Comentario sobre Levítico 19:3

איש אמו ואביו תראו means, EVERYONE OF YOU SHALL FEAR HIS MOTHER AND HIS FATHER; this is the literal sense. The Halachic explanation of the verse, however, is as follows: Since Scripture says איש I have here only the law that a man must fear his father and his mother, whence do I know that this applies also to a woman? Because Scripture states תיראו (in the plural), it is evident therefore that it speaks here of two (man and woman). But if this be so (that Scripture means to include a woman also) why does it use the term איש, a man? Because it is the man who has the means to do it, whilst the woman is under the control of others (what she does is dependent upon her husband’s consent)(Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 3; Kiddushin 30b).

The Torah now begins to explain in detail the commandment to honour father and mother, by writing that everyone is to relate with reverence to his mother and father respectively. These words teach that in addition to providing for aged and economically unstable parents with food, drink and clothing, the children (adults by then) must not look down on their parents who in the meantime have become economically dependent on their children. Our sages spelled this out in Kidushin 31 where they said: “sometimes someone feeds his father the most delicious and expensive dishes while the manner in which he does this contributes to the son’s losing his share in the hereafter, whereas on the other hand, a son could earn his share in the hereafter even by expecting his father to perform physically hard labour.” In the latter case, the son explains to the father lovingly why he cannot offer him luxuries but he treats him with love and concern and listens to his father’s words of advice. Having dealt with the implications of the fifth of the Ten Commandments, the Torah now turns to the fourth of the Ten Commandments, that of Sabbath observance, and writes:

איש אמו ואביו תיראו, "Each one of you shall fear his mother and father." The reason the Torah wrote this commandment next to the commandment to be holy is also related to the legislation about forbidden sexual unions. Our sages in Sotah 36 interpret Genesis 49,24: "and his arms were made firm by the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob" as a reference to how his father's image helped save Joseph from the temptation he experienced at the hands of the wife of Potiphar. At the critical moment, when Mrs Potiphar grabbed hold of Joseph's tunic, he saw a vision of his father's face outside the window. This caused him to resist the advances of Mrs Potiphar and to leave the tunic in her hand and flee her presence. According to the Talmud, Joseph's semen escaped via his hands instead of via his male organ, etc. I have heard it said in the name of Kabbalists (Kav Hayashar chapter 2) that the image of one's father's face strengthens the forces of sanctity within his son and helps him resist becoming a victim to temptation involving sexual abominations. The reason the Torah speaks about "his mother and his father you shall fear," at this juncture close to chapter 18 is that anyone in the throes of carnal temptation should summon up the image of his parents before his eyes. He will find that this will help him resist the temptation.

ואת שבתותי תשמורו, just as in the Ten Commandments the command to honour parents appeared next to the commandment to observe the Sabbath, honouring parents is almost on a par with honouring the Creator Himself, the Torah placed these two commandments next to one another here too. This is the plain meaning of the text.

איש אמו ואביו תיראו, ”everyone is to revere his mother and his father.” Whereas in the Ten Commandments the Torah demands that one honour one’s parents, there the demand to honour one’s father precedes the demand to honour one’s mother. The Torah continues:

Each one of you. Rashi is answering the question: “Man” is the singular [form], but תיראו is the plural form?

איש אמו ואביו תיראו, “everyone is to revere his mother and father.” Whereas in the parallel commandment in the Ten Commandments, the father is mentioned first, here the mother is mentioned first; the reason is that a baby becomes familiar with his mother before it becomes familiar with his father. When it comes to the observance of the laws governing the Sabbath, and how it is to be observed, the father is addressed first as it is he who has to train his young sons in observing it.

