Halakhah zu Schemot 20:11

Also it says there:²⁹⁹In Genesis Rabbah 16:8. “And He placed him [Adam] in the Garden of Eden,”³⁰⁰Gen 2:15. the Holy One Blessed be He gave Adam the commandments of Shabbat, since it is written in this verse va-yanhehu – “placed him” and in another verse “va-yanah – and He rested on the seventh day.³⁰¹Gen 2:15: va-yanhehu – literally, “caused him to rest;” Ex 20:11. In other words, the similar diction suggests, by midrashic logic, that Gen 2:15 is in fact an allusion to the rules for Shabbat in Ex 20:8-11 – part of the 10 Commandments. “To work it”³⁰²Gen 2:15. alludes to “six days shall you work”³⁰³Ex 20:9. and “to tend it” – li-shomrah – alludes to “Observe – shamor [the Sabbath day].”³⁰⁴Dt 5:12, i.e., Deuteronomy’s Shabbat commandment in its version of the 10 commandments. So ends the quotation from Genesis Rabba. And you will find in the chapter “Arvei Pesahim” of the Talmud³⁰⁵B. Pesahim 105b. that it said, “One can interrupt for Kiddush, but one does not interrupt for Havdalah. The explanation: If a person interrupts his meal on the eve of Shabbat and says birkat ha-mazon for a regular day, and afterwards says the Kiddush for Shabbat, this is “making an interruption.” But if he were eating on Shabbat and sundown came, he does not interrupt his meal, but rather, completes it. And even though he says birkat ha-mazon for Shabbat when it has become an ordinary day, it doesn’t matter, and then afterwards he makes Havdalah, which is what is meant by “one does not interrupt for Havdalah.” And the reason why is because it is proper for a person to interrupt his meal to honor the King when He enters in order to welcome Him, but on Shabbat one does not interrupt his meal for Havdalah, but rather keeps eating like a person who wants the King to stay and to delay Him from leaving his home. For were he to interrupt the meal, it would seem like he was trying to get rid of the King. And this is like what our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash in Mekhilta: “Remember and Keep!” “Remember” Shabbat at its entrance, so as to welcome it before sunset so that everything is prepared for it. “And Keep!” Keep it as it leaves, like a person watching over the king or his dear friend who is with him, and he doesn’t want him to go; he does what he can the whole time to delay him.³⁰⁶Mekhilta of R. Simon Bar Yohai, Yitro 20:8.

From the roots of this commandment are that we should remember and know that the world is created and not primordial, as it is written explicitly about the commandment of Shabbat (Exodus 20:11), "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day." Hence to remember this thing, it is fitting that we rest in one place; meaning to say that we not go to a faraway place, but rather only stroll and have delight [from our walks]. And the walking of [up to] twelve mil (the limit of what is allowed by the Torah) does not have much strain to it.

It is from the roots of this commandment [that it is] in order that we be aroused through this act to remember the greatness of the day and that we fix upon our hearts faith in the creation of the world, "that in six days the Lord made, etc." (Exodus 20:11). And therefore, we are obligated to do an act with wine - since the nature of man is to be greatly aroused by it (Berakhot 35b), as it satiates and causes joy. And I have already said to you that according to the arousal of a man and his acts will he always be acted upon towards things. And from this root did they, may their memory be blessed, say in the Gemara (Pesachim 106b), that if bread is more beloved to a person, he should sanctify [the day] over bread - since then his nature will be more aroused by that which he craves. And even though in the departure of the day, they did not say this, but rather obligated him to recite Havdalah with wine nonetheless, they were correct with this as well; since they, may their memory be blessed, as well as the perfect Torah, will always choose to go according to the majority. And in truth, the majority of the world will desire drinking over eating at the conclusion of Shabbat; since they have already [eaten] a large meal during the day in honor of the Shabbat. And there is no need to give a reason for their obligating us that there be a reviit of wine in the cup; since less than this amount is not fitting and will not arouse the heart of a man upon it. And that which they obligated us in rinsing the cup (Berakhot 51a), and not to drink anything until he recites the Kiddush (Pesachim 105a) and that he recites the Kiddush at the location of his meal - all of [these] are branches of the root of arousal that I [discussed].

