the greatest parents in

the world, be equated with God?!

Text 4, Talmud Bavli, Masechet Kiddushin 30b-31a

, מהונך' כבד את ה+ משלי ג: +ונאמר, כבד את אביך ואת אמך+ שמות כ: +ר נאמר"ת, איש אמו ואביו תיראו+ ויקרא יט: +נאמר; השוה הכתוב כבוד אב ואם לכבוד המקום

השוה הכתוב מוראת אב ואם , אלהיך תירא ואותו תעבוד' את ה+ דברים ו: +ונאמראיש + ויקרא כד: +ונאמר, ו ואמו מות יומתמקלל אבי+ שמות כא: +נאמר; למוראת המקום

, וכן בדין…השוה הכתוב ברכת אב ואם לברכת המקום, איש כי יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאובזמן שאדם , ואמו, ואביו, ה"הקב: שלשה שותפין הן באדם, ר"ת. ששלשתן שותפין בו

. דונימעלה אני עליהם כאילו דרתי ביניהם וכב: ה"אמר הקב, מכבד את אביו ואת אמו, שבן מכבד את אמו יותר מאביו, גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם: רבי אומר, תניא

וגלוי וידוע לפני מי ; ה כיבוד אב לכיבוד אם"לפיכך הקדים הקב, מפני שמשדלתו בדבריםלפיכך הקדים , מפני שמלמדו תורה, שהבן מתיירא מאביו יותר מאמו, שאמר והיה העולם

בזמן שאדם מצער את אביו : תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן. למורא האבה מורא האם "הקב . שאלמלי דרתי ביניהם ציערוני, יפה עשיתי שלא דרתי ביניהם: ה"אמר הקב, ואת אמו

Our Rabbis taught: It is said, “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12) and

it is also said, “Honor the Lord…” (Proverbs 3:9). Thus the Torah is equating the

honor due to parents to that of God. It is said, “Every man must revere his mother

and father and keep my Shabbat: I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 19:3) and it is also

said, “The Lord your God you shall revere…” (Deut. 6:13). Thus the Torah is

equating the reverence towards parents to the reverence towards God. It is said,

“He who curses his father or mother shall surely be put to death” (Ex. 21:17) and it

is also said, “Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin” (Lev. 24:15). Thus the

Torah is equating cursing parents to cursing God…It is logical [to equate parents

with God] because the three are partners in creating him [the child].

Our rabbis taught: There are three partners in humans: God, the father, and the

mother. When a person honors his father and his mother, God says, “I credit them

as though I dwelled among them.”

It was taught: Rebbi says, “It is revealed and known to God that a son honors his

mother more than his father because his mother wins him over with pleasant

words. Therefore God put honoring one’s father before honoring one’s mother.

And it is revealed and known to God that a son reveres his father more than his

mother because his father teaches him Torah. Therefore God put revering one’s

mother before revering one’s father.

A Tanna recited before Rabbi Nachman: “When a person vexes his father and

mother, God says, “I did right in not dwelling among them, for had I dwelt among

them, they would have vexed Me!”

Text 5, Meschech Chochmah on Vayikra 19:3

Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843-1926) was a rabbi and prominent leader in Eastern Europe in

the early 20th century

כל מוסדות הקבלה מהר סיני הוא הקבלה הנאמנה ונתנה למשה מסיני ומסרוה דור אחר

ולכן . דור לזרעם אחריהם והודיעו בנים לבני בניהם יום אשר עמדו בחורב וכן עד עולםזה הגדר יש בכבוד הקבלה אז פסק תורה מישראל ולכן בדור יבזה אביו וילעג למוסרי

.וכלל התורה' ות האביו גם דברים הנוגעים אל מצו

All of the received traditions come from Mount Sinai--they were received by

Moshe and handed down to generation after generation without a single break in

tradition. Therefore the generation that does not respect its parents and that

mocks the received traditions will irreparably harm the Jewish tradition.

Therefore it is obvious that the command to honor parents is associated with

commands to honor God and the Torah in general.

One idea is that parents and God join together and are partners in creating

children. It would be useful to explore how parents could be considered co-

creators with God. Parents are co-creators with God in many senses: parents quite

literally create their children—we are genetically made up of our parents’ DNA.

Parents also quite literally are the rulers of their children’s world. Little children

in particular are utterly dependent, in a human-God type of relationship, on the

environment that their parents create for them.

The Rabbis are also teaching that God is “brought down” into our homes via how we

treat our parents. If we treat our parents well, it is a good indicator of how we

will treat God. Conversely, if we treat our parents disrespectfully, we are more

likely to treat God disrespectfully. So the fact that the Rabbis see our

relationship with our parents as the “litmus test” of our relationship with God not

only brings God “down” into our relationship with our parents, it “raises up” the

status of parents. The treatment of parents measures no less than the respect

towards God. In a radical sense, the Rabbis are telling us that honoring parents is

a form of honoring God!

The Meschech Chochmah in Text 5 adds something to the discussion. Can your

students figure out why he thinks the fifth commandment belongs on the first

tablet? He thinks that good relationships between parents and children are what

keep traditions alive. If a child does not honor his parents, he will likely not listen

to them when they try to teach about the Jewish tradition. As a result, Judaism

will get lost. And as a result of our becoming distanced from the Jewish religion,

we will become alienated and distanced from God. Thus, he sees an intimate

connection between honoring parents and honoring God.2

2 Obviously, the teacher will need to be prepared to candidly discuss God with the students in this curriculum and

should be ready to deal with the many challenges that go along with talking about God. Some students will

undoubtedly, throughout this curriculum, bring up that they are agnostic or atheist, and those issues should be

tackled head on, and should be anticipated and planned for. It is important to be non-coercive, to acknowledge any

difficulties in believing in God, to praise them for their honesty, and to encourage further reflection and thought.