אמו ואביו תיראו EVERYBODY OF YOU SHALL FEAR HIS MOTHER AND HIS FATHER — Here Scripture mentions the mother before the father because it is manifest to Him that the child fears the father more than the mother and therefore by mentioning the mother first Scripture stresses the duty of fearing her. In the case of honoring one's parents, however, Scripture mentions the father before the mother because it is manifest to Him that the child honors the mother more than the father because she endeavors to win him over by kindly words. Therefore by mentioning the father first Scripture emphasizes the duty of honoring him (Kiddushin 30b - Kiddushin 31a).

ואת שבתותי תשמורו, words which do not only refer to the Sabbath of Creation, but to a variety of “Sabbath” legislations such as the “Sabbath” of the land known as sh’mittah, as well as the Sabbath of “money,” i.e. the demand for the lender to forego repayment of past due debts by the debtor at the end of the sh’mittah year. Al these types of “Sabbath” legislation are testimony to the fact that the Creator Who legislates such laws was the originator of the universe, hence His right to demand such obeisances from His creatures.

את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbath days.” Comparison with the Ten Commandments shows that the emphasis was on ”remembering” the Sabbath, not on observing it, i.e. not to violate the restrictions in one’s activities that apply on the Sabbath.

Two are [implied]. If so, why is “man” mentioned? You might ask: We say that Scripture equates woman to man (Kiddushin 35a) [and therefore “man” implies women as well]? The answer is: This only applies where Scripture writes a masculine expression, but where it writes “man,” women are excluded unless there is an inclusive expression. A concept similar to this we find in Tosfos (Sanhedrin 66a). I found this.

We also have a hint here that if someone indulges in forbidden sex he shames the honour of his father. This is why the Torah wrote the commandment to fear mother and father so close to the legislation dealing with fordidden sex. In other words, indulgence in forbidden sex is equivalent to a violation of the commandment to fear one's mother and father. The parents would curse a son who commits such an act because they feel ashamed to have brought such a son into the world. This is also the reason the mother is mentioned here first as she feels the shame more deeply than her husband. Solomon explained this in Proverbs 10,1 when he wrote: "and a foolish son is his mother's sorrow." [The "foolishness" of the son is that he was invaded by a spirit of foolishness else he would not have committed the sin. See commentary of Alshich on that verse, my translation page 179. Ed.]

The essence of Sabbath observance is to imitate G-d the Creator, Who took time out on that day. The commandment to observe the Sabbath as a holy day of rest appears in the Ten Commandments immediately prior to the commandment to honour one’s parents. One of the reasons that the commandment to observe the Sabbath appears before that of obeying one’s parents, is to remind us that when the parents’ orders conflict with G-d’s commandments, the commandment to honour one’s parents by desecrating the Sabbath is automatically overruled. One might at first glance have thought that it was not necessary for the Torah to make this point, as we have a rule that a positive commandment, which generally is considered as overriding a negative commandment, does not do so when the negative commandment had also been expressed as positive commandment, as is the case with the commandment to observe the Sabbath, in the first set of the Ten Commandments. Someone might have interpreted the line of את ה' מהונך כבד, “honour the Lord by using part of your wealth,” (Proverbs 3,9) as imposing limits on the fulfillment of that commandment when compared to honouring one’s parents where no such limiting factor is built in. These arguments are discussed in the Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia, folio 32. This still leaves the possible argument that the commandment to honour high ranking individuals, i.e. political heads etc., has been provided with an escape clause when the Torah wrote in Exodus 22,27: ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, “and do not curse a high ranking political figure amongst your people,” where the prefix letter ב implies that this commandment only applies to such figures as long as they conduct themselves as upstanding citizens of your people. This could have been applied to a father and mother who do not observe the laws of the Torah as not deserving your respect. Our Rabbis therefore limited the need to disregard parents’ commanding their children to disregarding orders to disregard Biblical prohibitions of the Sabbath, but to carry out orders from father or mother of requests which “only” violate Rabbinical restrictions. (This last paragraph does not appear in the handwritten manuscripts of the author.)