It is from the roots of this commandment to affix in our hearts and make a strong impression in our minds [about] the matter of the world having been created. As (Exodus 20, 11) "in six days did God make the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day" - in which He did not create anything - He imposed rest on Himself. And in order to remove and uproot and eradicate from our thoughts the idea of the eternity [of the world] - which the deniers of the Torah believe in, through which they destroy all its principles and break through its walls - did the requirement come upon us to expend all our time, day by day and year by year, for this matter, by counting six years and resting on the seventh so that this matter will never depart from between our eyes for all time. And this is similar to the manner in which we count the days of the week [by dividing them] into six days of work and the seventh is a day of rest. Therefore, He, blessed be He, did command to render ownerless all that the land produces in this year - in addition to resting during it (i.e. during the year) - so that a person will remember that the land which produces fruits for him every year does not produce them by its [own] might and virtue. For there is a Master over it and over its master - and when He wishes, He commands him (i.e. the master of the land) to render them (i.e. the fruit) ownerless. And there is another benefit in this matter - to acquire the trait of letting go (i.e. of one's possessions), for there is no one more generous than he who gives without hope for recompense. And there is another benefit - the outcome of this is that a person will add to his trust in God, may He be blessed, since anyone who finds it in his heart to give and abandon to the world all of the produce of his lands and his ancestral inheritance for an entire year - and educates himself and his family through this for all of his days - will never have the trait of stinginess overcome him too much, nor will he have a deficient amount of trust.

