Parent is a Rasha-Must one honor a parent who is a Rasha?
The dispute: Some Poskim rule that one is obligated to honor and fear his father [and mother] even if his father [or mother] is a [habitual] Rasha and big Baal Aveiros [i.e. transgressor]. Other Poskim, however, rule that one is not obligated to honor his father [and mother] if his father [or mother] is a [habitual] Rasha [and was rebuked for doing so and is not considered a Tinok Shenishba], unless he has performed Teshuvah. [This applies whether he transgresses a positive or negative command. This, however, only applies if the parent is a habitual transgressor and not if he simply transgressed once. Likewise, it only applies if the parent transgresses a Biblical prohibition or command, and not by a transgression of a rabbinical prohibition. Likewise, this only applies if the parent has yet to repent, however, if there is circumstantial evidence that leans to support the fact the parent did Teshuvah, then he is no longer a Rasha and must be respected. Likewise, this only applies if the parent is not considered a Tinok Shenishba, otherwise one is obligated to respect him. For all practical purposes, almost all nonreligious Jews today fall under this category as will be explained the Q&A.]
The final ruling: Practically, one is to follow the former opinion which obligates one to honor his parents even if they are habitual transgressors. However, the above is only applicable if the parent sins due to ignorance or due to not overcoming his personal lusts. However, if the parent is a Mumar Lehachis who recognizes his creator [and is thus not a Tinok Shenishba] and purposely rebels against him, then even according to the first opinion, there is no need to respect him and it is even forbidden to do so. Furthermore, one may be lenient in a case where it is possible that the transgressing parent is doing so Lehachis, relying on the second opinion above. Furthermore, even in the case that the parent is transgressing out of lust, one is not obligated to honor him after his death.]
Shaming and causing pain to one’s parent: According to all opinions, one may not cause pain to one’s parents even if they are a Rasha, and one is thus only exempt from honoring them according to the lenient opinion brought the above. [Accordingly, certainly one may not shame his parents even if they are a Rasha. The Zohar states that Rachel was punished for stealing her father’s idols and causing him pain even though her to her intent was to save him from idolatry. Some Poskim, however, rule that this prohibition is only against actively shaming or causing pain to one’s parent, however one is not obligated to actively prevent shame or pain from occurring to such a parent who is a Rasha, and he may choose to remain passive.]
The status of a Tinok Shenishba and today’s non-religious Jews:
Background: The concept of a Tinok Shenishba is recorded in the Talmud and Rishonim, and is defined as a person who is an Apikores in his belief system or a Mumar in his Torah observance, but does not receive the halachic definition and severity of an Apikores and Mumar, and is hence not to be treated like an Apikores, being that he cannot be blamed for his heretical beliefs and behaviors. Now, for the definition of who enters into this category of people who cannot be blamed for their heretical beliefs, we find many levels, as well as debates amongst the Poskim. The most basic definition of a Tinok Shenishba, which is not under debate, is a child who has been brought up in a home of heresy. Now, while the above definition of Tinok Shenishba certainly applies so long as the child does not even know that he’s really Jewish, it is debated in the Rishonim and Poskim whether it still applies even after he discovers his Jewish identity. Some Poskim rule that once the Tinok Shenishba is made aware of his Jewish identity and of the Jewish people and their observance of Torah and Mitzvos, then if he still continues in his ways of nonobservance, then he loses the status of a Tinok Shenishba and is considered like a regular Apikores. Other Poskim, however, rule that he continues to be considered a Tinok Shenishba even after he discovers his Jewish identity and the Jewish religion. Practically, the main opinion follows this latter approach. Furthermore, even according to the dissenting opinion which holds that they are considered like heretics, the level of exposure that is necessary for them to leave their status of Tinok Shenishba, is so high that today there virtually no longer exists any Apikorosim, even if a child was brought up observant and then went off the Derech. Furthermore, even if this level of exposure has been reached, the person retains the status of a Tinok Shenishba until he is properly given reproof for his mistaken ways, and hence since today people no longer know how to give reproof even if they try, therefore almost all nonreligious Jews today retain the status of a Tinok Shenishba.