It is perfectly fine for your students to disagree with the idea that parents are

equated with God. Those types of reactions make for great classes! In fact, you

can probably expect some of your students to react against this idea of

dependence on God and parents—the tension between a teenager’s strong desire

for independence and the Talmud’s positive value of dependence should be played

up. The goal is not to indoctrinate them into seeing eye to eye with the Talmud.

It’s more important to have a critical analysis of the topic, and if the students

disagree with the primary sources we study, that’s fine as long as they engage in a

serious dialogue with the texts and emerge as respectful, ethical individuals.

5. Do you always love your parents?

You could start off the next lesson by asking them the question, “Do you always

love your parents?” They may reply with “Of course I do”, or you might get “Are

you kidding? Just this morning, I got into a fight with them and I didn’t love

them…” Is it okay for children not to love their parents all the time? What do

your students think? Perhaps it’s normal for children not to love their parents all the time. Maybe it’s unreasonable to have that expectation. This might be a good

reason why the Torah does not command us to love our parents, only to honor them.

Why do your students think they Torah makes this distinction between love and

honor? Alternatively, you might begin this discussion by asking the question of why

the Torah commands us to honor our parents but not love them. Once the students

have offered their explanations, then look at the answer that Rabbi Telushkin

gives in Text 6.

Text 6, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin

Olam Magazine, Summer 2001

Modern Orthodox rabbi who has written many popular books in English on Judaism.

The surprising feature of the Fifth Commandment is its insistence that we owe our

parents honor, while saying nothing about loving them. It is not as if the Torah is

reluctant to command love: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18); “And you

shall love the Lord your God” (Deut. 6:5); “You shall love the stranger” (Lev. 19:34).

Why then are we not commanded to love our parents?

One possibility is that parents are included in the command to “Love your neighbor

as yourself”; since they too are neighbors, you are commanded to love them. But I

think the real reason is that the Torah realized that it is harder to command love

in a relationship as intimate as that between children and parents; either the love

is present or it isn’t. In addition, many children, much as they might love their

parents most of the time, go through periods of estrangement from them. Thus,

what the Torah is offering us is a guideline for behavior even during those periods

when we might not be feeling loving toward our parents. Even at those times when

we feel our parents have not been fair to us, or even when we have seen them do

something we regard as wrong, we are still obligated to honor them. (However, in

instances of parents who have physically or sexually abused their children, I

believe that children do not owe the parents respect or anything else for that

matter)…”

Rabbi Telushkin, too, believes that it is normal for children and parents to

temporarily “lose the love”. Your students will probably be eager to share with you

examples of when they’ve felt estranged from their parents. But the point of

commanding honor and not love is precisely to guide us when we feel emotions like

that. While we might not feel very loving, we can still act honorably. Perhaps you

could give your student situations in which they have to choose alternatives to

yelling “I hate you!”. Maybe it would be honoring their parents to simply walk away

(“turn the other cheek”). Or maybe they could take a breather, calm down, and

then resume the conversation in a less tense atmosphere. Brainstorm ideas of how

to honor parents when they are angry at them.

Someone is sure to say that sometimes, parents don’t even deserve honor, let alone

love. In certain extreme situations, Rabbi Telushkin agrees, such as abuse. Are

there other circumstances when your students think that parents don’t even

deserve a basic amount of respect? This notion of the parameters and limits of

the command to honor parents will be raised in greater depth below.

6. Defining the commandment to honor parents

In another lesson, you could ask your students, “What exactly are your obligations

towards your parents? Do you have any?” Maybe they’ll come up with very specific

obligations, like taking out the trash. If they do, ask them what something like

taking out the trash represents in a relationship. Conversely, if someone says, “I

think kids have to be nice to their parents” ask them for specific examples of what

that means. Maybe they’ll say, “You can’t talk back to your parents”. It might be an

interesting assignment to get your students to ask their parents what obligations

they think their children have in the parent-child relationship.3 Hopefully these

discussions will have tension in them, because that makes for good discussions.

Point the students to Text 7, Mishnah Kidushin 1:7, which asks the same question,

“What are your obligations towards your parents?” It’s not a very clear mishnah

to translate, but the conclusion of the gemara is that it is first referring to the

obligations that are incumbent on a father to perform (such as circumcising) on his

children, and the second part is referring to the obligations that children are

obligated to perform for the parents. If a student raises the possibility that the

Hebrew could be translated differently, feel free to entertain this possibility (the

gemara does as well), but don’t lose focus of time and the goals of this unit.

Text 7, Mishnah Kidushin 1:7

אחד -מצות האב על הבן וכל , ונשים פטורות, אנשים חייבין-כל מצות הבן על האב

... ונשים פטורות, אנשים חייבין-וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא . אנשים ואחד נשים חייבין

With respect to all obligations of the son towards the father, men are obligated

and women are exempt. With respect to all obligation of the father toward the

son, both men and women are obligated...4

Most of the time, you can organize mishnahs on a case-law-reason-questions chart.

Meaning, each mishnah will have its case, its law, and sometimes a reason. The

questions are our own about the mishnah. Have the kids think through what the

case is (it’s useful to phrase cases in the form of a question). Maybe they’ll come

up with something like, “Do boys and girls have any obligations towards their

parents?” The law might be, “Both boys and girls share equal obligation toward

their parents.” The reason is not given in this mishnah (which is normal). And what

are our questions? See what your students come up with. The obvious question,

though, is “What are a child’s obligations toward his or her parents?” It is this question which will be focused on by looking at what subsequent Jewish literature

says.

3 You could definitely turn the tables and have a discussion of how exactly a parent is obligated towards their

children, but only if you find you have ample time to teach it. 4 It’s likely that someone will mention the gendered language of the mishnah. Acknowledge it, attribute it to the

context of the times (a couple thousand years ago), and say that nowadays we would probably be more sensitive to

gender issues in the way we write.

