Accepting abuse from parent with silence:
A. Tearing child’s clothing and shaming him in public:
One’s fear of his parents must extend to the point that even if he was wearing elegant clothing and sitting at the head of the congregation, and his father or mother came and tore his clothing, and hit him over the head, and spat at him, nonetheless, he may not [retaliate and] shame them in return, and is rather to remain quiet and fear the king of all kings which commanded him to do so [as certainly if a king of flesh and blood decreed upon him something even worse than this he would not be able to protest, and hence even more so by Hashem the creator of the world ]. [Thus, even if one’s parents were to publicly shame him in the presence of all his peers, he may not retaliate and is rather to remain quiet, fearing the G-d which commanded him to do so.]
Civil claim-Din Torah: Although one may not retaliate against his parent and shame them back, nonetheless, one may make a monetary claim against them in court if they caused him monetary damage, such as if they tore his clothing.
B. Throwing away his money:
One’s honor of his father and mother must extend to the point that even if they were to take his wallet of gold from his possession and throw it in front of him to the sea, nonetheless, he should restrain himself from embarrassing them, and he should not express any pain while in their presence, and he should not get angry at them, and is rather to accept the decree of Scripture, and remain silent.
The law by the sons wallet-May one stop his parents from throwing away his money: Some Poskim [i.e. Michaber/Sephardim] rule that the above law applies even to the sons wallet, and hence it is forbidden for the son to even try to prevent his parent, and stand in their way, from throwing the money in the sea [and rather if they do so he should simply take them to court and have the court force him to reimburse him for the loss]. However, other Poskim [Rama/Ashkenazim] rule [that the above law only applies to the fathers wallet, and] that if the son wishes, he may prevent his parent from throwing his money into the sea, as one is not obligated to respect his parent using his own money and is only obligated to do so using the money of his father, and there is no difference between honoring him or causing him pain. Nonetheless, this allowance to confront the parent only applies prior to the parent throwing the money away, as in such a case one is able to prevent the loss. However, once the money has already been thrown into the sea, then it is forbidden for one to [confront his parent and] shame him. [Furthermore, even according to the lenient opinion, if one is able to stop the father in a peaceful and pleasant manner or through an emissary, then he must do so rather than to use force. On the other hand, some Poskim rule that this prohibition to prevent the parent from throwing away the money according to the first opinion, only applies if the parent receive some benefit from throwing away the money, including extinguishing his wrath, otherwise it is permitted for his son to stop him from throwing it out for no reason.]
Taking his parents to court to reimburse him of his loss: Although one may not confront and shame his parent for destroying his money [and according to some opinions, even initially one may not stop them from throwing the money into the sea] nonetheless, one may take his parents to court to reimburse him of his monetary loss.
Protesting one’s parents from spending too much of one’s money:
This matter is dependent on the dispute recorded above regarding if a son may protest against his father throwing away his money. Practically, Ashkenazim may be lenient in this matter although are to mention the matter to their parents in a gentle way, and if necessary, through an emissary. Similarly, even Sephardim may have a calm discussion with their parents about their spending habits to try to influence them to cut down on their expenditure, if this will not cause the parent to be embarrassed or ashamed.
C. Loss of profit:
Even according to the opinion who permits a son to confront his parents in order to stop them from throwing his money into the sea, it is only permitted in this case in which a loss will occur to the current possessions of the son. However, even according to this opinion it is forbidden for the son to confront his father and stop them from causing him a loss of profit.
D. The law on the parent:
It is forbidden for a parent to overburden his children with demands and to be overparticular with their respect towards him, in order so he does not cause them to stumble. [According to the above, a parent should not make a request from his child if he knows that it will be most difficult for his child to fulfill it and will cause him much pain. A parent who knows or assesses that his child will not listen to his instructions and instructs him anyways to fulfill his wishes, transgresses the prohibition of Lifnei Iver the moment that he gives his instructions. This applies even if the child does in the end comply with the request.]