The practical law by todays non-frum Jews and the law of Kibbud Av Vaeim: Based on the above, the final ruling follows that most if not all nonreligious Jews today are defined as a Tinok Shenishba, and hence a child is obligated in respecting his nonreligious parents even according to the lenient opinion above. Nonetheless, some Poskim are lenient in this matter even today and rule that a child does not have to respect his non-observant parents any more than acceptable in the secular world. However, even according to this opinion, he nonetheless remains obligated to respect his nonobservant parents to the same level expected in the secular world in order not to cause a desecration of G-d’s name and have them remorse even more the fact that the child became observed. Likewise, according to all opinions it is forbidden to shame them or cause them pain as explained above.
 Pesakim Uteshuvos 240:49; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Kibud Av Vaeim Vol. 26 p. 410-415
 Michaber 240:18; Tur 240 in name of Rambam; Rambam Mamarim 6:11; Mishneh Yevamos 22a; Sanhedrin 85b; Rif Yevamos 5a; Rosh Yevamos 2:3; Bach 240; Stam opinion in Chayeh Adam 67:18; Kitzur SHU”A 143:9; Kesav Sofer Y.D. 171; Ben Ish Chaiy Shoftim 2:19; Derech Pikudecha Mitzvah 33; Likkutei Sichos 5:309; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 543
 The reason: As perhaps one’s parent will repent and hence one is still obligated in his honor. [Radbaz on Rambam Mamarim 6:11] A proof for this opinion can be brought from the Midrash which states that people would have complained about Avraham that he did not honor his father, even though his father was a Rasha . [Bach ibid, brought in Likkutei Sichos 5:310]
 Rama 240:18; Tur 240 based on Bava Metzia 62a, Bava Kama 94b; Mordechai Yevamos Remez 13 in name of Rabbeinu Tam; Yireim Mitzvah 222; Hagahos Maimanis 6:7; Semag Asei 112-113; Aruch Hashulchan 240:39; Amudei Harazim Mitzvah 56:8; Halef Lecha Shlomo Y.D. 250; See Taz 240:17 who defends in length this opinion of the Tur against the questions of the Beis Yosef ibid; Likkutei Sichos 5:309; ; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 528
 Yireim Mitzvah 222; Semag Asei 112; Hagahos Maimanis Mamrim 6
 See Q&A!
 The reason: As there is a difference between the obligation to honor one’s parents versus the prohibition to curse them and cause them pain, and hence although it remains forbidden to curse or cause pain even to a father who is wicked, nonetheless, one is not obligated in their honor. Furthermore, even regarding cursing them it is a mere prohibition and not a penalty of death. [See Taz 240:17; Nekudos Hakesef on Taz ibid]
 Implication of Yireim Mitzvah 222; Semag Asei 112; Hagahos Maimanis Mamrim 6; Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 48; Halef Lecha Shlomo Y.D. 250; See Pesakim Uteshuvos ibid footnote 425
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that he is only considered a Rasha, for which he is not obligated in being respected by his children if he transgresses negative commands and not if he only transgresses positive commands by not fulfilling them. The reason for this is because it follows the same laws and guidelines of a Rasha for invalidation of testimony. [Michtam Ledavid Y.D. 33]
 Pnei Yehoshua Bava Kama p. 94; Pischeiy Teshuvah 240:15; See Koveitz shiurim Bava Kama 104
If he refuses to repent after being made aware of his transgression: If the parent was warned after his purposeful transgression, and he refuses to repent for it than some Poskim rule that he is considered a Rasha in this regard even if he only transgressed one time, being that he is now transgressing the obligation to repent and is hence considered a habitual transgressor. [Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 48; Rashash Yevamos 22b]
 Atzei Levona 240
Other opinions: Some Poskim question that perhaps the status of a Rasha can be obtained even if the parent merely transgresses a rabbinical prohibition. [Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 48]
 Nachlas Tzvi 240 based on Beis Shmuel E.H. 42:2; Radbaz 1:140
 See Q&A!
