Having taught Kibud Av va'Eim and Shabbos in the Aseres ha'Dibros, why does the Torah repeat them both here?
Ramban and Moshav Zekenim: Because there it is discussing Kibud Av va'Eim and Zechiras Shabbos, 1 whilst here it is discussing Mora Av va'Eim 2 ... and Shemiras Shabbos. 3
Seforno: The Torah is teaching us here that, when honoring one's father and mother, one should not do so with an air of familiarity, 4 but with an air of awe.
Why does the Torah write "Ish" (in the singular) and then "Tira'u" (in the plural)?
Rashi #1: It is as if it said "Each of you should respect his mother and father." 1
Rashi #2: The latter comes to incorporate single women in the Mitzvah; 2 the former, to preclude married women, who are obligated to honor their husbands. 3
Ibn Ezra and Moshav Zekenim: If people see someone [transgressing fear of parents] or Shemiras Shabbos. he must force him to fulfill it.
Oznayim la'Torah: Coupled with the D'rashah 'Kulchem Chayavim bi'Chevodi' 4 - refer to 18:3:6:1 - and explains why the son should not obey a father who tells him to transgress. 5
Rashi: And the Torah writes "Ish", because, whereas even a man who is married is able to fulfil the Mitzvah, a married woman, who is subservient to her husband, is not always able to do so. See Torah Temimah, note 4, who elaborates.
See Sifsei Chachamim and Torah Temimah, note 4.
As long as they are married (Rashi in Kidushin 31a). See Torah Temimah, note 4. Riva: Even though a husband takes his wife's earnings only mi'de'Rabanan, a wife is bound to her husband, and not to her parents. Kerisos, 25a: This also explains why honoring one's father takes precedence over honoring one's mother - since 'he and his mother are both obligated to honor his father'.
See Oznayim la'Torah DH 'Ish Imo ve'Aviv' #1.
Since the Torah writes: Ish Imo ve'Aviv Tira'u", how do we know that a woman, a Tumtum and an Androginus are obligated to honor their parents?
Mechilta: Because in the Aseres ha'Dibros in Yisro, the Torah writes "Kabeid es Avicha ve'es Imecha" S'tam.
What should one do if one's father and mother present contradicting instructions?
Kerisos, 25a: One should obey one's father, because throughout the Torah (with the sole exception of the current Pasuk 1 ), the Torah mentions Av before Eim ? and the reason for this is because both mother and son are obligated to honor the father.
What is the practical difference between Mora (Av va'Eim) - here and Kavod - in the Aseres ha'Dibros?
Why does the Pasuk juxtapose Shabbos to Mora Av va'Eim?
Rashi: To teach us that if a father asks his son to break Shabbos, 1 the son is forbidden to obey him 2 - since the Torah concludes "Ani Hashem ... !" 3
Rashbam: Just as in the Aseres ha'Dibros, the Torah juxtaposes these two Mitzvos to compare the Kavod of one's parents to that of Hashem, so too does it juxtapose them here to compare the Mora of one's parents to that of Hashem. 4
Bava Metzi'a, 32a: To teach us that a son should not obey his father who is a Kohen, if he instructs him to pick up a lost article from the Beis ha'Kevaros, his father who tells him to pass by a lost article and not pck it up. 5
Rashi: Or any other Mitzvah - and it applies even if it is for his father's needs.
See also Ba'al ha'Turim.
The Gemara in Kidushin, 30b, learns this from the fact that the Torah uses the same expression by parents here as it does in Va'eschanan, Devarim 6:13, when it writes "es Hashem Elokecha Tiyra".
See Torah Temimah, notes 10 &11, as to why the ruling is obvious, seeing as the father is not 'Oseh Ma'aseh Amcha'.
Why does the Torah place the mother before the father here (regarding respect), and the father before the mother (regarding honor) in the Aseres ha'Dibros?
Rashi: Refer to Sh'mos 20:12:2:1.
Moshav Zekenim: Refer to Sh'mos 20:12:2:2.
Ibn Ezra: It mentions the mother first, since a baby recognizes his mother before his father. 1
He does not explain however, why a father is mentioned first regarding honor.
Why does the Torah add "Ani Hashem Elokeichem"?
Rashi: With reference to the previous Mitzvah (Refer to 19:3:4:1), it teaches us that the reason for this is because the father, as well as the son, are obligated to honor Hashem.