Text 8, the Tosefta5 (which can be seen as a sort of parallel body of Jewish

literature to the Mishna, perhaps a supplement to the Mishna, or perhaps even a

commentary of sorts on the Mishna) attempts to answer the question raised above.

It answers that a child’s obligations to his parents are to give them food and drink,

to clothe and to cover/shelter them, to escort them in and out, and to wash their

face, hands, and feet. Text 9, Sifra (a tannaitic halachic midrash to Vayikra6),

classifies a child’s obligation to his parents into “honoring” and “revering”, which

are the two ways the command was presented (see Texts 1-3). Sifra defines

“revering parents” as not sitting in their seat, not speaking for them, and not

contradicting their words, while “honoring parents” is to give them food and drink,

to clothe and to cover/shelter them, and to escort them in and out. Yet another

list can be found in Text 10 from the gemara: “revering” is to not stand in their

place, to not contradict their words, and (according to Rashi) to not side with

another person when the father is in an argument. “Honoring” is identical to that

of the Sifra. (It would be good to point out that this is a good example of how the

Talmud prefers to translate the Torah’s generalities into something more practical

and specific.)

Text 8, Tosefta Kidushin 1:11

אי זו היא מצות הבן על האב מאכיל ומשקה מלביש ומכסה מוציא ומכניס ומרחיץ את פניו ידיו ורגליו

What exactly are the obligations of the son towards the father? Giving food and drink, dressing and covering/sheltering, escorting in and out, and washing his face,

feet, and hands.

Text 9, Sifra, Parshat Kedoshim 1:10-11

5 Increase our students’ Jewish literacy by making sure they understand where these quotes are coming from. If

possible, bring in the actual hard-copy books themselves. One of the drawbacks of copying quotes from the Bar Ilan

CD is that students have no sense of context from where the quotes are coming from, and do not understand the

difference between the various genres of Jewish literature. 6 Don’t be afraid to delve deeper into what the Sifra is. You could mention, for example, that the Mishna and

Midrashei Halacha have much the same goal but a different classification system. Whereas the Mishna codifies law

from the Chumash by topic, the Midrashei Halacha (like Sifra) codify law from the Chumash by order of appearance

in Chumash. One can learn much from a comparison of how the same law is codified in sources such as the

Mishnah and Sifra (and Tosefta, etc.), and how later commentators such as the Rambam or the Beit Yosef synthesize

the various opinions into a “final” law.

אי זהו כיבוד , ורא לא ישב במקומו ולא מדבר במקומו ולא סותר את דבריואיזו היא מ) י( …מלביש ומכסה מכניס ומוציא, ומשקהמאכיל

What exactly is “revering” ? Not sitting in his place, not speaking in his place, and

not contradicting his words. What exactly is “honoring”? Giving food and drink,

dressing and covering/sheltering, escorting in and out…

Text 10, Talmud Bavli, Masechet Kidushin 31b-32a

ולא סותר , ולא יושב במקומו, לא עומד במקומו-מורא ? ואיזהו כיבוד, איזהו מורא: ר"ת . מכניס ומוציא, ומכסהמלביש, מאכיל ומשקה-כיבוד ; ולא מכריעו, את דבריו

What exactly is “revering” and what exactly is “honoring”? “Fearing”: one may not

stand in his father’s place, one may not sit in his place, one may not contradict his

father’s words, and he may not offer an opinion in a debate contrary to his

father’s. “Honoring”: one must give him food and drink, one must dress him and

cover/shelter him, and one must escort him in and out.

You might want to put all of the lists from Text 8-10 on the board. What do your

students think is the common denominator in the various lists? One obvious thing

that jumps out is that the “honoring” lists involve doing things for parents, while the “revering” lists involve not doing things for parents. Specifically, the lists involve not doing things which take the place of parents. Why do your students

think the Rabbis would care about such “petty” things as not sitting in your parents’

chair?

Maybe you could illustrate what the Rabbis were getting at by asking your students

if they have set places at their table. Maybe when they sit down to eat dinner,

their father always sits at the head of the table. And the mother always sits to

the right of the father. And the children have their places. It may not even be

anything which was ever articulated (“This is my place, and not yours!”); it’s likely that many of your students will know exactly where their father sits. What would

happen if your students suddenly sat in their father’s place at the table? Maybe

you could tell them to do an experiment to find out. Why would a parent care that his child is sitting in “his” seat? What might it represent? Maybe your students

will see that it probably represents a physical representation of a spiritual act—by

sitting in your father’s chair, you might be trying to spiritually take his place, which

represents an improper act in the parent-child relationship. This parallels and

complements our relationship with God—we can’t try to “sit in His place”, like we

unsuccessfully tried to do at Migdal Bavel (you may want to go into more depth

with your students about this story and its connection to this unit).

While the “revere” lists may create a necessary distance between parent and child,

the “honor” lists create a necessary intimacy based upon the parents and their

needs. So perhaps these lists are a physical, daily reminder trying to inculcate an

awareness of one’s limits in relationship to those who gave us life, as well as

encouraging the special intimacy and needs-awareness inherent in those

relationships. You could definitely spend time exploring the tension inherent in a

relationship which encompasses both distance and intimacy. Try to engage your

students in a discussion on the proper balance between being intimate with their

parents and being more distant (in a respectful sense). What is more appropriate?

An interesting side-question on Texts 8-10 is whether the Rabbis are actually

suggesting exactly how we must honor/revere our parents. Or are the lists more

of a guideline to behavior? Or are they the bare minimums? What do your

students think? It might be an interesting exercise to see how your students

would update those lists. At the end of this section on defining the commandment,

another exercise you could have your students do is to ask them to write down a

“dictionary definition” of “honoring parents” and “fearing parents”, based upon the

sources learned so far.