ואת שבתתי תשמרו AND MY SABBATHS SHALL YE KEEP — Scripture places the commandment of observing the Sabbath immediately after that of fearing one’s father in order to suggest the following: “Although I admonish you regarding the fear due to your father, yet if he bids you: "Desecrate the Sabbath", do not listen to him” — and the same is the case with any of the other commandments. This, it is evident, is the meaning since Scripture adds —

But a woman is under the control of others. You might ask: If so, why does the Torah include a woman? The answer is: [To include] a divorced woman or a widow, for example, who is not under the control of others.

Having appreciated this, we can now understand why the second half of our verse speaks about the need to observe the Sabbath legislation. The Zohar volume 2 page 277 and volume 3 page 301 explains that the seven days of the week were allocated to seven righteous people. [They are identical with the seven "guests" we welcome in our Sukkah, a different one each day. Ed.] According to the Zohar Chadash at the beginning of Parshat Toldot the Sabbath was allocated to Joseph. He represents the mystical dimension of peace. This is the reason we greet each other with the greeting שבת שלום on the Sabbath. It is also the reason that we re-phrase the conclusion of the prayer השכיבנו on Friday nights by adding the words "spread over us the the tabernacle (shelter) of Your peace, etc." Joseph earned his title "the righteous" because he preserved the covenant G'd had concluded with all Jews through the circumcision when He put the stamp of that holy covenant on our very flesh. When the Torah speaks of "My Sabbath days" in the plural, it refers to two dimensions of the Sabbath. The first is the generally accepted meaning of the word, i.e. the need to observe the Sabbath itself. The second is the need not to defile the holy covenant of the circumcision. Actually, both commandments are merely two sides of the same coin, so to speak. This is the reason that both circumcision and the Sabbath are referred to in the Torah as אות, a visible sign. The Sabbath is called אות in Exodus 31,13, whereas the circumcision is called אות in Genesis 17,11. The two commandments are different when it comes to their performance as an activity; [Sabbath is repetitive for instance, commitment having to be renewed weekly, whereas circumcision is once in a lifetime, and other differences, Ed.] from a passive point of view, i.e. the spiritual credit accruing to people observing these commandments both are so similar as to be considered one. Anyone who actively observes either one of these commandments confers the benefit of both commandments on his soul. This is why the Torah speaks of שבתתוי.

אני ה' אלהיכם “I am the Lord your God" (the plural) — both you and your father are equally bound to honour Me! Do not therefore obey him if it results in making My words of no effect (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 10; Bava Metzia 32a). — What is implied in the term מורא? That one should not sit in his (the father's) seat, nor speak in his stead (i. e. when he is expected to speak), nor contradict his words. And what is implied in the term כבוד? That the child gives the parents to eat and to drink, provides them with clothes and shoes, leads them into the room and out if they are infirm (Kiddushin 31b).

שמשדלתו. Explanation: She wins him over [lit. seduces him] as Targum translates כי יפת, “If a man seduces” (Shemos 22:15), ארי ישדל.

