Kiddushin, Daf Lammed Bet, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s sugya continues the discuss of who pays for providing for the parent the parent or the child.

 

ת"ש שאלו את ר"א עד היכן כיבוד אב ואם אמר להם כדי שיטול ארנקי ויזרקנו לים בפניו ואינו מכלימו ואי אמרת משל אב מאי נפקא לי’ מיניה

בראוי ליורשו

 

Come and hear: R. Eliezer was asked: How far does the honor of parents [extend]?

He said: That he should take a purse, throw it in his presence into the sea, and not shame him.

But if you say, at the father’s expense, what does he care?

It refers to a potential heir.

 

As we have seen before, the height of honoring one s parents means watching the parent throw away a purse of money into the sea and not shaming the parent. But if the parent has to pay for his own upkeep, then it really does not matter, because the financial loss is the parent s loss. So its not such a great show of honor to not get angyr.

The answer is that it does matter if the child will inherit the parent. In essence, the parent s current loss is the future loss to the child.

This section does acknowledge an inherit tension between parents and children, one that still exists to this day. Currently, the parent s assets belong to the parent and the parent can dispose of them at his/her will. However, this money will eventually go to the inheritor, usually the child, and if the child is taking care of the parent, and in some ways has authority over the parent s money, the child may be hesitant to spend it, especially if he perceives the spending to be frivolous.

 

וכי הא דרבה בר רב הונא דרב הונא קרע שיראי באנפי רבה בריה אמר איזול איחזי אי רתח אי לא רתח

 

As in the case of Rabbah son of R. Huna, for R. Huna tore up silk in the presence of his son Rabbah, saying: I will go and see whether gets angry or not.

 

R. Huna tests his son to see if his son will be angry when R. Huna tears up his own property. R. Huna seems to want to see if his son cares for him, or only cares for his father s property.

 

ודלמא רתח וקעבר (ויקרא יט, יד) אלפני עור לא תתן מכשול דמחיל ליה ליקריה

But perhaps he would get angry, and then he [R. Huna] would trangress, Do not put a stumbling-block before the blind (Leviticus 19:14)?

He forgave the honor due him.

 

If Rabbah gets angry then R. Huna will have caused him to sin by dishonoring his parents, and it is against the Torah to try to incite another person to sin.

The answer is that R. Huna forgave his honor. I m not really sure how this would work if he tells Rabbah he is forgiving his honor, then the whole test won t really work. And if he doesn t tell him, then how is he forgiving his honor?

והא קעבר משום (דברים כ, יט) בל תשחית

דעבד ליה בפומבייני

ודילמא משום הכי לא רתח

דעבד ליה בשעת ריתחיה

 

But he [R. Huna] transgressed, You shall not destroy (Deuteronomy 20:19)?

He did it in the seam.

Then perhaps that was why he did not get angry?

He did it when he was [already] angry.

 

Again, the Talmud wonders how R. Huna could do this isn t it forbidden to needlessly destroy property?

The answer is that he tore the garment at the seam, so it could be resewn.

But if he tore it at the seam, then it might not have been a good test. Maybe he didn t get angry because he saw that no harm was done.

The answer is that Rabbah was already angry about something else. Once angry, he would not notice that the tear was at the seam.

I think we can see here that the Talmud is not comfortable with R. Huna s test of his son.