7. Exploring the limits and parameters of honoring parents

This guide now turns to a number of stories on Kibud Av v’Em found in Masechet

Kidushin, with a few other relevant sources to help explain the sugiyot from

Kidushin. They all have to do with the extent to which one is obligated to honor

and revere our parents.

Maybe start this section off with a clip from a movie in which a parent acts in a

crazy manner toward their child. Or you could create some scenarios/role plays of

your own. The point, though, would be to ask your students if there is any limit or parameters to the command to honor and revere parents. Do parents always deserve respect? Is there anything a parent can do or ask for that is simply too much? You could even give specific examples from the texts they will be learning.

What if your parent comes into your room and destroys your personal property

(make up a reason why)? What happens if your parent terribly embarrasses you in

public? How do you react?

With all of these sugiyot, think about having your students try their hand at

translating them on their own first in chevruta. You could give them word lists,

guiding questions, etc. One goal is to increase our students’ ability to learn primary

Jewish texts independently. You will likely need to “chevruta” with the whole class

early on to demonstrate what a good chevruta looks like. A class that does good

chevruta work requires training and patience from the teacher.

Texts 11-13 are stories that are fairly easy to understand, and they all (in their

own way) illustrate to what extent we must honor and revere our parents. One way

to teach these three stories is to split the class up into three groups, and have

each group learn one story. You can provide each group with a chevruta guide.

Then each group has to teach their story to the rest of the class.

Text 11, Talmud Bavli, Masechet Kidushin 31a

צאו וראו מה עשה עובד כוכבים : אמר להם? עד היכן כיבוד אב ואם: בעו מיניה מרב עולאפעם אחת בקשו חכמים פרקמטיא בששים ריבוא , אחד באשקלון ודמא בן נתינה שמו

…ה שכרו"נתן הקב...ולא ציערו, והיה מפתח מונח תחת מראשותיו של אביו, שכר

They asked Rav Ulla: “To what extent must we honor our parents?” He answered

them and said, “Go see what one non-Jew did in Ashkelon, Dama ben Netinah was

his name. Once, the Sages wanted to buy certain merchandise from him at a price

which would give him a profit of six hundred thousand gold dinars. But the key to

the chest that contained the merchandise was lying under his sleeping father’s

pillow. And Dama did not disturb his father…God rewarded Dama…”

Text 12, Talmud Bavli, Masechet Kidushin 31a-b

, פעם אחת היה לבוש סירקון של זהב והיה יושב בין גדולי רומי: כי אתא רב דימי אמראמר רבי …. ולא הכלימה, וטפחה לו על ראשו וירקה לו בפניו, ובאתה אמו וקרעתו ממנו

וכי , חמשה בני סמכי הוה ליה לאבימי בחיי אביו. כגון אבימי ברי קיים מצות כיבוד: אבהו. ואמר אין אין עד דמטאי התם, רהיט ואזיל ופתח ליה, אבבאהוה אתא רבי אבהו קרי

איסתייעא , גחין קאי עליה עד דאיתער, אדאייתי ליה נמנם, אשקיין מיא: יומא חד אמר ליה .מזמור לאסף+ תהלים עט: +מילתיה ודרש אבימי

When Rav Dimi came to Israel, he said: Once, Dama ben Netinah was dressed in a

golden silk coat and was sitting among the nobles of Rome. His mother came,

ripped it off him, hit him on his head, spat in his face, yet he did not rebuke her.

Rabbi Abahu said: My son Avimi is a good example of someone who fulfilled the

mitzvah of honoring parents. Avimi had five ordained sons when his father was

living. Even so, when Rabbi Abahu visited, Avimi himself would run and open the

door calling out “Yes! Yes!” until he got to the door. One day Rabbi Abahu told

Avimi, “Get me water to drink”. When Avimi brought the water back, his father

was asleep. Avimi bent over and waited for him to awake…Avimi was rewarded…

Text 13, Talmud Bavli, Masechet Kidushin 31b

, גחין וסליק לה-דכל אימת דהות בעיא למיסק לפוריא , רבי טרפון הוה ליה ההיא אמאעדיין לא : אמרי ליה, אתא וקא משתבח בי מדרשא, נחתת עלויה-אימת דהות נחית וכל

רב יוסף כי הוה שמע קל ? כלום זרקה ארנקי בפניך לים ולא הכלמתה, הגעת לחצי כיבוד . אשרי מי שלא חמאן: אמר רבי יוחנן. איקום מקמי שכינה דאתיא: אמר, כרעא דאמיה

Rabbi Tarfon had a mother who he treated with such respect that whenever she

wanted to climb into bed, he would bend down and she would climb on him into it,

and whenever she descended from bed she would descend on him to reach the

floor. Rabbi Tarfon came and praised himself in the study hall, but the Rabbis told

him, “You have not yet reached half of the honor one can bestow upon parents. Has

your mother ever thrown a bag of money into the sea in your presence and you did

not shame her?” Whenever Rav Yosef heard the footsteps of his mother he would

say: “I will stand before the Divine Presence which is approaching.”

One thing to think about when reading these stories is what the point is. Is it to

give us interesting facts about the lives of our Sages? Is it to illustrate the

concept of honoring/revering parents? Do the Rabbis tell us these stories because

they expect us to live up to these examples? These stories are extremes—most of

us will never, ever honor/revere our parents to this extent. Therefore, these

stories are something to aspire to. The Talmud is modeling behavior for us.

Perhaps the lists from Texts 8-10 are the bare minimum, and the stories from

Text 11-13 are the extremes. While we should do no less than those lists, we

should strive to live up to the examples from these stories.

In Texts 11 and 12, the Talmud tells us about a non-Jew named Dama ben Netinah.