ואביו תיראו, "and fear your (his) father." Torat Kohanim draws attention to the fact that whereas here the Torah mentions the mother first, the father is mentioned first in the Ten Commandments where the Torah commands us to "honour your father and your mother." The reason the Torah varies the order is to teach us that both father and mother are of equal importance; however, the father takes precedence over the mother when it is impossible to accord honour to both simultaneously seeing that both father and mother (wife) are obligated to honour the father i.e. husband. The Baraitha in Kidushin 31 also deals with this subject: Rabbi said "it is clear to G'd that it is natural for a son to honour his mother more than his father, and that it is natural for a son to fear his father more than his mother. This is why G'd mentioned the need to honour one's father before He mentioned the need to honour one's mother, and He mentioned the need to fear one's mother before He mentioned the need to fear one's father." I have difficulties with both the reasoning underlying the exegesis of Torat Kohanim and that of Rabbi in the Talmud. If we really think about these two verses we will find that the Torah gave more weight to the father in both. In the Ten Commandments the word "father" appears next to the word "honour." In our verse the word "you shall fear" also appears next to the word "his father." It is a fact that our sages follow the above-mentioned method of Rabbi on numerous occasions in their exegesis. If it were not for the fact that the exegesis is designed to teach us a halachah, I would not hesitate to accept this interpretation as we are entitled to use the method used by Rabbi. Our sages did not mind as long as a departure from their rules did not result in a הלכה which is contrary to our tradition. In this instance, however, there would result a difference in the הלכה, i.e. that if we accept the above exegesis the father would not take precedence in situations where there are conflicting claims on the son's sense of respect for either parent. If you accept our interpretation, for instance, if both mother and father ask the son to give them some water to drink, the son would have to give first to his father based on both interpretations. If, however, father and mother were divorced so that the mother (ex-wife) no longer is obligated to honour her (ex) husband, according to our interpretation the son would be obligated to first give water to his father, whereas according to both the Talmud and Torat Kohanim the son would have the choice whose request he wanted to honour first. In fact, the Talmud presents the scenario of the son of a widowed mother asking Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua: "what is the הלכה if father and mother are divorced and they both want to be given water? The answer given by Rabbi Eliezer was to put a bowl of water at the disposal of both father and mother so both can help themselves from it. It is apparent that Rabbi Eliezer felt that father and mother are absolutely equal as far as the son's obligation to honour them is concerned.

Are obligated. Rashi is answering the following question: Why do we explain that the verses are juxtaposed to teach that even though I warned you regarding the fear of one’s father and mother, this does not push aside Shabbos? Rashi says the opposite in parshas Vayakhel (Shemos 35:2), that whatever is mentioned first in the verse is the more important as he says there. And here since the fear of one’s father and mother precedes Shabbos, perhaps fear of one’s father and mother should push aside Shabbos? In addition, how can Rashi say, “And so it is in regard to all the other mitzvos”? Perhaps only Shabbos is not pushed aside because of its severity that it includes a positive commandment and a negative commandment, whereas other mitzvos would be pushed aside by [fear of one’s] father and mother? Therefore Rashi explains: “’I am Adonoy your God.’ You and your father [are obligated to honor Me].”

It is possible that this is based on a further piece of exegsis we find in Torat Kohanim on this verse. Here is the quotation: "The Torah writes איש אמו ואביו תיראו. From the word איש I know only that the duty to fear mother and father applies to males. How do I know it also applies to females? This is why the Torah wrote the word תיראו in the plural. If so, why did the Torah commence the verse with the word איש? Answer: "Usually the man is free to observe this commandment whereas most women are preoccupied with carrying out prior commitments." Thus far Torat Kohanim. According to this last Baraitha the word איש is restrictive and excludes women when it comes to paying honour to father and mother [seeing the Torah does not use such phraseology in the Ten Commandments, Ed.] though the word תיראו (pl) had included women when it comes to displaying fear, i.e. respect for both mother and father. We may now extrapolate that as far as honouring the mother is concerned the Torah imposed this duty primarily on the man. Seeing the Torah had already done this explicitly in the Ten Commandments, this directive may now be used to teach us something different though related. It teaches that as far as honouring either father or mother is concerned the mother is to take precedence when it is impossible to honour both father and mother simultaneously. All of this is an argument to explain why the Baraitha in Torat Kohanim wrote as it did. According to the view expressed by Rabbi in Kidushin 31 which explained why the Torah mentioned the father as being the subject of honour prior to mentioning the mother we are still left with a problem. Perhaps the fact that the explanation of Rabbi is homiletical in nature makes it unnecessary to resolve the problem, seeing no הלכה is involved. After all, both mother and father are to be feared. We do not need much of an ambiguity in the Torah to permit us to draw conclusions of a homiletical nature.