 Bach 240; Kitzur SHU”a 143:9; Kesav Sofer Y.D. 171; Ben Ish Chaiy Shoftim 2:39; Derech Pikudecha Mitzvah 33; Pesakim Uteshuvos 240:49
 Rishon Letziyon 240 and 241:4; Or Hachaim Hakadosh Vayikra 19:3; Sefer Chofetz Chaim Falagi 96; Aruch Hashulchan 240:39; See Birkeiy Yosef 241:4; Likkutei Sichos 5:309 in name of Kesef Mishneh on Rambam ibid regarding Masiach Umeidiach
Other opinions: Some Poskim are stringent even in such a case, to obligate a child to honor his Mumar Lehachis parent. [Shut Haradach Bayis 30 Cheder 2]
 Sefer Moreh Horim Ukevodam p. 196 in name of Rav Elyashiv; Pesakim Uteshuvos 240:49
 Radbaz and Lechem Mishneh on Rambam Mamarim 6:11; Maharam Shick Y.D. 346; Maharitz Dushinsky 1:94; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 413
The reason: As the entire reason why, one is to respect the parent who is a transgressor is because perhaps one’s parent will repent and hence once he has died without repentance he is no longer obligated in his honor. [Radbaz on Rambam Mamarim 6:11] Alternatively, the reason is because honor had parent after his death is only rabbinical required and by a parent who is a transgressor the sages never made this institution. [Sefas Emes 240:2; Tiferes Yisrael Pesachim 4:9]
Shaming the parent: From some Poskim it is implied that it is easy even permitted to shame a parent who is a Rasha after his death in order so it serve for him as an atonement. [Peri Chadash on Rambam ibid; Maharam Shick ibid]
Other opinions: From some Poskim it is implied that one is obligated to honor the parent even after his death even if he was a Rasha. [Implication of Kesef Mishneh on Rambam ibid and Beis Yosef 240]
 Michaber 241:5 [regarding hitting]; Shach 240:20; Taz 240:17; Bach 240; Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Kiddushin 1:64; Biur Hagr”a 240:29; Shvus Yaakov 1:76; Chida in Midbar Kdeimos Mareches Chaf 1; Chidushei Chasam Sofer Bava Metzia 62a; See Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 240; See Shut Saba Kadisha 2:10
Is this prohibition biblical or rabbinical? Some Poskim rule that by a Rasha this prohibition rabbinical, even though in general it is a biblical prohibition. [Bach ibid; Chidushei Chasam Sofer Bava Metzia 62a]
 Zohar Parshas Vayeitzei p. 164; Shiyurei Bracha 240:1
 Mishneh Lemelech Hilchos Malveh Veloveh 4:4; Chidushei Chasam Sofer Bava Metzia 62a; Avnei Nezer Y.D. 171
 See Sefer Bina Vadas 1; Pesakim Uteshuvos 240:49
 See Shabbos 68b; Avoda Zara 26a
 See Rambam Mamarim 3:3; Ramban and Nimukei Yosef on Bava Metzia 110a, brought in Darkei Moshe 159 and Beis Yosef Y.D. 159; Radbaz Mamarim 3:3; Shut Rabbeinu Betzalel Ashkenazi 3
 This can be whether due to him having been kidnapped from a very young age by heretics or Gentiles and being brought up in their home, or due to simply being switched at the hospital and going home with the wrong set of parents who are Gentiles, or due to the fault of their parents, such as if the parents gave the child up for adoption to gentile parents, or the mother intermarried and the child was brought up in a Gentile home. In all these cases the child is defined as a Tinok Shenishba and not an Apikores even after he becomes Bar and Bas Mitzvah and applies whether he simply has heretical beliefs or is brought up in a different religion such as Islam, Christianity, etc. and practices them.