Maybe they use the example of a non-Jew to show that if someone who is not

commanded to honor parents does it to this extent, then all the more so Jews (who

are commanded) need to honor their parents. In Text 11, Dama was ready to lose a

great amount of money rather than disturb his sleeping father. In Text 12, Dama

preferred to endure the public humiliation and embarrassment of his mother

rather than shame her. Text 13 tells us that honoring parents even extends to

letting them throw money into the sea.

Text 13 gives another example of the extremes that one should aspire to in

honoring/revering our parents. You should get the kids to really analyze these

texts closely. For example: What does mentioning five ordained children signify? (That honor of parents needs to be done directly and personally, even when there

are many other qualified individuals to do it for you; the means is just as critical as

the ends.) What does the “running” signify? (Enthusiasm and consideration.

“Running to do a mitzvah” is traditional Rabbinic advice of how to do a mitzvah

well.) How would you categorize this story—as Kavod or Yirah? (There’s merit to

both, which may be the point: that honor and reverence overlap.) What would you have done in this situation? (Probably most would have woken the parent up gently,

or come back when they woke up. Avimi seems to do something extreme so that he

could live up to both expectations of Kavod and Yirah: he balanced himself—

literally—between waking up and walking away.) All of the texts should be analyzed

in depth like this.

Try to get your students to anticipate the problems with these stories. Are there

limits to a parent’s aggressive behavior? Can a father abuse his child’s property at

will? How long must there be silence? When can a child take his or her parent to

court? While the Talmud is teaching us that the command to honor parents is

potentially limitless, there still needs to be some limits…what are they?

8. Limiting parental authority

Text 14, Tur, Yoreh Deah 240

Shulchan Aruch and Rama. Yoreh Deah 240:16

The Tur (named after his famous compendium of Jewish law, The Arba Turim/The Four

Columns) was Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (1270-1343, Toledo, Spain).

The Shulchan Aruch, literally “The "Set Table," is a repository of Jewish Law written by Rabbi Yosef Karo. It was later supplemented by the "Mapah," the "Table-Cover" by Rabbi

Moses Isserles, the Rama. צ לכבדו משלו ודאי אם זרק כיס של הבן יכול למונעו "י פירש למאי דפסקינן שא"ור) --טור(

ה "פ שעתיד ליורשו כתב הרמ"אלא מיירי בכיסו של אביו אינו יכול להכלימו כדי למונעו אע של בן מצי לאכלומיה דוקא מקמיה דשדייה לים דאפשר דממנע ולא שדייה הא דבארנקי

אסור לאכלומיה דמאי דהוה הוה והשתא כי שתיק כיבוד שאין בו ליה אבל בתר דשדייה :חסרון כיס הוא ומיחייב בגויה ודוקא לאכלומיה אבל למתבעיה כדינא שרי לאתבועיה

והבן היה , האב שצוה את בנו שלא ידבר עם פלוני ושלא ימחול לו עד זמן קצוב) --א"ש( . לצוואתואין לו לחוש, רוצה להתפייס מיד לולי צוואת אביו

שהוא בוטח שיראה סימן ברכה בתלמודו לפני הרב , תלמיד שרוצה ללכת למקום אחר

אינו צריך , ואביו מוחה בו לפי שדואג שבאותה העיר העובדי כוכבים מעלילים, ששםצ "א, בה הבןוכן אם האב מוחה בבן לישא איזו אשה שיחפוץ: הגה. לשמוע לאביו בזה

.לשמוע אל האב

(Tur--) Rabenu Yitzchak interpreted the ruling in light of the law that children

don’t have to honor their parents at the children’s expense. Clearly, therefore, if

the father threw the son’s wallet the son can stop him. The ruling is that when the

father throws out his own wallet the son can’t rebuke him in order to stop him,

even though in the future the son will inherit from him.

Rabbi Meir HaLevi wrote that in the case of the son’s wallet he may rebuke his

father only before he throws it into the sea, because thus he can prevent him from

throwing it. However, after the father throws it, the son may not rebuke him

because he can’t undo what’s in the past. The son’s silence, therefore, is a form of

honor which does not involve financial loss and thus he is obligated to do it. This

means only that the son is forbidden to rebuke his father. He is permitted,

however, to sue the father in court to recover his money.

(Shulchan Aruch--) If a father commanded his son not to talk with someone and

not to forgive him until a specific date, and the son wants to restore the

friendship immediately if it weren’t for his father’s edict, he need not listen to his

edict.

If a student wants to study Torah in a different city where he is confident he will

succeed in his studies due to a particular teacher there, and his father protests

because he fears the physical threat of the non-Jews in that city--the son need

not listen to his father in this situation. Rama says: If the father protests the

son’s decision to marry a particular woman that the son has chosen, the son need

not listen to the father.

Text 15, Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Rebels, 6:11

ראהו עובר על דברי תורה לא יאמר לו אבא עברת על דברי תורה אלא יאמר לו אבא …

. כתוב בתורה כך וכך כאילו הוא שואל ממנו ולא כמזהירו

If the son sees his father violate a Torah commandment7, he should not say to him,

“Father, you have sinned!” Rather he should say to him, “Thus and thus is written

in the Torah”, speaking to him as though he were consulting him, instead of

admonishing him.8

Until now, parents have been the objects of unlimited amounts of honor and

reverence. They’ve been on par with God—they are partners with Him in creating

their children. But they aren’t equal partners—God can be seen as the “Senior

Partner” and the parents as “junior partners”. Parents aren’t entitled to ask

children to break commandments because all people, even parents, are subject to a

higher authority. All humans are ruled by God and Torah, and not other humans.

God’s wishes, therefore, come before parents’ wishes. Therefore, these sources

teach that children do not have to carry on their parents’ vendettas, they may

move away from home to study Torah against their parents’ wishes, and they may

marry someone whom the parents do not like.