{To] honor Me. You might ask: In this parshah “honor” is not written, only “fear.” Also, Rashi previously explained the reason why “man” is mentioned is because it is in a man’s [power to do]. Rashi apparently means to say that this parshah is discussing “honor” for the expression “in one’s power” and “not in one’s power” does not pertain to “fear.” The answer is that before, a woman is included to “fear” for תיראו, is written [in the plural form]. Nonetheless, a man’s obligation is greater than a woman’s because Scripture uses the term “man” [איש], as Rashi previously explained. And if it cannot be applied to “fear” because the expression “in one’s power” and “not in one’s power” does not pertain to “fear,” then apply it to “honor.” The expression “not in one’s power” definitely does not pertain to “honor” for a woman is under the control of others.

It is also possible that the sages of the Baraitha did not feel that the position of the word "father" in relation to the directive was of consequence when we have to decide which of the two (father or mother) are entitled to precedence in a situation when both claim the honour due to them at the same time. The reason is that the Torah was forced to mention the two parties consecutively and could not mention them simultaneously. As a result, they assumed that whoever was mentioned first in the verse is the one vis-a-vis whom the particular duty described devolves first. It follows that if it is a matter of honour the father has to be shown honour first; if it is a matter of fear the mother has to be shown respect first, whenever it is impossible to do so simultaneously. The reason the word תיראו is written at the end of the verse is to show that the law also applies to women.

He may not sit in his place. Some explain that this includes any place that is especially [reserved] for him in the house. And some explain that this is the special place he has [when he sits] with the elders.

There is another reason why the Torah commences with addressing an individual whereas at the end of the verse it addresses several people, at least. The Torah hints that if a son demonstrates that he respects his own father, the chances are that his son in turn will also show respect for him. You may attribute this to the principle we wrote about in connection with Genesis 49,3 that the roots of sanctity and impurity respectively are found in the mind of the father when he engages in marital intercourse in order to fulfil the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply. His spiritual input at that critical time will be reflected in the spiritual level of the child that is born from a union based on lofty ideals. Alternatively, the matter is psychological. When a son observes that his father belittles his grandfather or grandmother, he in turn will not feel the inclination to show respect or honour to his own father or mother. On the other hand, when a son observes that his father treats his grandfather with great respect, he in turn will be in awe of his father. As a result of such considerations the fulfilment of one act of reverence will lead to the fulfilment of two (or more) acts of reverence spanning at least two generations. This is reflected in the Torah's use of the word תיראו in the plural at the end of our verse. The Torah wrote the word at the end of the verse [not like כבד את אביך at the beginning of the verse in the Ten Commandments, Ed.] to show that one act of respect will eventually produce more acts of respect. This is a perfect illustration of what our sages in Avot 4,2 described as מצוה גוררת מצוה, that the fulfilment of one מצוה brings another in its wake.

Nor speak in his place. Such as when the elders are speaking one after the other. When his time comes to speak, his son should not speak in his place.

Yet another way of explaining our verse is based on a ruling in Tur item 240 where the author rules as follows: "I believe that inasmuch as the father demonstrated that he is wicked by not honouring or respecting his father, the son (grandson) is not obligated to show honour to a wicked father. We base this ruling on Baba Kama 94 where the Talmud rules that if a father bequeathed a stolen cow to his children the latter have to return it to the party from whom it was stolen as part of the commandment to honour their father. The Talmud challenges this ruling saying that seeing the father had placed himself outside the circle of Torah observing Jews by stealing, the son is not bound by the commandment "honour your father?" The Talmud answers that the case under consideration was one where the father had done תשובה, had repented. We see from here that the author of the Tur holds that unless one had seen the father repent we do not merely assume that he had done so and we would not accord him the honour our verse calls for. [The whole exemption of someone from the law of honouring father and mother is based on the word בעמך in Exodus 22,27 that one must not curse a prince. The word בעמך IS considered a restrictive clause, i.e. the law applies only if the prince acts in accordance with Torah tradition. Ed.] According to the above we have to read our verse as follows: "a man must display respect for his mother and father provided the man (his own father) conducts himself with his own father and mother in accordance with what the Torah demands." This is the reason תיראו, that you must accord them respect. If, however, a father slighted his father or mother, the son is free from the obligation our verse imposes upon him. The words אמו ואביו, "his mother and his father" refer back to the word איש who is perceived as the man who begot the son in question.