Why does the Torah here write "es Shabsosai Tishmoru," and in Ki Sisa, Sh'mos 31:16, - "ve'Shamru? es ha'Shabbos", in the reverse order?
Moshav Zekenim (Sh'mos 16:23): To teach us that Shabbos needs Shemirah beforehand - a tailor may not go outside carrying a needle close to Shabbos - and afterwards - not to benefit from Melachah done on Shabbos.
Ba'al ha'Turim, 26:2 (based on the Mechilta): One must add from Chol onto Kodesh, and observe the Isurim of Shabbos both before the official time of Shabbos arrives and after it ends..
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that it says "Tira'u" (plural) to include women. Why is this necessary, seeing as women are obligated in Mitzvas Asei she'Lo ha'Zman Gerama?
Moshav Zekenim, Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh: We need "Ish" to exclude married women, because if not for the inclusion, we would exclude all women.
Rashi writes that "Ish" excludes married women, who are obligated to honor their husbands. Granted, they cannot honor their parents, but why can they not fear (respect) them - by not sitting in ther place, not speaking on their behalf and not contradicting them - since that is what the current Pasuk is discussing?
Mizrachi: Since "Ish" is not needed to teach about fear, 1 we use it to teach about honor.
Gur Aryeh: If one does not fulfill a parent's request - to feed them, one is negting is fear. Rashi wrote that fearing is written next to Shabbos to teach us that one does not obey a command to break Shabbos - even though this is a Bitul of fear. Rashi listed matters that are only fear, and not honor.
Which she remains obligated. See Torah Temikmah, note 4.
Rashi writes that fearing is written next to Shabbos to teach us that one does not obey a father's command to break Shabbos. We should know this already, from the fact that, if the parent does not want, there is no Mitzvah. Such an Asei does not override a La'av, like we say about a rapist (in the event that the woman does not want to marry him, there is no Mitzvah, so it does not override a La'av - Kesuvos 40a)?
Moshav Zekenim citing R"Z: A father cannot forego his honor. 1
Sefier ha'Gan asked, the argument is about a Chacham, but all agree that a parent may forego his honor! Rather, he cannot forego pain (e.g. he is hungry), just like a woman who foregoes Onah, wher the Chiyuv Onah remains intact.
Rashi writes that fearing is written next to Shabbos to teach that one does not obey a father's command to break Shabbos. We should know this already, since Shabbos is an Asei and a Lo Sa'Asei, and an Asei does not override an Asei and a Lo Sa'Asei?
Riva: One might have thought that honoring parents is different, since their honor is compared to Hashem's honor. 1
Even though here we are discussing fear - Refer to 19:3:152:1 & 2, it is safe to assume that fearing them, like honoring them, is akin to fearing Hashem. Indeed, the Gemara in Kidushin, says so - based on the fact that the Torah writes here "Ish Imo ve'Aviv Tiyra'u" and in Va'eschanan, Devarim, 6:14 "es Hashem Elokeha Tiy'ra".
Rashi writes that fearing is written next to Shabbos to teach us that one does not obey a command to break Shabbos. We should know this already, since the parent is a Rasha, and just as one is permitted even to curse a Nasi Rasha, and is not obligated to honor him, so too, one's parents?
Riva: The Pasuk teaches about a parent who commanded to transgress a Sh'vus mid'Rabanan, which, one might have thought the Asei overrides.
Shulchan Aruch (YD 240:18): One must honor a parent, even if he is a Rasha. 1
Hagahos Maimonis (Hilchos Mamrim 6:12): One does not become a Rasha by merely speaking, except for inciting someone to serve idolatry.
R. Akiva Eiger (Bava Metzi'a 30a): Had the Pasuk not taught us that one does not obey, the parent would not be a Rasha, since the child would be permitted to fulfill the command!
Rashi is speaking sin a case where his father requested coffee, assuming that there is hot water available, but there was none. One might have thought that the child may then boil water if needed to fulfill the request (PF). 2
The Rema disagrees. Riva, who asked this question, holds like the Rema (PF).
Why would we have thought so, seeing as, not only would the father not have asked the child to boil water on his behalf, but he would be extremely upset if he did. Nevertheless, see Torah Temimah, note 10, who gives a similar answer citing the Ritva. See also Torah Temimah, citing Shabbos, 109a and note 11.
Rashi writes that one may not contradict his parents' words. We find that Rebbi and R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon contradicted their fathers?
Refer to Sh'mos 20:12:151:1 and note.