The import of these laws is that parents have to recognize their children’s moral

authority. A child’s commitment to their parents need not contradict a child’s

commitment to his or her own values. What a child owes his parents cannot negate

her responsibilities to her own values.9 Yet again there is the tension between the

7 We are told in Sifra Kedoshim that this idea comes from the juxtaposition in Vayikra 19:3 of observing Shabbat

and revering parents. The connection is meant to show that parents cannot cancel the command of Shabbat. 8 It is interesting, but possibly irrelevant to the students, that the Rambam in the next halacha not only forbids the

son from obeying his father when the father wants him to violate a command from the Torah, but also a command

from the Rabbis. 9 If one looks at the Rambam (Hilchot Mamrim 6:7), he disagrees with Text 14 in that he thinks there is no limit to

parental authority. He (over)emphasizes the idea that by honoring parents we honor God, which may explain his

somewhat unreasonable demands on a child—just as a human must be silent in an irrational world out of trust in

God, so too children must be silent at all times in front of their parents, no matter what they do to us. It may be a

good idea to show this dialectic to your students.

parent’s authority and the child’s autonomy. Within the command of honoring

parents, there is room for the child’s independent growth.10

Texts 14-15 tell us that while parents may control little children totally, there

comes a time when children grow up to become independent individuals who must be

respected themselves (in areas as wide-ranging as friendship, intellectual

development, and building a home). While a child must honor his parents, he need

not sacrifice his life for them (figuratively or literally). Parents can’t destroy a

child’s dignity, which is what they are doing if they destroy his property. Parents

are not beyond criticism. So these limits on parental authority are not only in

extreme cases of abuse (see Text 6), they also extend to more subtle cases of

mental abuse. Do your students agree with these limitations? Maybe have them

come up with five very specific cases in which parents lose the privilege of being

honored/revered.

9. The art of rebuking parents

Previously, we learned about Tochecha, the art of rebuke. Even the Rambam, who

is extreme in his laws of honoring parents, agrees that sometimes children must

rebuke their parents. But when and how? What do your students think? In the

previous section, the texts showed cases of parents who act so inappropriately

that they may be giving up their privilege to be honored and revered. But are

these all cases where children must rebuke their parents? Clearly not—we are told

in the Tur (Text 14) that we should not rebuke our father if he has already thrown our wallet into the sea; what’s done is done! Probably every human on earth would rebuke his father in this case, though. So what do your students think—maybe

have them come up with five very specific cases when parents should be rebuked.

Challenge them to think if they are the same cases as they already came up with at

the end of Section 8 above. How should they rebuke their parents? Have them

actually write a dialogue with anticipated responses from their parents. Think

about having them do this assignment with their parents. Maybe have them act out

their dialogues in front of the class, and have the class critique their proposed

rebukes. What can they apply from the unit on Tochecha to rebuking parents?

Are the laws of Tochecha perfectly compatible when referring to parents? Is

there anything that needs to be changed in this context? Why or why not?

10

If this were a curriculum written for parents, this would be a great time to talk about how parents can make room

for their children to become independent, and the value of self-moderation and self-limitation. Think about leading

one or two sessions with parents on Kibud Av v’Em, from a parents’ perspective.

These last two sources are saying that parents are not false gods. Their status

stems from the desire to produce the foundations of the Jewish community, the

Torah. And anything a parent does which harms that foundation must be stopped,

although when it concerns parents, it must be stopped in a respectful manner. The

difficulty is in correcting parental behavior without seeming to judge and set

oneself up as the authority over your parents, thus breaking the command to

“revere”.11

The point to get across is that sometimes, only on rare occasions, is it okay to

rebuke parents. One needs to think long and hard about what those situations are.

And once we find ourselves in those situations, we need to think even longer and

harder about how to talk with our parents so that we, as children, maintain our

moral authority, while at the same time respecting their parental authority. If

that critical thought process takes place with the students and results in better

relationships between students and their parents, this unit is a success.

Text 16 (below) illustrates what was written in the previous paragraph. Honoring

parents is all about the attitude one takes toward parents. It’s all about concerning ourselves about how they feel, and less about formal compliance with a

law. If you stop and think about how you speak to your parents before actually

speaking to them, it will have already gone a long way toward fulfilling the

commandment to honor and revere our parents.

Text 16, Talmud Yerushalmi, Masechet Peah, 1:1

הנם ויש שהוא כודנו בריחים ויורש גן עדן כיצד יש שהוא מאכיל את אביו פטומות ויורש גימאכיל את אביו פטומות ויורש גיהנם חד בר נש הוה מייכיל לאבוי תרנוגלין פטימין חד זמן

אמר ליה אבוי ברי אילין מנן לך אמר ליה סבא סבא אכול ואדיש דכלביא אכלין ומדשין ויורש גן עדן חד בר נש הוה ' יינמצא מאכיל את אביו פטומות ויורש גיהנם כיצד כודנו לריח

איטחין בריחייא אתת צמות לטחונייא אמר ליה אבא עול טחון תחתי אין מטת מבזייא טב לי אנא ולא את אין מטות מילקי טב לי אנא ולא את נמצא כודנו בריחים ויורש גן עדן

One can feed his father birds of delicacy and be punished; one can make his father

grind with a millstone and be rewarded. How can one feed his father birds of

delicacy and be punished? Once there was a son who always fed his father birds of 11

An interesting side question is, does it make a difference if the parent doesn’t care about the Torah—can the child

more freely rebuke his or her parents? What role does religion play in the context of parent-child relations? Are

these texts “prejudiced” towards those Jews who are “religious”?

delicacy. The father asked his son how he could afford to do so. The son

answered him, “Old man! What do you care? Chew and eat!”