And what is honor? He provides food... You might ask: Why does Rashi say this here [at the end of the verse]? He should have explained it above [where the verse said, “A man — you shall fear his mother and father”]? Also, he should have explained this in parshas Vayishma Yisro [where honoring parents is mentioned in the Ten Commandments]? The answer is: Without this explanation [that honoring parents does not push aside mitzvos], I would think fear includes that even if he told you to desecrate Shabbos, you should listen to him and desecrate it. And so with all the mitzvos, if he tells you to transgress them you are obligated to listen to him and transgress them. And honor, which is written elsewhere, means to not sit in his place etc. But now that Rashi explains that fear of one’s father and mother does not push aside the mitzvos, we are forced to say that fear means to not sit in his place. If so, what is honor? He answers, “He provides food...”

In my book פרי תואר I upheld the words of Maimonides on this subject who holds that one may assume that one's father had repented even if one did not have direct evidence of this. Maimonides bases this on Kidushin 49 where the Talmud discusses someone betrothing a woman on the assumption that he is a righteous person. If the individual in question had been known to have violated Torah commandments in the past we nonetheless assume that he would not have made such a statement unless he had repented previous mistakes. We have therefore repudiated the argument advanced by the Tur. How could we assume that the father mentioned in Baba Kama had become a penitent seeing he himself had not returned the stolen cow? Where there is no circumstantial evidence that the father who was a sinner had not repented, I assume that he had and his son is therefore duty-bound to observe the legislation presented in our verse. Our words that the son is free from the obligation to honour his father when his own father is still actively engaged in belittling his (own) father are absolutely correct as we then have no reason to assume that the father in question had repented. Such a father is no better than the father who bequeathed a stolen cow to his children in the example in Baba Batra.

Another way of looking at this plural form of the word תיראו is that it addresses the father himself. If the father behaved in a manner which is sinful, he would become guilty of violating the commandment not to put an obstacle before a blind man, i.e. not to cause his son to become guilty of neglect of the commandment legislated in our verse by making himself unworthy of being respected by his own son.

ואת שבתותי תשמדו, "and observe My Sabbath days." Our sages in Baba Metzia 32 ask: "Whence do we know that if a father orders his son to desecrate the Sabbath, etc., that the son is not obligated to do his father's bidding?" Answer: "It says איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמרו, that the commandment to respect one's father is premised on one's observing G'd's Sabbath days." G'd reminds us that He is the One whom both the father and the son have to honour." Thus far the Talmud. From the comparison of "you and your father are obligated to honour Me," it is clear that the example of the Sabbath in our verse is only just that i.e. that a son must not violate any of the Torah laws even when it results in his declining to respect his father's halachically illegal request. Why did the Torah choose to describe Sabbath observance, a law whose violation is punishable by death, as the example for G'd's laws taking precedence over a father's demands when it could have made the same point by writing the commandment to respect one's father next to the law to restore someone's lost property, for instance? Moreover, there was no need to add the words "I am the Lord your G'd?" How does this add to our case? Everybody knows that G'd's laws take precedence over man's law, i.e. the father's authority over his son.