 Admur Ribis 80 in parentheses; Rama Y.D. 159:3 “and don’t know Toras Yisrael”; Shach 159:6 and 8; Ramban and Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 42a in name of Rabbeinu Tam, brought in Darkei Moshe 159:2 and Beis Yosef Y.D. 159; Radbaz Mamarim 3:3; Derisha 159:2; Shut Rabbeinu Betzalel Ashkenazi 3; 2nd opinion in M”B 385:1 regarding Karaits; Igros Moshe E.H. 1:82-22 and 4:59 regarding reform Jews; Teshuvos Vehanhagos 1:528; 2:564; 5:95; 6:90; Minchas Shlomo 2:4-10 and Halichos Shlomo Pesach 9 footnote 135; Bina Vadaas Miluim in name of Rav SZ”A; Betzeil Hachochmah 2:76; Shevet Halevi 9:198; Yissa Yosef 3:97; See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 22
 Admur Ribis 79 “A heretic Jewess who has a son from a gentile which is brought up like a heretic just like him, it is forbidden to lend him money with interest according to all opinions, as he is like a child who has been captured by gentiles and is not similar to a real Apikores which is defined as a person who knows his creator and intentionally rebels against him… However, this boy does not know. Now even though afterwards he discovered that he is Jewish, and he sees the Jewish people and their religion, he nonetheless maintains the status of an Anuss [i.e., Tinok Shenishba] and according to all is not considered a rebel. Thus, according to all opinions it is forbidden to lend money with interest to Karite Jews, as although they are deniers of the oral tradition, they do not have the status of a Apikores. Being that they are not deniers due to their own will but rather due to the fact that their parents brought them up with this mistake and they are therefore like a Jewish child that has been captured and brought up with their mistake and is defined as an Anuss [i.e. Tinok Shenishba].”; Rambam Mamarim 3:3 “Even though the person afterwards discovered that he is a Jew and he sees the Jewish people and their religion nonetheless he still defined as a Anuss [i.e. Tinok Shenishba] being that he was brought up with that mistake. Therefore, it is proper for one to influence them to do to Teshuvah, and to draw them with words of peace until they return to the strength of the Torah.”; Beis Yosef O.C. 385 and Y.D. 159 regarding Karaits; 2nd and main opinion in Darkei Moshe 159:2 as rules Rambam and Beis Yosef ibid; 1st opinion in M”B 385:1 regarding Karaits; Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 2:6, 16 and 28 and 62:21; Zekan Ahron 12; Binyan Tziyon 23; Melamed Lehoil O.C. 29
 This is the main ruling of Admur ibid; Chazon Ish ibid; Rebbe in Likkutei Sichos 2:273; 6:273; 15:198; 26:131; Toras Menachem 51:226; Hisvadyus 5748 4:60; 5750 Shemos p. 144; Mishneh Halachos 14 p. 59
 Igros Kodesh Rayatz 2:526 “A person is only defined as an Apikores if he denies the Torah and Mitzvos and in G-dliness due to his own foreign ideologies which are the result of deep philosophical thought, as was common amongst the philosophers in previous generations. However in our generation, even those who are completely unobservant r”l majority, if not all, of them are very distant from any deep philosophical and ideological understandings and rather are simply drawn after such opinions, and the lack of fulfilling Mitzvos, on the majority is simply because it’s easier that way for their life and not because heaven forbid they are intentionally rebelling and betraying G-d. Even their transgressions of negative commands are not in order to get G-d angry but rather simply to fulfill their lusts.” “; Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 2:16 “It appears that the concept of Moridin [i.e. a real Apikores] only applies in the time that the providence of G-d is revealed, as it was during the times that we witnessed miracles which acted as a sign from heaven, and at a time where there were Tzaddikim of the generation who lived with open miracles that were viewable by all, as in such a case one who still maintains heretical beliefs shows that his intent is simply to rebel …. However, at a time that there is complete concealment of our faith…. Our job is to return them with chains of love and show them the light of the Torah as much as we can.”
 Hagahos Maimanis Deios 6
 Ahavas Chesed in name of Hagriy Mulin based on Maharam Melublin; Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 2:6 and 28
 Chazon Ish ibid; Rebbe in Likkutei Sichos 2:273; 6:273; 15:198; 26:131; Toras Menachem 51:226; Hisvadyus 5748 4:60; 5750 Shemos p. 144; Mishneh Halachos 14 p. 59
 Pesakim Uteshuvos 240:49 in first and Stam approach; See Minchas Shlomo 35; Shevet Halevi 4:17
 See Poskim ibid in first opinion above; Teshuvos Vehanhagos 1:528; 2:564; 5:95; 6:90; Igros Moshe E.H. 1:82-22 and 4:59 regarding reform Jews; Minchas Shlomo 2:4-10 and Halichos Shlomo Pesach 9 footnote 135; Shevet Halevi 9:198; Ishkavtei Derebbe 2:166 in name of Stepler; Yabia Omer 8 Y.D. 21 regarding parents who actively try to dissuade one from becoming or being observant due to their hatred for religion are certainly considered heretics that are not to be honored
 Teshuvos Vehanhagos ibid; See 241:9 “it remains forbidden for a convert to curse or hit or shame his father [or mother] in order so people do not say that his conversion caused him to leave a higher state of holiness to a lower state of holiness. This applies even if his parents are idol worshipers.”