How can one make his father grind with a millstone and be rewarded? Another

man, who worked at a mill, had an elderly father. One day the king drafted the

father for forced labor. The son told his aging parent: “Father, you work here on

the millstone and I will go in your place into the king’s service, so that if it is

demeaning work, I will be demeaned and not you.”

10. Final project

One of the most fun classes I took in college was my freshman Introduction to

Psychology course. The reason is because the professor introduced really

interesting experiments, and then challenged us to perform the experiments on

family and friends (when safe).

For example, we learned about the famous Asch conformity experiments.

Experimenters led by psychologist Solomon Asch asked students to participate in a

"vision test." In reality, all but one of the participants were confederates of the

experimenter, and the study was really about how the remaining student would

react to the confederates' behavior. The participants — the real subject and the

confederates — were all seated in a classroom where they were told to say aloud

the length of several lines drawn on a series of displays. They were asked which

line was longer than the other, which were the same length, etc. The confederates

had been prearranged to all give an incorrect answer to the tests. Many subjects

showed extreme discomfort, but most conformed to the majority view of the

others in the room, even when the majority said that two lines different in length

by several inches were the same length. Control subjects with no exposure to a

majority view had no trouble giving the correct answer.

We were encouraged to try out “safe” experiments such as this on our friends,

which we did, and we had a lot of fun doing it. In the process, we reinforced what

we had learned in class.

One simple, non-controversial experiment you could get your kids to perform is to

have your students spend an entire week keeping a journal about their relationship

with their parents. The “experiment” would be to spend an entire week very

consciously thinking about honoring and revering their parents. Spend time

brainstorming things they can do to accomplish their goal. For example, whenever

the parent comes home from work, run to the door and escort them in! But they

shouldn’t say, “I’m doing this only as a Judaic Studies experiment”—they should

muster up as much sincerity as they can while doing these things. Another example

is they can take out the trash without being asked. They can spend time talking

about how their parents’ day went. Extra credit for anyone who washes their

parents’ feet! Be sure the student writes how the day went in their journals, and

to be as specific as they can. What was surprising about their experiment? What

went well, what didn’t?

In the end, have your students footnote their journals using sources from this unit.

For example, maybe they can take one incident during the week and classify it as

either Kavod or Yirah based upon an analysis of several sources. Or they can

equate one thing they did with one of the Talmudic stories from Kidushin.

There’s really no need to let their parents in on this little experiment. Hopefully,

it won’t remain an experiment and the students will keep it up in “real life”. There’s

a rabbinic expression, “M’toch sh’lo lishmah bah lishmah”, which means that even if

we start doing something with less-than-authentic motivations, it helps us progress

to doing it with the proper intention. By working on modeling our behavior through

“experiments” such as this, it helps us learn how to act “for real” later on in life.

The Rambam tells us that for better or for worse, it is human nature that

oftentimes one must begin serving God (for example) for selfish intentions and

proceed from there to selfless ones.

11. Appendix: the student-teacher relationship

The teacher may not have enough time to focus on the topic of the student-

teacher relationship. This is why it comes as an appendix and not in as much detail

as the rest of this unit; it’s written in more of an outline format. It dovetails and

complements the topic of parent-child relationships. The teacher should be aware

that this topic may be difficult because it’s talking about your relationship with your students, it may come across as self-serving to the students, and it may be

too “mature” of a concept for some students. But at the very least spend one or

two classes on it, if not more. And while there are not any specific texts on when

and how to rebuke teachers (and vice versa: when and how teachers should rebuke

students), it is very worthwhile to have that discussion when you teach these

texts.

I. Teacher versus parents: Who deserves more honor, and why? Who have

your best teachers been and why?

a. Text 112, Mishna Baba Metzia 2:11: Teachers take precedence over

parents!

b. Why? Possible answers:

i. Soul over body: Teachers are responsible for the birth of the

soul while parents are responsible for the birth of the body.

ii. Key term from Text 1: “Chochma” (wisdom). Wisdom implies a

deep understanding of Torah (hence, the Rabbis are called

Chachamim, Wise Ones). This Torah wisdom is distinct from

what parents teach; Torah wisdom is placed above all the things a parent might teach.

iii. Parents deserve honor because of biology; teachers earn honor. iv. Our most influential teachers are not our parents, as the

exercise questions at the beginning of this lesson most likely

indicated—most people name teachers other than their parents

as their “best” teachers.

c. What if the parent is also a Chacham? Then Text 1 sets up the

formula that “Parents + Wisdom is greater than a Teacher”

d. Thus, with Text 1, we have the setup that teachers, by virtue of the Torah wisdom they possess and transmit, have the highest human

status in Judaism, even more than that of parents.

II. What is the relationship between a sacred text and those who study it?

a. Discuss how we feel about the Torah when it’s taken out of the Ark in

synagogue

b. Text 2, Makkot 22b: What is our relationship to those who interpret

Torah? Rava’s answer: The interpreter of the sacred text is more sacred than the text itself! Chachamim are walking, living, breathing

Torah scrolls!

c. With that knowledge, maybe we can understand the Shulchan Aruch’s

audacious comments in Text 3, Yoreh Deah 242:2-3, comparing Torah

teachers to God!

d. But the honor due to Torah teachers is not absolute, as seen in Text

4, the Rama on the Shulchan Aruch’s comments in Text 3. Ultimately,

then, “pursuit of truth” overrides “obedience to human authority”.

e. The parallels (and differences) between the student-teacher

relationship to the parent-child relationship should emerge naturally,

and they should be made explicit throughout.

12

The texts from this supplement can be seen below

III. What is the essential nature of relationships built upon Torah study?

a. Text 5, Pirkei Avot 4:12: This text radically expands the notion of

“teacher”—everyone you meet through Torah deserves respect. b. Not only that, but it elevates everyone’s status in relation to yours

(everyone is equal or greater than you in terms of respect owed).