Laws of Honoring Father and Mother It is a positive commandment that a person should honor his father and his mother and fear them. And he must be very careful about their honor and about their fear, since their honor is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent: As it is written (Exodus 20:11), "Honor your father and your mother"; and it is written (Proverbs 3:9), "Honor the Lord with your wealth." And regarding their fear, it is written (Leviticus 19:3), "A man shall fear his mother and his father"; and regarding the fear of the Omnipresent, it is stated (Deuteronomy 6:13), "You shall fear the Lord, your God." And the Sages said (Kiddushin 30b), "There are three partners in a person: The Holy One, blessed be He, his father and his mother [...] When a person honors his father and mother, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says, 'I ascribe credit to them as if I dwelt between them and they honored Me as well.'" With honor, He had the father precede the mother, as it is written, "Honor your father and your mother'; but with fear, He had the mother precede the father, as it is written, "A man shall fear his mother and his father" - to teach that both of them are the same, both for honor and for fear. And what is fear and what is honor? Fear: One may not stand in his place and one may not sit in his place - the explanation is in his particular place to stand amidst the council of elders with his colleagues in counsel. But the Ramah (R. Meir HaLevi Abulafia) wrote that the same is the law regarding his particular place to sit in his house. And he may not contradict his words, nor may he determine his words. And Rashi explained [that] if [his father] was disagreeing about a matter of law with someone else, he may not say, "The words of x appear [correct]." But the Ramah wrote that this is not necessary [to say], as that is contradicting his words. Rather even if the words of his father appear [correct] to him, he may not say, "The words of my father appear [correct]" - as it appears as if he is determining [the correctness of] the words of his father. However, if he has an answer to answer those that are arguing [with his father], he may answer [them]. And the Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:3): He should not call him by his name - not in his lifetime and not in his death - but he should rather say, "Father, my teacher." If his name is the same as the name of others, he should [also] change their names. And it appears to me that one only needs to be careful about this with a name that is unusual, such that not everyone uses it. But with names that all of the people call [their offspring], such as Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, Moshe and Aharon and that which is similar to them, one can use them to call others in any language and at any time and there is no [problem] with this. To here [are his words]. And that which he wrote that he should not call others whose names are the same as his father with their names is a wonder! And up to where (how extensive) is their fear? Even if one was dressed in fine clothing and sitting at the head of the community, and his father and mother came and tore his clothes, struck him on his head and spit in front of him - he should not embarrass them but rather be quiet and fear the King of the kings of kings, who commanded him about this. As if flesh and blood had decreed something that is more distressing than this upon him, he would not have [even] twitched about the matter; all the mores so, with the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. And what is honor? One gives [his parent] food and he gives him drink, and he gives it with a pleasant countenance, and he does not show him an angry face. As even if he feeds him fattened fowl every day, but he shows him an angry face, he is punished for it. And that which he gives him food and he gives him drink - that is from [the resources of] the father, if he has; but the son is not obligated to give him from his [own resources]. However if the father does not have and the son does have, we force him and he sustains the father according to what he can [afford]. But if the son does not have, he is not obligated to [knock on] doors to feed his father. But he is obligated to honor him with his body, even though through this, he [becomes] idle from his work and [then] become required to [knock on] doors. And the Ramah wrote [that this is] specifically when the son has sustenance that will sustain [himself] that day. But if he does not have [it], he is not obligated to be idle from his work and to [knock] on doors. And he should serve him in other things with which a servant serves his master. And he is obligated to honor him in the rest of his ways - in his buying and selling, and the doing of his wants. How is this? If he needs to request anything in the city and he knows that they would fulfill his request for the sake of his father - even though he knows that they would also fulfill the thing for his sake, nevertheless, he should not say, "Do this one thing for my sake," but rather, "for the sake of Father," in order to attach the honor to his father. And likewise with anything that is like this, he should include [him] in all of his words, such that he is concerned about the honor of his father and his fear. However if he knows that they will not fulfill his [request] for the sake of his father, he should request [it] for his own sake and not for the sake of his father, as it would only be a disgrace for him - since they will not do it for his sake. And one is obligated to stand before him. The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:3) [that] a father who is the student of his son - the father does not stand before the son. And not only that, but the son must stand before his father, even though he is his student. And my master, my father the Rosh, may his memory blessed, wrote that each one must stand before the other. And up to where (how extensive) is honor? Even if [the parent] takes his purse full of coins and throws it to the sea in front of him, he should not embarrass him. And the Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:7) [that it is] even if he threw the purse of the son to the sea. But RI explained that according to that which we decide that he need not honor him from his [own resources], if he throws the son's purse, he may prevent him. Rather [the Talmud's case] is saying with the purse of his father, he may not embarrass him in order to prevent him, even though he will inherit it. The Ramah wrote that which the son can embarrass the father with his [own] purse is only before he threw it to the sea, as it is possible that he will be prevented and not throw it. But after he throws it, it is forbidden to embarrass him; as what has happened, has happened. So now when he is silent, it is honor that does not involve financial loss, so he is obligated about it. But it is permissible to make a claim against him in court. He is obligated to honor him even after his death. How is that? If he says a matter he heard from his mouth, he should not say, "So said Father, my teacher." Rather, he should say, "So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting." To what does this apply? Within twelve months [of his death]. But after twelve months, when he mentions him, he says: May his memory be for a blessing." The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:10), "If one's father or mother has become mentally insane, he should make an effort to behave toward them according to their state of mind until they will be shown mercy. But if it is impossible for him to stand [it], because they have become utterly insane, he may leave them and go away, charging others to take proper care of them." But the Ravaad wrote, "This is not a correct ruling - if he leaves them and goes away, who will he command to watch them?" If one saw that his father was transgressing a Torah matter, he should not say to him, "You transgressed a Torah matter." Rather, he should say to him, "Father, such and such is written in the Torah." And from his reminding him, he will understand on his own and will not be embarrassed. If his father said to him, "Give me water to drink," and there was another commandment before him to do: If it is possible for the commandment to be done by others, he leaves it for others to do and occupies himself with the honor of his father. But if there are not others there to do it, he should occupy himself with the commandment and leave the honor of his father, since he and his father are obligated by the commandment. Torah study is greater than honoring father and mother. If his father said to him, "Give me water to drink"; and his mother said to him, "Give me water to drink," he leaves the honor of his mother and occupies himself with the honor of his father, since his mother is also obligated in honoring his father. But if they are divorced - such that she is not obligated in his honor - then both of them are the same, to honor them one like the other. If his father said to him to transgress a Torah matter - whether he says to him to transgress a negative commandment or he says to him to negate (not do) a positive commandment, even a [rabbinic] commandment - he should not listen to him. And my master, my father the Rosh wrote in a responsum [that] if the father commands his son not to speak with x, such the he should not forgive him for what he did to him until a set time; whereas the son wants to appease him, except that he is concerned about his father's command, he should not be concerned about his father's command. As it is forbidden to hate any person unless he saw him sinning. And [that] the father commanded him to hate; it is not in his power to make him transgress a Torah matter! And it is the same with a man or a woman - they are the same regarding the honor and fear of father and mother. However a man has [the wherewithal] in his hands to do [it], whereas a woman does not have [the wherewithal] in her hands to do [it], since the authority of others (her husband) is upon her. Therefore if she is divorced or widowed, they are both the same. The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:11) [that] a mamzer (someone born of a forbidden union) is obligated in honoring his father and his mother and in their fear, even though he is exempt about hitting them and cursing them until they repent. Even if one's father is wicked and sinful, he must honor him and fear him. But it appears to me that since he is wicked, he is not obligated to honor him. [It is] as we say (Bava Kamma 94b) concerning [those] whose father left them a stolen cow, [that] they are obligated to return [it] for the honor of their father. And it asked, "Behold, he does not do the deeds of your people" - its explanation is, so they are [for that reason] not obligated to honor him. And it answers, "When he repented." Therefore the whole time he has not repented, they are not obligated to honor him. Even though a person is obligated to fear his father and his mother greatly, it is forbidden [for the parent] to make his yoke heavy upon his children and to be exacting with them about his honor, so as not to bring them to an obstacle. Rather he should forgive and avert his eyes from them; since when a father foregoes his honor, his honor is forgiven. And they would excommunicate someone who strikes his adult son; as behold, he is transgressing, "you shall not put an obstacle in front of the blind" (Leviticus 19:14). A person is obligated to honor the wife of his father - even though she is not his mother - so long as his father is alive; and he is obligated to honor his mother's wife, so long as his mother is alive. But after [the blood relative's death], he is not obligated in their honor. Nevertheless, it is a commandment to honor them, even after the death. A person is obligated in the honor of his older brother like the honor of his father. And he is obligated to honor his father in law, as it is written (that David said to Shaul in I Samuel 24:12), "My father, my father, see and see."