 See Michaber 240:3 and 8
 Michaber 240:3; Rambam Mamarim 6:7; Kiddushin 31a regarding story that happened with Dama the son of Nesina “Rav Dimi taught: One time [Dama Ben Nesina-Rashi] was sitting amongst the dignitaries of Rome wearing a gold garment and his mother [who was insane-Tosafus] came along and tore it from him and hit him over the head and spat in his face and he did not shame her.”; Kiddushin 32a “Rav Huna tore a silk garment in front of his son Raba Bar Rav Huna in order to test him to see if he would get angry. He did so when his son was already angry over another issue.” See Shulchan Gavoa 240:11; Pesakim Uteshuvos 240:12 and 29
 Rambam ibid
 Shach 240:4; Rama 240:8; Perisha 240:15; Beir Heytiv 240:3
 Michaber 240:8; Rambam Mamarim 6:7; Kiddushin 31b “They said to him, has your mother thrown in front of you a wallet full of money to the sea and you still held back from shaming her?” and Kiddushin 32a “Rebbe Eliezer was asked to what extent a person must honor his parent? He replied that one must honor them to the point that even if they were to take his wallet and throw it in front of him to the sea, nonetheless, he should restrain himself from embarrassing them. According to the opinion which states that the above rule would only apply if parent were throwing his own money into the sea, nonetheless the system will challenge being the son would inherit this money from his father.”; Pesakim Uteshuvos 240:29; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Kibud Av Vaeim Vol. 26 p. 403-407
 See Maharik Shoresh 166 that it refers to the wallet of the father, brought in Igros Admur 81 who mentions a dispute in this matter. In truth, this matter is debated in the Rishonim and Poskim [Michaber versus Rama], if it applies even to the wallet of the son, or only to the wallet of the father, as we will bring next IY”H.
 Implication of Michaber ibid and Rambam ibid, and so understands Shach 240:11 and Bach that the Michaber and Rambam are arguing on Rama and prohibit the son from stopping the parent; Semag Asei 112; Meiri Kiddushin 32a
 The reason: As although his son is not obligated to honor his father with his own money, and is likewise not obligated to fear his father with his own money [Rama ibid], nonetheless, he may not stop him and shame him from throwing turning away his money being that he can anyways force his father to reimburse him in court. [Shach 240:11; Bach 240; Shita Lo Noda Lemi Kiddushin ibid in name of Raavad; See Chasam Sofer Y.D. 229 in name of Maharam Melublin 136] Alternatively, this opinion holds that although one is not obligated to spend any of his own money in order to honor his parents, he must spend all of his money in order not cause them pain. [Beir Hagoleh 240:21; Beis Yosef 240; See Taz 240:17 and Ran Kiddushin 13a and Tosafus Kesubos 86a and Nekudos Hakesef on Taz ibid]
 Rama ibid; Tur 240; Maharik Shoresh 166, brought in Igros Admur 81
 Maharik Shoresh 166, brought in Igros Admur 81
 The reason: As the son is not obligated to honor his father with his own money, and is likewise not obligated to fear his father with his own money [Rama ibid] Now, although the son can force his father to pay him back in court, nonetheless, we do not force the son to trouble himself to go through the court system to get reimbursement and hence he may stop the father from throwing away his money if he wishes. [Shach 240:11; Bach 240]
 Aruch Hashulchan 240:28
 Tosafus Kiddushin 32a
 Rama 240:8
 Rama 240:8
 Michaber 240:19; Tur 240:19; Rambam Mamrim 6:8; Kiddushin 32a; Sefer Chassidim 565; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Kibud Av Vaeim Vol. 26 p. 429-430; Pesakim Uteshuvos 240:52
 See Tosafus Avoda Zara 6b; Machaneh Chaim 1:47
 Sefer Chassidim 562; See Tosafus Sanhedrin 63b; Rosh 7:3; Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Lashon Hara 9:1; Chazon Ish Y.D. 62:13
 Yad Malachi 367; Yitzchak Yiranein Hilchos Talmud Torah 6