Torah study is the method of spreading respect and equality and

mutuality and morals throughout the Jewish community.

c. If Text 5 radically expands the list of people who deserve our respect, then Text 6, Pirkei Avot 6:3, radically democratizes Torah in

a different way: It is the quality of wisdom (Torah) that matters, and

not the amount of Torah.

d. With Texts 5 and 6, we learn that the entire Jewish people have the

potential to be Chachamim!

e. The second half of Text 6 is even more extreme: It relates that King

David called Achitophel (a traitor!) superior to him just because he

taught him two bits of Torah! We learn that if the King of Israel

gave honor to a traitor and called him superior to the King, then all

the more so do we owe each other the most supreme amount of

respect and honor, even if all we do is learn one letter of Torah from

each other. We learn that even the King of Israel pales in comparison

to the Torah, and to the relationship between teacher and student.

f. Now, perhaps we can understand how these texts suggest that the

greatest form of worship of God isn’t prayer or putting on Tefillin.

It’s learning Torah with other human beings, because in doing so, it’s the closest we can come to catching a glimpse of God.

Text 1, Mishna Baba Metzia 2:11

אבדת אביו ואבדת . אבדתו ואבדת רבו שלו קודמת.אבדתו ואבדת אביו אבדתו קודמת העולם שאביו הביאו לעולם הזה ורבו שלמדו חכמה מביאו לחייב,רבו של רבו קודמת

היה אביו ורבו נושאין משאוי מניח את של רבו ואחר . ואם אביו חכם של אביו קודמת.הבא . היה אביו ורבו בבית השבי פודה את רבו ואחר כך פודה את אביו.כך מניח את של אביו

: ואם היה אביו חכם פודה את אביו ואחר כך פודה את רבו

If a person sees his father’s object lost and his own object lost and he can only

save one, he should save his own. If a person sees his father’s object lost and an

object from his Rabbi lost and he can only save one, he should save his Rabbi’s. The

reason being that his father brought him to this world and his Rabbi brings him to

the next world. If his father is also a Torah scholar, the father’s object comes

first. If his father and his Rabbi are carrying a load, he should help his Rabbi first

to put it down. If his father and his Rabbi are in captivity, he should redeem his

Rabbi first. If his father was also a Torah scholar, the father should be redeemed

first.

Text 2, Talmud Bavli, Masechet Makkot 22b

גברא מקמי קיימי ולא תורה ספר מקמי דקיימי אינשי שאר טפשאי כמה: רבא אמר …רבה

How foolish are those people who stand up in respect for a Sefer Torah but fail to stand up in respect for a Torah sage.13

Text 3, Yoreh Deah 242:2-3

...כחולק על השכינה, כל החולק על רבו

Anyone who disagrees with their rabbi, it’s as if he disagrees with God…

Text 4, Rama on the Shulchan Aruch’s comments in Text 3.

אם יש לו ראיות והוכחות לדבריו שהדין , אבל מותר לחלוק עליו באיזה פסק או הוראה

. עמו

But it is permissible for a student to disagree with his rabbi on a particular ruling

or teaching if the student has sufficient evidence and proof.

Text 5, Pirkei Avot 4:12

רבי אלעזר בן שמוע אומר יהי כבוד תלמידך חביב עליך כשלך וכבוד חבירך כמורא רבך : ומורא רבך כמורא שמים

Rabbi Elazar ben Shmuah says: May the honor of your student be dear to you as

yourself; the honor of your friend as dear to you as the reverence of your rabbi14;

and the reverence of your rabbi as your reverence of Heaven.

13

I left off the continuation of Rava’s statement because it would unfocus students, although in an advanced class

you might decide to teach it.

Text 6, Pirkei Avot 6:3

הלומד מחבירו פרק אחד או הלכה אחת או פסוק אחד או דבור אחד אפילו אות אחת צריך לך ישראל שלא למד מאחיתופל אלא שני דברים בלבד לנהוג בו כבוד שכן מצינו בדוד מואתה אנוש כערכי אלופי ומיודעי והלא + ד"ה י"תהלים נ+וקראו רבו אלופו ומיודעו שנאמר

דברים קל וחומר ומה דוד מלך ישראל שלא למד מאחיתופל אלא שני דברים בלבד קראו וק אחד או דבור אחד רבו אלופו ומיודעו הלומד מחבירו פרק אחד או הלכה אחת או פס

…אפילו אות אחת על אחת כמה וכמה שצריך לנהוג בו כבוד

He who learns from his friend a single chapter, a single halachah, a single verse, a

single Torah statement, or even a single letter, must treat him with honor. For

thus we find in the case of David, King of Israel, who learned nothing from

Achitophel except for two things, yet called him his teacher, his guide, his

intimate, as it is said, “you are a man of my measure, my guide and my intimate”

(Tehillim 55:14). Once can derive from this the following: If David, King of Israel,

who learned nothing from Achitophel except for two things, called him his teacher,

his guide, his intimate—one who learns from his friend a single chapter, a single

halachah, a single verse, a single statement, or even a single letter, how much more

must he treat him with honor!15

There are a number of resources I used which were indispensable in writing this

unit: Gerald Blidstein’s book Honor They Father and Mother; David Dishon’s curriculum on Kibud Av v’Em from the Hartman Institute; curricular material on

Kibud Morim from the Melton Mini-School; feedback from teaching students this

material; and real-life experience from my parents and my children.

14

It’s fine to translate רב in the texts in this supplement as “teacher” as opposed to specifically a “rabbi”, although

the end of Pirkei Avot 6:3 might challenge that assumption. 15

I left off the end of this mishnah because it’s irrelevant and would be hard for students to comprehend.