I believe we can explain all this in light of what Maimonides wrote in Hilchot Mamrim chapter 5. Here is what he wrote: "If someone's father or mother are absolute sinners it is still a punishable offence for their son to physically abuse them." All the codifiers conclude from this that all that is forbidden is physical abuse of one's parents in such a case; however, the son or daughter does not have to accord such parents any honour or respect. I have raised this problem in my commentary on Yore Deyah when dealing with Maimonides' view in connection with what he wrote in chapter 7 of Hilchot Mamrim that according to my understanding Maimonides' ruling applies only if the father was guilty of transgressions לתאבון, because he had trouble controlling his evil urge and he sinned only occasionally. In our case we talk about a habitual sinner; this is why Maimonides in chapter 5 made sure to use the wording רשע גמור, "a confirmed sinner," instead of simply writing: "a sinner." I believe that the term "confirmed sinner, רשע גמור, is applicable to people who habitually violate any commandment that presents itself for them to observe. A son is totally absolved of the commandment to honour or respect father and mother when he has the misfortune to have such a רשע גמור as his father. Our verse addresses such a situation when it writes: איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמרו. The last three words refer to the duty of both generations to observe G'd's commandments. The reason the Torah chose the example of the Sabbath to illustratte its point is because Sabbath-observance is equivalent to total Torah-observance as we know from Shemot Rabbah 25,12.

One may also approach the moral-ethical allusions contained in this verse as evident from the plural שבתותי as opposed to the Torah's custom to speak about the Sabbath in the singular. Our sages in Shabbat 69 explain the plural to mean that in certain cases the non-observance of many work-prohibitions over a period of numerous Sabbaths may be viewed as a sin which requires only a single sin-offering to atone for it. This is so when the person in question was unaware of a Sabbath legislation at all. The Zohar part 2 page 5 understands the plural to refer to the two parts of each Sabbath, i.e. night and day. This had to be stated as the Torah requires us to separately sanctify (קדוש) both Friday night and Sabbath morning. We know that the sanctity of the night is not of the same level as the sanctity of the day; had the Torah not spoken of "My Sabbath-days" in the plural we would not have known that we had to sanctify also the evening. Our mystical literature views the sanctity of the Sabbath evening as in the nature of the light to which a bride relates, the שמר aspect of the Sabbath. The sanctity of the Sabbath morning is viewed as a supernatural light one which surpasses the intensity of the light at night, something to which the bridegroom relates, i.e. the זכור aspect of the Sabbath. Kabbalists are familiar with these concepts. This is why the Zohar volume 2 page 88 compares the Sabbath evening meal to the apples from a holy piece of earth, whereas when one partakes of the meal of the Sabbath day it is considered comparable to dining at G'd's own table. This is the reason that the sages called the קדוש sanctification of the Sabbath we recite by day, by the name קדושא רבא, "the major sanctification" (compare Pessachim 106). [Interestingly, the Talmud relates this to prove that on Sabbath morning the קדוש consists of reciting only the benediction over wine without the addition of any paragraph from the Torah. Ed.] I have also found at the end of the Shulchan Aruch of the Ari Zal that he relates that during the period of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah someone erred by writing that the Sabbath is different from all other days in that the day precedes the night. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah became aware of this writer's error by some miracle (not having seen the text or heard about it) and he succeeded in preventing publication of this work. In his book אגרת שבת, the Ari Zal explains the words of our verse as follows in order to prove that the writer who believed the day precedes the night in the case of the Sabbath erred. The Torah mentioned the mother before the father and equated the commandment to respect mother and father to the commandment to observe the Sabbath days. The reason that the Torah wrote איש אמו ואביו תיראו mentioning the mother before the father is to establish a linkage with the words ואת שבתותי תשמרו, the word ואת referring to the preceding evening whereas the word שבתותי refers to the daytime. The Torah hints that we need to recite קדוש also at night, a period compared to the feminine attribute (אמו) as well as by day the period compared to the masculine attribute (אביו). The reason that both commandments appear in the same verse side by side then is to compare the order of precedence of the parts of the Sabbath to the order of precedence of the two parents; the night i.e. the feminine attribute precedes the day, the masculine attribute.